Talk:Howard Staunton/Archive 1

Strongest?

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)

This article needs work. If the claim is that Staunton was considered the world's strongest player after his defeat of St. Amant, perhaps someone could back this up, giving an authority or some contempory support. If its true, then Staunton deserves being called "world champion", as that is what the "strongest player" means in a time when there were no official titles. At some point after 1843 and by 1851 at the latest, Staunton is definately not the world's strongest player. Its clear that by 1858, Staunton was not the strongest English master. ChessPlayer 03:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think Staunton was considered the world's strongest player after his defeat of St. Amant based on what I read in Reuben Fine's book, The World's Great Chess Games:

• In the eighteenth century chess supremacy left Spain and Italy and settled in France and England.
• St. Amant was considered the leading player in France after Labourdonnais.
• Staunton was considered by far the strongest player in England at that time.Giftlite

Seems Staunton deserves mention as the world champion in 1843 then. I'll rewrite the article to reflect his 1843 supremacy then if somebody else doesn't do it first. By the way, Fine was a great player, but I question his historical scholarship. I think he is like some others who write chess history in popular books...more interested in a good story than the actual facts. For example, he states "Staunton was then English champion...." in the chapter on Morphy, refering to the time of Morphy's visit. This simply isn't true. Its not true in hindsight, and it wasn't considered true in 1858. Other English players in 1858 did not consider Staunton their champion; they knew he was weaker than players like Boden. ChessPlayer 16:40, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article should be rewritten to reflect Staunton's supremacy in 1800s, especially in 1843. I also agree with you that Fine was a great player, but he's not a historical chess scholar. However, all the evidence I have so far indicate that the above three statements I extracted from his book are accurate. Giftlite

I would like to see more evidence to back this up. One must consider the political or personal tensions between Staunton and Amant that basically precluded further matches. The title of Unofficial World Champion is not a very convincing one for a man who played no matches for so many years.

http://www.chesscafe.com/Tim/kibb.htm disagrees completely--ZincBelief (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This deserves some discussion. Actually I think some other chess writers agree with Harding that Staunton was actually not that good over-the-board, although some have praised his work as an analyst. Wikipedia doesn't decide who is right, but it would be appropriate to give the opinions of a few chess writers who think Staunton was strongest in that era and the opinions a few writers who disagree. The reader can come to her own judgment. Quale (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Firstly one needs to prove that St Amant was actually the reigning World number 1 player when he lost to Staunton. If you can't prove that the claim of World Champion becomes dubious. Unfortunately, matches were not played against leading German, Italian or Hungarian Chess players of the time. The idea that Paris and London constituted the World is not encyclopedic in my opinion.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (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)

Disagree, this is the glowing opinion of Staunton professed in a book written to sell copies based on Staunton's name. It is perhaps not the best of sources, and not demonstrably a standard view, although it is certainly a view. Staunton defeated St Amant, the French number 1, and avoided playing a third match. He did not contest matches against leading German, Hungarian, American or Italian players. By some accounts he actively avoided playing anyone else for fear of losing (his position). It is only clear that Staunton was one of the strongest players, it is not clear that he was the strongest player. I think the wording of the article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to my unsigned comment :) http://www.didymus7.com/nost/na377staunton.htm gives more insight into this period. Staunton was beaten by Von der Lasa, and the claim of St Amant being the best or second best player in the world is still questionable. --ZincBelief (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add images

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)

Hebrew wikipedia

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)

Staunton - Morphy

"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)

Also note that Fischer's opinion of Staunton was the same of that of Morphy's. However in the article a misleading slant is given on Fischer's views, then they are in fact the same. Staunton's strongpoint was theory and analysis, not match play.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Was Staunton a "grandmaster"?

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)

That is quite interesting about the endgame. Incidentally, a BNN vs. R game of Karpov and Kasparov is discussed at Pawnless chess endings#Rook (without queens, usually with minor pieces) and Fifty move rule#Example.

