![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wasn't Howard Staunton the strongest player in 1843 as neither Anderssen or Morphy had reached their peaks at that time ? -- Imran 21:18, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A WP article does not have to approach every question from square one; it just has to represent the standard view as presented in respectable sources. In which case, it is quite clear that Staunton was and still is regarded as the strongest player in the period 1843-1850. He beat St Amant soundly, and St A. had been previously regarded as the best. Later Steinitz became 'official' world champion by claiming it! -- and by beating Zukertort. The references at the end of the article are good enough to establish Staunton's claim. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If Staunton is best remembered for the style of pieces that he introduced, then this article should definitely feature images of the Staunton style of pieces. -- Jcarroll 16:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I translated and improved a lot (I hope!) the English article. If anyone has a good English and Hebrew understanding please add my parts to the English version. I did the same to chess articles also.
-- YoavD 08:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"Birmingham 1858 was to be Staunton's last public chess competition. Staunton refused to play Paul Morphy in public during the latter's visit to England in 1858, saying he was too busy working on his Shakespeare annotations. This refusal apparently had a negative impact upon Morphy, out of all proportion to its real significance. Likely, Staunton, who was well past his peak as well as being out of practice, sized up the much younger (Morphy was 27 years younger) American's stunning chess and concluded that he had virtually no chance against him, so why bother playing? Morphy took this as a nasty snub from one gentleman to another."
This text is terribly misleading. Morphy's problem was never with Staunton's refusal to play, but, conversely, with Staunton's promise to play. Staunton accepted a challenge to play Morphy who had but a limited time to spend abroad (he had planned on 5 or 6 months), but each time the proposed time for the match drew near, Staunton postponed the promised match- meanwhile using his chess column to defame Morphy. Finally, after 4 months, he formally withdrew, having set a definite date in the presence of Lord Lyttelton, president of the BCA. Staunton was universally criticized by the chess clubs of England (with the sole exception of Cambridge University Chess Club) and rebuked by Lord Lyttelton himself.-- SBC —Preceding comment was added at 23:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Over at the talk page for Grandmaster (chess), we're arguing over whether and when it is appropriate to call a player who died before 1950, and thus had no opportunity to be awarded the GM title by FIDE, a "grandmaster." Quale wrote "what would you do with a player like Staunton? (I'd say not GM strength, but the point is very debatable.)" I strongly disagreed with Quale's opinion, pointing out that (1) Arpad Elo created a "crosstable" of leading players' results in games against each other in 1846-62, and that Staunton's winning percentage was second only to Morphy's (albeit a distant second); (2) Fischer considered Staunton one of the 10 greatest players of all time; (3) Morphy had high praise for Staunton in many respects, though he (rightly, I think) considered him unimaginative; and (4) surely Morphy would not have been so upset about Staunton's refusal to play him if Staunton had not been a player of the first rank -- and thus of "grandmaster" strength. Here is an interesting aside: Staunton in 1849 showed a greater understanding of one endgame than Reuben Fine and Pal Benko did a century or so later. Staunton's The Chess-Player's Handbook was originally published in 1849. In the version I have, published in 1893 by George Bell & Sons, Staunton writes at p. 439, "Three minor Pieces are much stronger than a Rook, and in cases where two of them are Bishops will usually win without much difficulty, because the player of the Rook is certain to be compelled to lose him for one of his adversary's Pieces. If, however, there are two Knights and one Bishop opposed to a Rook, the latter may generally be exchanged for the Bishop, and as two Knights are insufficient of themselves to force checkmate, the game will be drawn." Modern-day endgame tablebases confirm what Staunton wrote in 1849: a R normally draws vs. NNB, but loses vs. BBN. Yet Fine wrote of "Rook vs. Three Minor Pieces" on p. 521 of Basic Chess Endings (1941), "Since a rook is approximately equal to a little less than two minor pieces, these endings are theoretically drawn." Benko, in his 2003 revision of BCE, reproduced this erroneous statement verbatim on p. 524. So Staunton in 1849 realized that two bishops and a knight normally beat a rook, while two leading authorities on the ending, both of whom were world-class players at their peaks, failed to realize this in 1941 and 2003. Krakatoa ( talk) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) It was in Fundamental Chess Endings, which came out 2 years before Benko's revison (and must have been known earlier than that), so Benko should have known. Fine probably didn't spend much time on it. I put in a BBN vs. R into Shreader yesterday, and although it evaluated the pieces at more than 7 point advantage (compared to the material advantage of 4 points), it (armed with the 5-piece tablebase but not the complete 6-piece tablebase) could not see a win. I let it play for several moves and it didn't seem to have any method or plan. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Collected while looking for refs for other articles:
The article uses the batgirl website as a reference. However this page on the site http://batgirl.atspace.com/Amant.html is one example of the danger of classifying St Amant as world champion. He lost a match to John Cochrane in 1942 and refused to play Szen and didn't even meet Petrov. Can the phrase generally regarded really be appropriate?-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
A good question, in fact one could go further as [1] suggests there was an Indian player on about Cochrane's level. Also a round this time von der Lasa was becoming known as the strongest German player, and modern research suggests he was a very serious contender. But the majority of 19th-century sources describe St-Amant as the world's strongest player at the time, and this part of the article is about 19th century opinions, not about the results of modern research. [2] comments: "Since most readers of this column get their sources in English, this favors the English and the French (who were in close contact with the English through this period)." The sad fact is that, before the first international tournament (London 1851), hype was at least as important as results. Re St-Amant and Szen, in 1836 Szen challenged St-Amant was the first to propose time limits. There may a connection: Szen was a glacially slow player whose greatest strength was in the end-game (see for example [3]). Philcha ( talk) 13:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In the late 1840s the other player who was regarded as possibly the world's best was von der Lasa,[27] but they did not play each other until 1853 and Staunton's ill-health forced him to abandon their match I don't like this line in the article. There is every reason to suspect that St Amant, having grown familiar to Staunton's preperation, could have won a third match.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 09:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, but what makes Chessmetrics in any way reliable as a source of information?-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Surely the author is assuming grades in each and every case for pre-elo figures. The subjectivity and POV introduced by such methodology renders the data sordid.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
1843 was a busy year for Staunton. He played a match with Henry Thomas Buckle, spotting Buckle odds of Pawn & move. The first game was drawn, Buckle won the next six from batgirl's website conflicts with the results shown on this page. Who is likely to be correct?-- ZincBelief ( talk) 08:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but we need to know which reference is correct. Otherwise it is reliable as Staunton claiming he was in bad health.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
In 1843 he played a short match against Staunton, who gave pawn and move (Buckle had White in each game and pawn f7 was removed). Buckle lost the first game and won the other six. He made no notation of his moves. Staunton published his win and one loss in his journal The Chess Player’s Chronicle. from www.inter.nl.net/hcc/rekius/buckle.htm another source which contradicts the score given in the article. Which is correct? If we can't be sure we should say so.--
ZincBelief (
talk)
13:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've stitched into London 1851 chess tournament the most relevant material from Howard Staunton at 17:01, 19 June 2008. In the recent A-class review it was suggested that Howard_Staunton#London_International_Tournament.2C_1851 could be slimmed down a bit. I've produced a shorter version at User:Philcha/Sandbox#.22London_International_Tournament.2C_1851.22_for_Howard_Staunton. I think any further cuts would weaken or destroy points that I think should be made about Staunton. What do you think? (Please do not edit the version in my sandbox, but post comments here). Philcha ( talk) 13:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think whichever version is used should include Dublin Uni Chess Soc's claim that George Salmon suggested the 1851 tournament to Staunton as another item in the controversy about S's character. Philcha ( talk) 14:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
During the recent Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review#Review_of_Howard_Staunton A-class review, another editor took violent exception to the way in which the article as at the version of 11:55, 27 June 2008 handled the Staunton-Morphy controversy. I suggested that between us we had enough material to write a separate article about the issue and then summarise this in Howard Staunton. Instead he inserted a whole separate section giving his view of Staunton, and the result struck another reviewer as "a symptom of edit war skirmishes".