I've heard some people say that Staunton may have been only 2000-2100 strength, or something like that. I don't agree with that - I think he was certainly one of the best in the world at the time. I agree with your points. But I've had enough of the "who is a grandmaster" arguement for tonight. Bubba73 (talk), 06:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And in the draw, the rook was exchanged for a bishop, but the player couldn't win with B+N. His rating wasn't given, but the defender was 2555. Bubba73 (talk), 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In defense if Fine, it seems to me that the 50 move comes into play. Staunton didn't have the rule; Fine did. BBN vs. R takes up to 86 moves to win, so it seems to me that he may have taken this into account, i.e. if it can't be won in 50 moves in the general case, it is a draw. There are other long wins that were considered to be draws before computer analysis, but they take over 50 moves, and computer analysis doesn't take that into account. Bubba73 (talk), 13:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not clear if the fifty move rule was used in Staunton's time or not. Does me say anything aboug it in his books? Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Staunton does indeed mention a 50-move rule, less extensive than the current one, but which would apply: the 50-move rule applies to all endgames of "pieces only," i.e. where neither player has any pawns. The Chess-Player's Handbook, p. 39. So the 50-move rule applied to this endgame when both Staunton and Fine wrote their books. Also, Fine can't have taken into account that the endgame takes 86 moves to win, since (a) that fact was discovered by computers long after he wrote in 1941; (b) even though the maximum number of moves is 86, the position you start with may be one that can be won within 50 moves; and (c) whatever the position, it is almost certain that your opponent will not defend perfectly. Krakatoa (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine could have realized that it can't be done in 50 moves in general (i.e. the worst case), even though he did not know how many moves are actually required. But your point is well-taken. Bubba73 (talk), 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Although there isn't much data for that time period, Chessmetrics.com rates Staunton #1 in the world from 1843-1849. Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Krakatoa says, although Bubba73 is right that Fine may have known that more than 50 moves were required without knowing the precise number. (I don't think there's any particular reason to believe he did, though.) Perfect defense is unlikely, but if perfect offense is required to win in fewer than 50 moves then the question is how easy it is to avoid the fifty move draw rule. Fine played blitz with Capablanca, so this isn't a theoretical question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer and I'm not a strong enough player to make that sort of evaluation myself. Staunton's fame rests primarily on his match with Saint Amant and on his chess writing. His decisive victory over Saint Amant in Paris, Saint Amant's "home field", was impressive. Saint Amant didn't play particularly well, but the evaluation of Staunton's achievement depends greatly on how Saint Amant is rated. I'm not an expert in this field but I think that some consider it questionable whether Saint Amant was as good as La Bourdonnais, the best French player of the previous generation. If Saint Amant wasn't a "grandmaster" himself, then Staunton's victory over him doesn't prove GM status in the sense that the term is understood today. Staunton did beat two of the Berlin Pleiades (Horwitz and Harrwitz) decisively in 1846 matches, but lost narrowly to Von der Lasa in 1853. Aside from these, Staunton apparently lost a very early match with Aaron Alexandre, but this was well before Staunton achieved his full strength. He won all his other matches played without odds which were against Popert in 1840 (don't even know who this is), Cochrane in 1843, and Elijah Williams in 1851—hardly a murderers row. I'm not sure whether Staunton ever played Henry Buckle without odds. They seem to have met only in a single match which Buckle won with Staunton conceding pawn and move odds. Buckle did not like match play as it was too slow in this era before clocks. According to Hooper & Whyld, Steinitz considered Buckle superior to Staunton. Other English players may have considered Buckle better as well, but very quietly, as Staunton was rather vindictive in the press. If Buckle was a better chess player than Staunton then in a sense he had Staunton surrounded—Buckle is held in higher regard in his profession (history) than Staunton in his (Shakespeare scholarship). Staunton didn't perform well at London 1851, although the stress of organizing the tournament as well as playing in it was a significant handicap. I don't know of any tournaments Staunton won, and he wisely retired from chess rather than facing what I suspect would have been an embarrassing debacle at the hands of Morphy. Morphy's desire to play Staunton doesn't prove to me that Staunton was GM strength, just that he was considered the best English player at the time. (This reputation may have been due in part to Staunton's self promotion.) If someone had played the best English player from 1930 to 1970 he wouldn't have faced a GM opponent either (although Penrose later was awarded a GME). Although the French had no one to rival Staunton at the time and Staunton beat several of the top German players (a little before their prime, however), Tim Harding has written that he thinks the Hungarian Josef Szen may have been better, and possibly the Russians Petroff and Shumov as well. International play was rather uncommon at the time, so this was never put to the test and is essentially impossible to resolve today. Staunton's chess writing was and is highly regarded, and his role in formulating and gaining international (i.e., European) acceptance for a uniform set of Laws of Chess was very important. His analysis of the King's Gambit in the Chess-Player's Handbook has held up well. (The KG occupies the bulk of the opening analysis in that book. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I think he devotes more than 70 pages to it.) Anyway, this is isn't really important to wikipedia unless it has an effect on what we write in the article. Normally web forum discussions that aren't really relevant to writing the articles are discouraged here, but this is a fun topic and I thought I could spend a little time on it. All this said, I certainly admit that anything I think about this is completely unimportant compared to Fischer's opinion, and he thought quite highly of Staunton. Quale (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth (if anything), Chessmetrics puts John Cochrane as #1 in the world for a short time - in fact in 1843 until Staunton beat him. Bubba73 (talk), 04:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to a comment about Fine, he may have realized that it can't be done in 50 moves in general, so it is a draw, without realizing that it is a win in 86 moves. That is, that in practice it doesn't matter if it can be won in 86 moves because it is a draw in practice anyway. Of course, I'm guessing at this. Bubba73 (talk), 05:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The entirety of what Fine wrote about "ROOK VS. THREE MINOR PIECES" (and Benko copied verbatim) is, "Since a Rook is approximately equivalent to a little less than two minor pieces such endgames are theoretically drawn. Nevertheless, it stands to reason that White disposes of a large number of tactical possibilities, so that there will not be any smooth sailing for the defender." BCE (1941), p. 521 (emphasis added); BCE (2003), p. 524 (same). Fine (and Benko after him) did not recognize that R v. BBN was different from R v. NNB, and certainly did not say, "R v. BBN is a theoretical win, but sometimes takes more than 50 moves to achieve." There is zero reason to think that either Fine or Benko understood that to be the case. Staunton, writing 92 years before Fine and 154 years before Benko, recognized, unlike both of them, that R v. BBN and R v. NNB are different, and that the former is a theoretical win. Since there were no computers back in those days, he of course could not know that, in the worst case scenario, it takes 86 moves to win the ending. Krakatoa (talk) 17:43, 25 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)