To resolve this, I am now adding a detailed account of the historical sources and of the controversy. When it's finished, I will ask for comments on its balance, accuracy and whether it should, as I initially suggested, be converted into an article in its own right. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be very hard to find any neutral and reliable sources for such controversy. I imagine a similiar article could be written on St-Amant v Staunton III which of course never happened. Any suggestions of Staunton's of ill health have to be viewed sceptically in light of Staunton's persistant cries of wolf.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 13:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Several references have been added (not by me!) to Konsala's Shakin maailmanmestareita (1981). Since this is the English edtion of Wikipedia, I suggest the relevant quotes should be added to the footnotes, both in the original Finnish and in English translation. -- Philcha ( talk) 18:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have anyone who really knows the history of the Sicilian? I know the Sicilian almost vanished for decades after the deaths of Staunton and Anderssen, and I supposed that their treatment of it had little influence because, as Nunn writes, it is now popular because of " its combative nature; in many lines Black is playing not just for equality, but for the advantage. The drawback is that White often obtains an early initiative, so Black has to take care not to fall victim to a quick attack." But then I found Tim Harding's "The Openings at New York 1924", which says, "there was no Dragon, Najdorf, Sveshnikov etc. as Black played the Sicilian slowly with positional objectives and postwar all-out-attack methods against it had not yet been developed," which sounds like in 1924 the Sicilian was played in a rather 19th-century, Staunton-like way. -- Philcha ( talk) 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
A bit of googling got me Mafia connections by Keene, Spectator 22 Mar 22 1997 "It was Taimanov who revived some old, forgotten ideas of Staunton to show that rapid Black expansion on the queenside could well take precedence over the general mobilisation of Black's forces." -- Philcha ( talk) 21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source that can be quoted to back up Staunton contracted some terrible illness everytime he journeyed to Paris. Also, the third match between Staunton and St Amant that never happened... can we dig out any sources for the background on this. I think this is certainly an interesting episode for the article that should be included. I haven't seen anything on the internet, so I presume one possibly has to go back to original newspapers.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The GA reviewer noted that the following is ambiguous:
Witty comments are invited :-) -- Philcha ( talk) 11:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The opening sentence in the Staunton-Morphy controversy section claimed that chess historians Edward Winter and G.H. Diggle traced anti-Staunton bias to Sergeant's writings. Diggle did this - see Edge, Morphy and Staunton (quoting Diggle's comments in Chess Note 1932). I don't know anything supporting the proposition that Winter himself said this (as distinct from quoting Diggle doing so, without expressing agreement (or disagreement) with Diggle's sentiments). I have accordingly omitted mention of Winter from the sentence in question. Krakatoa ( talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The article in question by B. Goulding Brown (1881-1965) was given on pages 191-194 of the June 1916 BCM. It discussed many points arising from Sergeant’s first book on Morphy and included, on page 192, the following:
‘The whole story of Staunton’s depreciation of Morphy (before the rupture and Morphy’s appeal to Lord Lyttelton) is simply an impudent invention of Edge’s, and fully justifies Staunton’s denunciation of Edge’s book in the Praxis as “a contemptible publication”. With unparalleled effrontery Edge asked his readers not to take his word for granted, but to turn up the file of the Illustrated and see for themselves. I have done so, and I find him a liar. And I could wish that Mr Sergeant had done the same, before he penned his tremendous indictment of the greatest personality in English chess, and the central figure of the chess world from 1843-1851.’
On page 115 Lawson assessed the relationship between Morphy and Edge:
‘There has been some talk that Morphy was unduly influenced by Edge, especially on the matter of the Staunton match, but we have seen that Edge was more confident than Morphy that the match would ultimately take place. In any case, Morphy was a self-willed person, and he made his own decisions. Edge always played a subordinate role in Morphy’s affairs, and chess historians are greatly beholden to Frederick Milne Edge for his factual accounts of the events which occurred while he was with Morphy, which was practically all the time Morphy was abroad. This writer would agree with Philip W. Sergeant, who states in his book A Century of British Chess “that my own reading of Edge did not lead me to think him a liar”.
Re the recent addition "However, Edge and Sergeant, two of Staunton's harshest critics, were British":
Golombek's Chess Encyclopedia (Crown Publishers, 1977, ISBN 0-517-53146-1), p. 292 has a little bit longer entry that talks about the same books and also says, at the beginning, "A professional writer on chess and popular historical subjects. Without any prentensions to mastership, he represented Oxford University in the years 1892-5 and assisted R.C. Griffith in preparing three editions of Modern Chess Openings. ... He was a cousin of E. G. Sergeant." (Edward Guthiac Sergeant, 1881-1961, "A British master who had a long and solidly distinguished career in British chess ... .") As you can see from the list of Philip Walsingham Sergeant's books at Amazon.com here, his non-chess books were about subjects that I suppose would be of interest to Brits and other Europeans, such as "George, prince and regent" (be still my American heart), "The Princhess Mathilde Bonaparte" (ditto), "The Cathedral Church of Winchester: A Description of its Fabric and a Brief History of the Episcopal See" (ditto), and "My Lady Castlemaine ;: Being a life of Barbara Villiers, Countess of Castlemaine, afterwards Duchess of Cleveland" (ditto). He also wrote "Dominant Women", if you're into that sort of thing. (This FA review stuff has gotten me into a snarky mood - can you tell?) Krakatoa ( talk) 07:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Sergeant, Philip Walsingham (1872-1952), English author of biographical games collections of CHAROUSEK, MORPHY, and PILLSBURY as well as other works of importance such as A Century of British Chess (1934) and Championship Chess (1938).
If we consider this paragraph A little later that year he lost a short match (2½-3½) in London against the visiting French player Saint-Amant, who was generally regarded as the world's strongest active player how accurate can we perceive it to be given http://www.chesscafe.com/spinrad/spinrad.htm? We know already that St Amant was not as strong as the obvious retired French player, but here we see Cochrane beat him in 1842. It also raises the spectre of Indian Chess players and mentions that Cochrane beat STaunton in their last match.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article Elijah Williams is described as Staunton's former pupil - what evidence is there for this. The claim that Williams played slowly is also made, the only source for this is Staunton himself. I have seen an article on chessnotes that suggests this is mean spirited nonsense. Can either of these two claims be treated as reliable?-- ZincBelief ( talk) 20:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The article states that Staunton's book Chess Praxis "devoted 168 pages to presenting many of Morphy's games and praised the American's play." I now have a copy of that book, obtained for a pittance on eBay. That characterization appears questionable, albeit literally true. I haven't seen anything that could be characterized as general praise for Morphy, but there are annotations praising his play in particular games, such as, "An admirable counter-move. Simple, but irresistible, both for defence and attack." (p. 617) and, "From this moment, Black has the game in his hands, and he finishes it very nicely." (p. 605). Staunton's more general discussions of Morphy's play indicate that he thought the popular opinion of Morphy was overblown. In his discussion of the Anderssen-Morphy match he repeatedly remarks that Anderssen's play was much inferior to that he had displayed at the London 1851 tournament. On page 501, he cites "Mr. Lange" of Germany (presumably Max Lange) as saying that Morphy's Secretary (i.e. Frederick Edge) completely distorted statements made by Anderssen, transforming innocuous statements into extravagant praise for Morphy. On page 502, Staunton quotes Lange as quoting Anderssen as saying, "I never, even in my dreams, believed Morphy my superior in play ; but it is impossible to keep one's excellence in a glass case, like a jewel, and take it out whenever it is required ; on the contrary, it can be conserved only with constant practice and with good players." On the same page, Staunton goes on to offer various excuses for Anderssen's poor result - his hotel was noisy, causing him sleepless nights; the spectators showed that they were on Morphy's side; and so forth. On page 616, he writes, "Mr. Morphy's play at odds is enthusiastically praised, I am told, by American critics; and these particular games with Mr. Thompson are said to be held up as something superlatively great. I know not by what standard the critics in question measure Mr. Morphy's games at odds, but to me, in comparison with games of the same description by the chief European players of the last twenty-five years, they appear of very inferior quality." Krakatoa ( talk) 05:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wasn't Howard Staunton the strongest player in 1843 as neither Anderssen or Morphy had reached their peaks at that time ? -- Imran 21:18, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A WP article does not have to approach every question from square one; it just has to represent the standard view as presented in respectable sources. In which case, it is quite clear that Staunton was and still is regarded as the strongest player in the period 1843-1850. He beat St Amant soundly, and St A. had been previously regarded as the best. Later Steinitz became 'official' world champion by claiming it! -- and by beating Zukertort. The references at the end of the article are good enough to establish Staunton's claim. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If Staunton is best remembered for the style of pieces that he introduced, then this article should definitely feature images of the Staunton style of pieces. -- Jcarroll 16:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I translated and improved a lot (I hope!) the English article. If anyone has a good English and Hebrew understanding please add my parts to the English version. I did the same to chess articles also.