It is also in the second edition of Secrets of pawnless chess endings, which came out a year before Benko's revision. But it is 68 moves, not 86, I must have transposed digits. Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Staunton give a proceedure for BBN to beat R, or just state that it was a win? Bubba73 (talk), 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He did, though starting from a bad position for the defending side:

Analysis by Staunton, 1849

	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

Black wins

Staunton on p. 439 analyzes 1.Ra3+ Be3 2.Ra2 Kg3 3.Rh2 Bf4 4.Ra2 Bh3 5.Ra3+ Be3 6.Ra2 Nf2+ 7.Kg1 Bg2 8. Re2 Nh3#. It's remarkable that he spent almost a page analyzing a position that few, if any, of his readers would ever get in their lives. (I recall that someone did a search for R v. NNB and Karpov-Kasparov was the only game found in a multi-million game database.) Krakatoa (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

They are rare endings. The dtabase has only two with BBN vs. R, one win, one draw. David Hooper in Pocket Guide to Chess Endings, 1970, page 4, has BBN vs. R as a win (but not BNN). Bubba73 (talk), 21:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite as rare as I thought. I just ran a search in the Mega 2007 database (3.5 million games) for R v. three minor pieces (didn't look for BBB or NNN). There were four R v. BBN: Eingorn-Veingold, USSR ch. Tallinn 1980 (win); Haub-Sazanov, Muensterland Open 2006 (very cool win); Mueller (1487)-Metzger (1115), German U20 Girls' Championship 2002 (White hung a piece, draw); Vazquez-Akopian (2555), Santiago Esucomex Open 1991 (R v. BBN; Akopian played RxB, and Vazquez couldn't win B+N v. K!, draw). There were three R v. NNB: the aforementioned Karpov-Kasparov, draw; Valenta-Szollosi, Zalakaros Open 2003 (draw); Lehtinen-Jarvela, Turku Open 1998 (R v. NNB, 1-0 for some reason -- probably the side with the R flagged?). This suggests that each ending occurs about once in a million games. Krakatoa (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that one too - flag must have fallen. Bubba73 (talk), 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How much material is there about Staunton as an endgame theoretician? If there's more, the article should cover it. Philcha (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from this matter (which is something I happened upon rather than anything discussed in the literature) I don't know of anything regarding Staunton's standing as an endgame theoretician. Krakatoa (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst Staunton was undoubtably a Grandmaster in his day, he cannot be called a Grandmaster. England's first Gradmaster was Tony Miles. Staunton was never awarded that title, did it even exist then? Something like Old Master would be more appropriate. Calling him Grandmaster perhaps introduces POV.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in the Talk page for Grandmaster (chess) and I think a little bit at the Talk page for Emanuel Lasker. The consensus now seems to be that only persons awarded the International Grandmaster title by FIDE (starting in 1950, and not awarded retroactively to dead folks like Staunton) should be deemed "grandmasters" -- anything else is POV, as you suggest. Krakatoa (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Winter has cast doubt on the story that Nicholas II conferred the GM title on the top 5 at St. Petersburg 1914 so, as Krakatoa says, the title "GM" should be applied only to those given it by FIDE from 1950 onwards. -- Philcha (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Snippets