-- YoavD 08:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"Birmingham 1858 was to be Staunton's last public chess competition. Staunton refused to play Paul Morphy in public during the latter's visit to England in 1858, saying he was too busy working on his Shakespeare annotations. This refusal apparently had a negative impact upon Morphy, out of all proportion to its real significance. Likely, Staunton, who was well past his peak as well as being out of practice, sized up the much younger (Morphy was 27 years younger) American's stunning chess and concluded that he had virtually no chance against him, so why bother playing? Morphy took this as a nasty snub from one gentleman to another."
This text is terribly misleading. Morphy's problem was never with Staunton's refusal to play, but, conversely, with Staunton's promise to play. Staunton accepted a challenge to play Morphy who had but a limited time to spend abroad (he had planned on 5 or 6 months), but each time the proposed time for the match drew near, Staunton postponed the promised match- meanwhile using his chess column to defame Morphy. Finally, after 4 months, he formally withdrew, having set a definite date in the presence of Lord Lyttelton, president of the BCA. Staunton was universally criticized by the chess clubs of England (with the sole exception of Cambridge University Chess Club) and rebuked by Lord Lyttelton himself.-- SBC —Preceding comment was added at 23:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Over at the talk page for Grandmaster (chess), we're arguing over whether and when it is appropriate to call a player who died before 1950, and thus had no opportunity to be awarded the GM title by FIDE, a "grandmaster." Quale wrote "what would you do with a player like Staunton? (I'd say not GM strength, but the point is very debatable.)" I strongly disagreed with Quale's opinion, pointing out that (1) Arpad Elo created a "crosstable" of leading players' results in games against each other in 1846-62, and that Staunton's winning percentage was second only to Morphy's (albeit a distant second); (2) Fischer considered Staunton one of the 10 greatest players of all time; (3) Morphy had high praise for Staunton in many respects, though he (rightly, I think) considered him unimaginative; and (4) surely Morphy would not have been so upset about Staunton's refusal to play him if Staunton had not been a player of the first rank -- and thus of "grandmaster" strength. Here is an interesting aside: Staunton in 1849 showed a greater understanding of one endgame than Reuben Fine and Pal Benko did a century or so later. Staunton's The Chess-Player's Handbook was originally published in 1849. In the version I have, published in 1893 by George Bell & Sons, Staunton writes at p. 439, "Three minor Pieces are much stronger than a Rook, and in cases where two of them are Bishops will usually win without much difficulty, because the player of the Rook is certain to be compelled to lose him for one of his adversary's Pieces. If, however, there are two Knights and one Bishop opposed to a Rook, the latter may generally be exchanged for the Bishop, and as two Knights are insufficient of themselves to force checkmate, the game will be drawn." Modern-day endgame tablebases confirm what Staunton wrote in 1849: a R normally draws vs. NNB, but loses vs. BBN. Yet Fine wrote of "Rook vs. Three Minor Pieces" on p. 521 of Basic Chess Endings (1941), "Since a rook is approximately equal to a little less than two minor pieces, these endings are theoretically drawn." Benko, in his 2003 revision of BCE, reproduced this erroneous statement verbatim on p. 524. So Staunton in 1849 realized that two bishops and a knight normally beat a rook, while two leading authorities on the ending, both of whom were world-class players at their peaks, failed to realize this in 1941 and 2003. Krakatoa ( talk) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) It was in Fundamental Chess Endings, which came out 2 years before Benko's revison (and must have been known earlier than that), so Benko should have known. Fine probably didn't spend much time on it. I put in a BBN vs. R into Shreader yesterday, and although it evaluated the pieces at more than 7 point advantage (compared to the material advantage of 4 points), it (armed with the 5-piece tablebase but not the complete 6-piece tablebase) could not see a win. I let it play for several moves and it didn't seem to have any method or plan. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Collected while looking for refs for other articles:
The article uses the batgirl website as a reference. However this page on the site http://batgirl.atspace.com/Amant.html is one example of the danger of classifying St Amant as world champion. He lost a match to John Cochrane in 1942 and refused to play Szen and didn't even meet Petrov. Can the phrase generally regarded really be appropriate?-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
A good question, in fact one could go further as [1] suggests there was an Indian player on about Cochrane's level. Also a round this time von der Lasa was becoming known as the strongest German player, and modern research suggests he was a very serious contender. But the majority of 19th-century sources describe St-Amant as the world's strongest player at the time, and this part of the article is about 19th century opinions, not about the results of modern research. [2] comments: "Since most readers of this column get their sources in English, this favors the English and the French (who were in close contact with the English through this period)." The sad fact is that, before the first international tournament (London 1851), hype was at least as important as results. Re St-Amant and Szen, in 1836 Szen challenged St-Amant was the first to propose time limits. There may a connection: Szen was a glacially slow player whose greatest strength was in the end-game (see for example [3]). Philcha ( talk) 13:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In the late 1840s the other player who was regarded as possibly the world's best was von der Lasa,[27] but they did not play each other until 1853 and Staunton's ill-health forced him to abandon their match I don't like this line in the article. There is every reason to suspect that St Amant, having grown familiar to Staunton's preperation, could have won a third match.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 09:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, but what makes Chessmetrics in any way reliable as a source of information?-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Surely the author is assuming grades in each and every case for pre-elo figures. The subjectivity and POV introduced by such methodology renders the data sordid.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
1843 was a busy year for Staunton. He played a match with Henry Thomas Buckle, spotting Buckle odds of Pawn & move. The first game was drawn, Buckle won the next six from batgirl's website conflicts with the results shown on this page. Who is likely to be correct?-- ZincBelief ( talk) 08:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but we need to know which reference is correct. Otherwise it is reliable as Staunton claiming he was in bad health.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
In 1843 he played a short match against Staunton, who gave pawn and move (Buckle had White in each game and pawn f7 was removed). Buckle lost the first game and won the other six. He made no notation of his moves. Staunton published his win and one loss in his journal The Chess Player’s Chronicle. from www.inter.nl.net/hcc/rekius/buckle.htm another source which contradicts the score given in the article. Which is correct? If we can't be sure we should say so.--
ZincBelief (
talk)
13:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've stitched into London 1851 chess tournament the most relevant material from Howard Staunton at 17:01, 19 June 2008. In the recent A-class review it was suggested that Howard_Staunton#London_International_Tournament.2C_1851 could be slimmed down a bit. I've produced a shorter version at User:Philcha/Sandbox#.22London_International_Tournament.2C_1851.22_for_Howard_Staunton. I think any further cuts would weaken or destroy points that I think should be made about Staunton. What do you think? (Please do not edit the version in my sandbox, but post comments here). Philcha ( talk) 13:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think whichever version is used should include Dublin Uni Chess Soc's claim that George Salmon suggested the 1851 tournament to Staunton as another item in the controversy about S's character. Philcha ( talk) 14:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
During the recent Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review#Review_of_Howard_Staunton A-class review, another editor took violent exception to the way in which the article as at the version of 11:55, 27 June 2008 handled the Staunton-Morphy controversy. I suggested that between us we had enough material to write a separate article about the issue and then summarise this in Howard Staunton. Instead he inserted a whole separate section giving his view of Staunton, and the result struck another reviewer as "a symptom of edit war skirmishes".