Collected while looking for refs for other articles:

• The Openings at New York 1924 S recommends the Sicilian.
• Dublin Uni Chess Soc claims George Salmon suggested the 1851 tournament to Staunton. Can't find other sources.
• 4844. Potter quotes
• 4846. Morphy’s chess column
• Chess Disputes on the bare-knuckle nature of chess journalism.
• Untruths and Mysteries about The Chess Player’s Chronicle
• Awesome annotations Compare the annotations styles of Staunton, a typical GM, Fischer and Geo. Walker - gorra fit it in somewhere!
• letter to Chess Players' Chronicle - might be Lewis complaining about Walker's review of the book by U. Ewell. -- Philcha (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Status of St Amant

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)

Source(s)? Philcha (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe Tim Harding has suggested this. There is this continual slant applied to the results of the two matches though. St Amant wins the first small match. Staunton convincingly wins the second large match. Looking in Detail at the second match, we see St Amant clearly performed better in the second half of the second match. Staunton made extensive preparation for this match, did St Amant? Once St Amant got to grips with the prepared new lines in the English Opening he started to come out on top. It is speculation to suggest he would or would not have won the third match.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

so first half 7+ 1= 0- second half 4+ 3= 6-. The difference is vast. :)--ZincBelief (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC) WE can also say the challenge to a third match meant St Amant certainly believed he could win. The French Chess community decrying Staunton's avoidance must have shared that belief. St Amant should certainly be included in this paragraph.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

www.didymus7.com/nost/na377staunton.htm Is one source that supports this argument. It also notes the St Amant was not the strongest player in France!--ZincBelief (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Chessmetrics

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)

Before the 1851 international tournament direct comparisons of playing strength among the elite players were impossible. Articles and books of the time were generally partisan - or extremely partisan.

Chessmetrics reaches further back in time that the other statistical systems I know of, and I've seen fewer objections against its methods and accuracy that I've seen for Elo ratings and Warriors of the Mind - for example both of the latter seem to have a bias in favour of more recent players.

Re Chessmetrics' assumptions, the site has a page that explains its methods - the bottom line is that it does not depend on assumptions, the software keeps regrading players in a cycle until the results become stable and consistent; this would work even if the initial gradings were random numbers, although that would generally force the software to repeat its cycle more often before results stabilise. Philcha (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it mathematically accepted though? I'll be honest, I can't access it from where I am right now, but it doesn't sound valid to me. Iterating calculations isn't necessarily going to give a true picture of rating. --ZincBelief (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1229 for example chessmetrics fails to spot that computers will become stronger than humans. :) --ZincBelief (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Chessmetrics ratings have been shown to be a little more accurate than Elo ratings. Bubba73 (talk), 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think accurate is a subjective term here, it's a POV unless agreed upon by subject matter experts isn't it? Any results for this time would come out of very few matches indeed, which would render the ratings very prone to error by the nature of statistics. I really have my doubts as to this being a reliable source. I have opened a discussion on this at WikiProject Chess as well as I see these links appearing on many pages.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Statistical analysis is always subjective. However I doubt that someone peer reviewed the works of Jeff Sonas (builder of Chessmetrics), as they were not to be published in scientific publications. The reliability would still hold if we consider that these ratings have been published on several serious websites that would not publish mere garbage. SyG (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Chessmetrics may not be peer-reviewed, but it's cited by Charles C. Moul and John V. C. Nye in Did the Soviets Collude? A Statistical Analysis of Championship Chess 1940-64 published May 2006 by The Social Science Research Network, and freely available from the cited web page. Moul and Nye used it to determine the "expected" results of games, and say,"This specification (Chessmetrics) has been optimized for predictive power for games between world-class players. ... there are three primary differences between these Sonas ratings and standard Elo-based ratings. Besides a linear framework that appears to dominate in predictive power (my emph) the more common logistic specification, Sonas ratings weight more recent games more heavily than distant games (looking back four years) and are padded to reward players who play more games. ..." That looks to me like an endorsement.Philcha (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re computers vs humans, the link ZincBelief should have given is PART III – What does the future hold for grandmasters against computers? - in Chessbase series only the last article contains the links to all parts of the series.