To resolve this, I am now adding a detailed account of the historical sources and of the controversy. When it's finished, I will ask for comments on its balance, accuracy and whether it should, as I initially suggested, be converted into an article in its own right. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be very hard to find any neutral and reliable sources for such controversy. I imagine a similiar article could be written on St-Amant v Staunton III which of course never happened. Any suggestions of Staunton's of ill health have to be viewed sceptically in light of Staunton's persistant cries of wolf.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 13:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Several references have been added (not by me!) to Konsala's Shakin maailmanmestareita (1981). Since this is the English edtion of Wikipedia, I suggest the relevant quotes should be added to the footnotes, both in the original Finnish and in English translation. -- Philcha ( talk) 18:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have anyone who really knows the history of the Sicilian? I know the Sicilian almost vanished for decades after the deaths of Staunton and Anderssen, and I supposed that their treatment of it had little influence because, as Nunn writes, it is now popular because of " its combative nature; in many lines Black is playing not just for equality, but for the advantage. The drawback is that White often obtains an early initiative, so Black has to take care not to fall victim to a quick attack." But then I found Tim Harding's "The Openings at New York 1924", which says, "there was no Dragon, Najdorf, Sveshnikov etc. as Black played the Sicilian slowly with positional objectives and postwar all-out-attack methods against it had not yet been developed," which sounds like in 1924 the Sicilian was played in a rather 19th-century, Staunton-like way. -- Philcha ( talk) 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
A bit of googling got me Mafia connections by Keene, Spectator 22 Mar 22 1997 "It was Taimanov who revived some old, forgotten ideas of Staunton to show that rapid Black expansion on the queenside could well take precedence over the general mobilisation of Black's forces." -- Philcha ( talk) 21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source that can be quoted to back up Staunton contracted some terrible illness everytime he journeyed to Paris. Also, the third match between Staunton and St Amant that never happened... can we dig out any sources for the background on this. I think this is certainly an interesting episode for the article that should be included. I haven't seen anything on the internet, so I presume one possibly has to go back to original newspapers.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The GA reviewer noted that the following is ambiguous:
Witty comments are invited :-) -- Philcha ( talk) 11:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The opening sentence in the Staunton-Morphy controversy section claimed that chess historians Edward Winter and G.H. Diggle traced anti-Staunton bias to Sergeant's writings. Diggle did this - see Edge, Morphy and Staunton (quoting Diggle's comments in Chess Note 1932). I don't know anything supporting the proposition that Winter himself said this (as distinct from quoting Diggle doing so, without expressing agreement (or disagreement) with Diggle's sentiments). I have accordingly omitted mention of Winter from the sentence in question. Krakatoa ( talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The article in question by B. Goulding Brown (1881-1965) was given on pages 191-194 of the June 1916 BCM. It discussed many points arising from Sergeant’s first book on Morphy and included, on page 192, the following:
‘The whole story of Staunton’s depreciation of Morphy (before the rupture and Morphy’s appeal to Lord Lyttelton) is simply an impudent invention of Edge’s, and fully justifies Staunton’s denunciation of Edge’s book in the Praxis as “a contemptible publication”. With unparalleled effrontery Edge asked his readers not to take his word for granted, but to turn up the file of the Illustrated and see for themselves. I have done so, and I find him a liar. And I could wish that Mr Sergeant had done the same, before he penned his tremendous indictment of the greatest personality in English chess, and the central figure of the chess world from 1843-1851.’
On page 115 Lawson assessed the relationship between Morphy and Edge:
‘There has been some talk that Morphy was unduly influenced by Edge, especially on the matter of the Staunton match, but we have seen that Edge was more confident than Morphy that the match would ultimately take place. In any case, Morphy was a self-willed person, and he made his own decisions. Edge always played a subordinate role in Morphy’s affairs, and chess historians are greatly beholden to Frederick Milne Edge for his factual accounts of the events which occurred while he was with Morphy, which was practically all the time Morphy was abroad. This writer would agree with Philip W. Sergeant, who states in his book A Century of British Chess “that my own reading of Edge did not lead me to think him a liar”.