While looking for that, I found Sonas' article The Sonas Rating Formula – Better than Elo? (Oct 2002). Points to note:

• Sonas was invited to a 4-day conference in Moscow about rating systems in Aug 2002. Somweone considers him expert enough.
• He repeatedly emphasises the importance of a rating system's ability to "predict" results (during testing the results to be "predicted" are those of past games whose outcomes are known to the tester). This is exaclty the method used to evaluate and improve models in all of the "historical" sciences, including geology and paleontology. There's no need to take my word on the soundness of this approach - check out for example Karl Popper#Philosophy_of_Science. Philcha (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Zinc said "I think accurate is a subjective term here,". No, an objective measure was used. The Chessmetrics ratings more accurately predict performance than Elo ratings do. Bubba73 (talk), 19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Buckle

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)

The problem with this period in chess history is that original sources are fragmentary and quite often contradict each other. AFAIK many of them ignore draws as most matches were "first to win X games". Keeping absolutely accurate records only began to matter when round-robin tournaments became the norm (1st one London 1862 AFAIK). Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review#Review_of_Howard_Staunton discusses a few cases like this. Ludwig Bledow is the poster child for this kind of problem - he documented none of his games, so what little is known of his playing strength is based on whatever his friends chose to record. Philcha (talk) 09:04, 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)

Chess Disputes also supports the 6-1 version. I've changed the article. -- Philcha (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

London International Tournament, 1851

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)

The Staunton-Morphy controversy

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)

I can cite sources to confirm that Staunton: put a lot of effort into negotiating St-Amant v Staunton III and actually travelled to France to play the match in Nov 1843; fell seriously ill in Nov 1843 and had to return before play started; had to abandon his series with von der Lasa in 1853 because of ill health; other sources, which might not be independent of Staunton, about his ill-health after London 1851 and 1858. Can you cite sources to confirm that S cried wolf at any time? If so, that material would be a welcome addition. -- Philcha (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources already in the article seemed to contain several mentions of this practice. After losing a game Staunton would give various standard excuses for the loss, one of these was being unwell. I find the reason for not playing St-Amant confusing, as he was able to play other matches afterwards.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Which of the sources already in the article explicitly casts doubt on S's claims to have been ill? -- Philcha (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember offhand, possibly one on his character, is it important?--ZincBelief (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here we go, the link is an obvious one actually. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/staunton.html

I know that source and intend to use bits of it, or at least cite it to back up the point that S was controversial in his own time and required very little provocation before he lashed out. The problem is that these extracts are all shots in various wars of words (in which of course Staunton gave at least as good as he got), so cannot be considered objective. So I think the way to use them is "X accused Staunton of ...", if possible with some background on the quarrel. --

Konsala's Shakin maailmanmestareita

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)

Yes, this sounds an interesting idea. The quotes have been added by User:Lab-oratory, who is able to speak Finnish. It should also be specified in the notes that the translation is "unofficial". SyG (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I originally had the book when I made Paul Morphy in fi.wikipedia.org. I currently dont have the book, but i can get it in a few days if it is needed. And btw, finnish is my mother tongue. The book is about Morphy, Steinitz and Lasker and the Morphy part (third of the book) does have useful info about the conflict between Morphy and Staunton. Lab-oratory (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That will be great, thanks!

BTW, would you like to have a look at Paul Morphy? I think it needs more material (preferably not the silly Freudian stuff about Oedipus, and Staunton as father-figure, there's quite enough of that in English). I found some interesting stuff about Morphy on the web (e.g. about why he retired from chess, and about his politics), which I've noted at Talk:Paul Morphy, but we need WP:RS for it. -- Philcha (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I can have a look at that, but I'm not sure how soon. Lab-oratory (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I cant borrow the book right now (from a library), because someones else was faster. I'll get it as soon as I can. Lab-oratory (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sicilian defense

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)

Sickness and Dispute

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)

A bit of fun

The GA reviewer noted that the following is ambiguous:

Viktor Korchnoi, one of the world's leading players, successfully introduced the line into tournament practice more than a century after Staunton's death in Korchnoi-Känel, Biel 1979.

Witty comments are invited :-) -- Philcha (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, not sure what you really mean, but it clearly can be ambiguous when Korchnoi introduces something. Is Korchnoi-Känel the name of his wife ? SyG (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If so, Mr. Korchnoi and Mrs. Staunton might well wonder how Mr. Staunton happened to die in Mrs. Korchnoi. -- Philcha (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the reviewer doesn't realize that "Korchnoi-Känel" refers to a game between those players? The comments by the GA reviewers, who tend to know nothing about chess, often surprise me. I wrote the "offending" sentence and will try to improve it if someone hasn't beaten me to it. Krakatoa (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, I figured it out, but my first (mis)reading was that Staunton died during the 1979 game (I suppose I assumed he was a pawn?). The more chess newbies review this article, the better it'll get; I'd guess most Wikipedia readers don't know chess, and they're the target audience. Eubulides (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see what you're getting at. Yes, my sentence was a little sloppily written in that regard. Krakatoa (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I had a very hard time guessing how could possibly Mr Staunton have died in Ms Korchnoi-Känel ;-) SyG (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, Nelson Rockefeller is claimed to have died in such a fashion - but yes, given the time lag between Staunton's death and Korchnoi's life, that's hard to imagine. Krakatoa (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm suprised that no-one (naming no names) picked up on La petite mort -- Philcha (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Well, I did not want to have to say "Pardon my French!" SyG (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Touché, D'Artagnan! -- Philcha (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As well as the necro-nuptial nexus we could consider confounding chronological conunundrums. -- Philcha (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Korchnoi apparently thinks he played a game of chess against Geza Maroczy decades after Maroczy's 1951 death. If so, why should we be skeptical of other forms of, um, intercourse with long-dead persons? Krakatoa (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, provided it's between consenting ex-adults. -- Philcha (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thumbing through assorted Reinfeld books, trying in vain to find a comment about Staunton's mistreatment of Morphy. In Reinfeld's The Joys of Chess, I found a chapter entitled "Boners of the Masters". I was surprised to see Reinfeld writing about this sort of thing, but was hopeful I could find therein an account of Staunton's alleged dalliance with Ms. Korchnoi-Känel. Alas, no. Krakatoa (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Korchnoi used to score a lot using old Staunton "lines." WHPratt (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to the chronological aspect, in a probably vain attempt to rescue this thread from an "adults(?) only" rating:

If Staunton died in 1979, why did he fake his own death in 1874? -- Philcha (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The book 5 People Who Died During Sex and 100 Other Terribly Tasteless Lists, by Karl Shaw, lists in its titular list the aforementioned Nelson Rockefeller, Félix Faure, Lord Palmerston, Cardinal Jean Daniélou, and Pope John XII - two Frenchmen, a Brit, an American, and an Italian. Krakatoa (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Diggle (and Winter?) on Sergeant

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)

I think Winter does quite a lot of tracing of his own, in the following extracts from Edge, Morphy and Staunton, which appear before the first mention of Diggle:

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.’

and

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”.

the last of which establishes an Edge->Sergeant->Lawson linkage. --Philcha (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Winter quotes Goulding Brown, but (as with Diggle) does not adopt his characterization. In fact, he quotes without comment Frank Skoff's scathing response to Goulding Brown. As for Lawson, in the quote you give, Lawson just says that he independently reached the same judgment about Edge that Sergeant had ("my own reading of Edge did not lead me to think him a liar"). Krakatoa (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Winter expresses doubt about some of the comments of Edge, because he links the Edge->Sergeant link is important. Could change it to "Chess historians trace ...", which would cover all the cases Winter cites. --Philcha (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be best, albeit a little vague. I don't have a better suggestion. Krakatoa (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. If anyone queries it, I'll ask them how many they can spot in the Winter page :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nationality of Edge & Sergeant

Re the recent addition "However, Edge and Sergeant, two of Staunton's harshest critics, were British":