Re the recent addition "However, Edge and Sergeant, two of Staunton's harshest critics, were British":
Golombek's Chess Encyclopedia (Crown Publishers, 1977, ISBN 0-517-53146-1), p. 292 has a little bit longer entry that talks about the same books and also says, at the beginning, "A professional writer on chess and popular historical subjects. Without any prentensions to mastership, he represented Oxford University in the years 1892-5 and assisted R.C. Griffith in preparing three editions of Modern Chess Openings. ... He was a cousin of E. G. Sergeant." (Edward Guthiac Sergeant, 1881-1961, "A British master who had a long and solidly distinguished career in British chess ... .") As you can see from the list of Philip Walsingham Sergeant's books at Amazon.com here, his non-chess books were about subjects that I suppose would be of interest to Brits and other Europeans, such as "George, prince and regent" (be still my American heart), "The Princhess Mathilde Bonaparte" (ditto), "The Cathedral Church of Winchester: A Description of its Fabric and a Brief History of the Episcopal See" (ditto), and "My Lady Castlemaine ;: Being a life of Barbara Villiers, Countess of Castlemaine, afterwards Duchess of Cleveland" (ditto). He also wrote "Dominant Women", if you're into that sort of thing. (This FA review stuff has gotten me into a snarky mood - can you tell?) Krakatoa ( talk) 07:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Sergeant, Philip Walsingham (1872-1952), English author of biographical games collections of CHAROUSEK, MORPHY, and PILLSBURY as well as other works of importance such as A Century of British Chess (1934) and Championship Chess (1938).
If we consider this paragraph A little later that year he lost a short match (2½-3½) in London against the visiting French player Saint-Amant, who was generally regarded as the world's strongest active player how accurate can we perceive it to be given http://www.chesscafe.com/spinrad/spinrad.htm? We know already that St Amant was not as strong as the obvious retired French player, but here we see Cochrane beat him in 1842. It also raises the spectre of Indian Chess players and mentions that Cochrane beat STaunton in their last match.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article Elijah Williams is described as Staunton's former pupil - what evidence is there for this. The claim that Williams played slowly is also made, the only source for this is Staunton himself. I have seen an article on chessnotes that suggests this is mean spirited nonsense. Can either of these two claims be treated as reliable?-- ZincBelief ( talk) 20:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The article states that Staunton's book Chess Praxis "devoted 168 pages to presenting many of Morphy's games and praised the American's play." I now have a copy of that book, obtained for a pittance on eBay. That characterization appears questionable, albeit literally true. I haven't seen anything that could be characterized as general praise for Morphy, but there are annotations praising his play in particular games, such as, "An admirable counter-move. Simple, but irresistible, both for defence and attack." (p. 617) and, "From this moment, Black has the game in his hands, and he finishes it very nicely." (p. 605). Staunton's more general discussions of Morphy's play indicate that he thought the popular opinion of Morphy was overblown. In his discussion of the Anderssen-Morphy match he repeatedly remarks that Anderssen's play was much inferior to that he had displayed at the London 1851 tournament. On page 501, he cites "Mr. Lange" of Germany (presumably Max Lange) as saying that Morphy's Secretary (i.e. Frederick Edge) completely distorted statements made by Anderssen, transforming innocuous statements into extravagant praise for Morphy. On page 502, Staunton quotes Lange as quoting Anderssen as saying, "I never, even in my dreams, believed Morphy my superior in play ; but it is impossible to keep one's excellence in a glass case, like a jewel, and take it out whenever it is required ; on the contrary, it can be conserved only with constant practice and with good players." On the same page, Staunton goes on to offer various excuses for Anderssen's poor result - his hotel was noisy, causing him sleepless nights; the spectators showed that they were on Morphy's side; and so forth. On page 616, he writes, "Mr. Morphy's play at odds is enthusiastically praised, I am told, by American critics; and these particular games with Mr. Thompson are said to be held up as something superlatively great. I know not by what standard the critics in question measure Mr. Morphy's games at odds, but to me, in comparison with games of the same description by the chief European players of the last twenty-five years, they appear of very inferior quality." Krakatoa ( talk) 05:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)