• Citations needed on both.
• All of Edge's activities that I've read about were based in USA. Would it be more accurate to say "Born in Britain but emigrated to USA"?
• Did Sergeant spend most of his life in Britain? --Philcha (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposition(s) that both are British is not controversial. I'll start with Edge. As you know, Winter in "Edge, Morphy and Staunton" recounts how Edge grew up in Britain and died in Britain ("extravasation of urine" and all that) and refers to him as "(an Englishman who was undeniably anti-Staunton)". It would not be correct to say that Edge "emigrated to USA"; he did not. Hooper and Whyld in their entry on Edge in The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed. 1992, p. 119) call him an "English journalist". As for his relationship with Morphy, they write that Edge "was in New York, a reporter for the London Herald, in 1857 when the first American congress took place. ... When Morphy's visit to England was announced, Edge, now back home, perceived for himself the role of public relations manager for Morphy and set to work preparing the ground. ... Edge attached himself to Morphy when he arrived in England ... Edge accompanied Morphy to Paris." (All of the above is from p. 119). On page 120, Hooper and Whyld relate the (in)famous "I have been a lover, a mother, a brother to you" letter, which (as Winter notes) they falsely imply was written by Edge to Morphy (Edge actually wrote it to Fiske, talking about his relationship with Morphy). As Winter notes in "Edge, Morphy and Staunton" "Edge’s letter to Fiske of 10 February 1859 gave Edge’s account of his break-up with Morphy".

Thus, as far as I can tell, the chronology of Edge's life is as follows: He grew up in Britain. He was in the U.S. briefly in 1857 reporting, for a London paper, on the First American Chess Congress. He was probably in the U.S. a month or so, since as the above-linked article indicates, the Congress was from October 6 to November 10, 1857. Edge then went back home - his involvement as a secretary to Morphy was while Morphy was in England and Paris. They severed relations around February 1859 (see February 10, 1859 Edge-Fiske letter referred to above) and presumably returned to their respective countries of origin. Edge died in Britain in 1882, and I have seen nothing to indicate that he lived in the U.S. other than the brief period as a reporter there in 1857.

As for Philip W. Sergeant, I have seen nothing indicating that he ever lived outside Britain. Hooper and Whyld on p. 365 have a tiny entry on him:

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).

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)

For a more complete list of Sergeant books, see here. Krakatoa (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

All the books are now listed in Philip Sergeant. btw, apropos of nothing, is there any truth to the scurrilous rumor (or "rumour" if you like) that in Britain, "spotted dick" refers not to the condition of poor Pillsbury's syphilis-ravaged member, but to a popular dessert? If so, mightn't this make a good "Did you know?" question? :-) Krakatoa (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the research!

Sergeant seems pretty uncomplicated - at least in terms of residence (be still ...). OTOH Winter's Edge, Morphy and Staunton indicates that Edge had a habit of dropping off the radar, in particular off the Electoral Register - it's curious that Winter says nothing of Census records, which he uses liberally in the case of e.g. Wilhelm Steinitz. It might be reasonable for the footnote on "English" to mention this.

I hope the FA is going well - last time I looked, George H. D. Gossip seemed close to the greatest success of his career. I understand your need let of a bit off steam - see the quotes about FAC on my User page.

This side of the Pond, "spotted dick" does indeed refer to a type of steamed pudding which is ultra-high in carbohydrates (suet) and iron (currants or raisins) - how's that for a feed line (groan)! The pudding is also sometimes colloquially referred to as "spotted dog", feel free to speculate on the English affection for canines.

After the Gossip FA review, would you like to collaborate on an article "Divided by a Common Language" and get it to FA (which itself deserves an entry), and sell it to Hustler if CSD'd on WP? We might get a better offer from Hustler if we say we are also preparing a companion article, "Private Lives of the Masters" (there is currently one called Bates). --Philcha (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cochrane - St Amant

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)

I have great respect for Cochrane, and privately I might well agree that Cochrane may have been stronger than St.-A. - IIRC Cohrane is the first player Chessmetrics ranks as world #1. However the sources treat S vs St.-A. as the de facto world championship. In any case by 1843 S was beating Cochrane comfortably.

I also like your point about the strength of Indian players - e.g. an issue of The City of London Chess Magazine printed a game won by an Indian playing the Black side of the K's Indian 4Ps Attack against Cochrane (cited in John Cochrane and this article - IIRC the same issue carried S's obit). We also know that Cochrane and the secretary of his Indian chess club were two of the largest financial contributors to the fund for the 1851 London International Tournament, and the club was one of the largest organisational contributors (see section of this article on the tournament, and John Cochrane). It all suggests the Indian chess scene at the time was as active as that of most European cities, and possibly stronger than many. Unfortunately all the sources of the time are UK-, European- or USA-based, and the primitive comms tech meant that Indian chess received very little coverage (mainly what Cochrane sent to Staunton and Potter). --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The match result does make the opinion seem like nonsense though, even if it is sourced. I think the strongest active French player is more accurate given the Paris - London rivalry.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Indian to whom Philcha referred is Moheschunder Bannerjee - sort of an important guy, particularly since it can be said that all of the "Indian defenses" are named after him. See Indian_Defence#Historical_background for more information. He played the Grünfeld Defense against Cochrane in 1855, 38 years before Ernst Grünfeld was born - probably before Ernst's parents were born, too, and maybe his grandparents. Moheschunder had the right general ideas, too - although not surprisingly he didn't implement them perfectly. Krakatoa (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my impression was that Moheschunder Bannerjee was pretty good. Is there enough for an article on the guy? --01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW the original question is an example of why we use Chessmetrics so much - for these early players there was so much contemporary hype for players with the right connections, while other strong candidates were ignored (e.g Szen), that anything resembling an objective comparison is useful. --Philcha (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Elijah Williams

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)

After a quick Google I found nothing about W being a pupil of S. Perhaps it's an over-interpretation of the fact that W lost a match to S at P+2 in 1845, shortly after W moved to London.

Where does the current article accuse W of slow play in general or against S? OTOH Elijah Williams includes the "Bristol Sloth" However, as your comment suggests, this is an unclear issue. For example The Telegraph, the Velocipede, and the Bristol Sloth: Part Two indicates that in general W was no slower than S. However accounts of his speed in the autumn 1851 match against S may be based only on S's complaints. Spinrad at The Telegraph, the Velocipede, and the Bristol Sloth: Part Two suggests various possiblilies: S was just making excuses; W was thinking harder than usual because of the "needle" between himself and S; W was unwilling to let S dictate the pace. --Philcha (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You can find the assertion of slowness in reference 36. I would suggest that the claim of him being a pupil of S could be removed.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! I'd keep ref 36 (Sunnucks) but removing its comments on slowness, in view of Spinrad's research. And "a pupil" should go. --Philcha (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there are more references to his 'slowness' than just Staunton's remarks - Buckle was "reputed to have written an entire chapter of his History Of Civilisation while waiting for his opponent [Williams] to make a single move." - Hartston (Guinness Book Of Chess Grandmasters, p. 24). Hartston goes on to add "Willing to wait for his tea leaves to uncurl, but reluctant to allow Elijah Williams to waste his time, Buckle was clearly a man of the most refined priorities." Hartston must have been convinced of Williams' slowness as he writes in a similar vein on page 35 of The Kings Of Chess that "Williams has the reputation of being the slowest player of all time; perhaps more than any other man, he was responsible for the introduction of hourglasses, and eventually chess clocks ...". Hartston also describes Staunton's complaints against Williams as "evidently quite justified" in this respect. Regarding Williams being a pupil of Staunton - this appears in The Oxford Companion To Chess where the line reads "The master never forgave his pupil", but the context of the passage is the 'English School Of Chess' - so the terms may relate more to this, than any actual physical relationship. In any case, I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere else, so it may well be incorrect. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether there are any objective mid-Victorian sources - which is asking a lot when the subject is Staunton! --Philcha (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

For me the question is, what exactly are Hartston's sources. --ZincBelief (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC) A similiar claim is made by another author... "Akuni: According to Chernev, he played so slowly that his opponent, a man named Buckle, wrote two chapters of "History of Civilizations" while waiting for him to move." One chapter turning into two.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC) In Chess History and Reminiscences H. E. Bird states the amusing stories about Williams are not likely to be founded in fact --ZincBelief (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Praise of Morphy?

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)

I always regard Hartston's writing as authoritative and well researched. In Kings Of Chess (1986), he comments on the aftermath of Morphy's match with Andersson thus - "Morphy at last began his return trip to the United States. The only commitments which remained to delay him were the numerous testimonial dinners given in his honour. He spent the month of April 1859 in England, where the chess gentry vied with one another to gain his attendance at their dinners. Even Staunton was present at one of these occasions to add his considerable prestige to the honours being heaped on the young American. To be fair, Staunton had only been impolite to Morphy in their personal dealings. When annotating his games and praising his play, Staunton's tributes were full of compliments". This would back up the statement to which you refer (page 49, if anyone wants to reference it). I'm not sure if it settles your own question? Was he magnanimous about Morphy's play in general, or did he confine the praise to individual moves in individual games? Well his appearance at that testimonial dinner suggests the former might be the case. I'm pretty sure Korchnoi didn't turn up at any of Karpov's celebratory dinners in the 1970s! Brittle heaven (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)