[blind-chess] Annotated Game #20: Pierre Saint-Amant - Howard Staunton, Paris 1843
- From: Roderick Macdonald <rmacd@xxxxxxxx>
- To: Blind Chess Mailing List <blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 13:44:20 -1000 (HST)
Annotated Game #020:
Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant - Howard Staunton
Paris 1843, Round 13
Adapted and Condensed from
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
Contents:
++1. Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant
++2. Howard Staunton
++2.A Life
++2.A1 1836-1842, First steps in chess
++2.A2 1843, competitive peak
++2.A3 1845-1848, Chess writer and promoter
++2.A4 1849, Marriage and design of a chess set
++2.A5 1851, London International Tournament
++2.A6 1852-1860, Final stages of playing career and Shakespeare
publication
++2.A7 Later life
++2.B Assessment
++2.B1 The Staunton-Morphy controversy
++2.B2 Playing strength and style
++2.B3 Personality
++2.B4 Influence on chess
++2.B5 His other writings
++2.C Staunton Memorial Tournament
++2.D Notable games
++2.E Tournament results
++2.F Match results
++3. Saint-Amant-Staunton Paris 1843, Round 13
++1. Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant
Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant (September 12, 1800 -
October 29, 1872) was a leading French chess master and an editor
of the chess periodical Le Palamhde. He is best known for losing a
match against Howard Staunton in 1843 that is often considered to
have been an unofficial match for the World Chess Championship.
Saint-Amant learned chess from Wilhelm Schlumberger, who later
became the operator of The Turk. He played at the Cafe de la
Regence, where he was a student of Alexandre Deschapelles. For many
years he played on level terms with Boncourt, a strong player, and
received odds of pawn and two moves from Deschapelles and Louis-
Charles Mahi de La Bourdonnais. In 1834-36, he led a Paris team
that won both games of a correspondence chess match against the
Westminster Club, then England's leading chess club. After La
Bourdonnais' death in 1840, he was considered the country's best
player. In December 1841 he revived Le Palamhde (at its inception
in 1836 the world's first chess periodical), which ran until 1847.
He played two matches against Staunton in 1843. The first, in
London, he won 3=-2= (three wins, one draw, two losses), but he
lost a return match in Paris just before Christmas 13-8 (six wins,
four draws, eleven losses). This second match is sometimes
considered an unofficial world championship match.
In 1858, Saint-Amant played in the Birmingham tournament, a knock-
out event. He won in the first round, but lost in the second by a
2-1 score to Ernst Falkbeer. Returning to Paris, he witnessed the
adulatory reception accorded Paul Morphy at the Cafe de la Regence.
The score of one game between them is known, a 22-move rout by
Morphy of Saint-Amant and his consultation partner, given as "F. de
L." or "F. de L'A".
Outside of chess, Saint-Amant became a government clerk in Paris at
an early age. He then served as the secretary to the governor of
French Guiana from 1819 to 1821. He was dismissed from that
appointment after he protested against the slave trade that still
existed in that colony. After that, he tried his hand as a
journalist and actor, then became a successful wine merchant. He
was a captain in the French National Guard during the 1848
revolution. For his role in saving the Palais des Tuileries from
destruction by the mob, he was made its Governor for a few
months. In 1851-52, he was the French consul to California. Upon
returning to France he spent some years writing well-regarded works
on the French colonies, and a treatise on the wines of Bordeaux.
In 1861 Saint-Amant retired to Algeria. He died there in 1872 after
being thrown from his carriage.
++2. Howard Staunton
Howard Staunton (1810 - June 22, 1874) was an English chess master
who is generally regarded as having been the world's strongest
player from 1843 to 1851, largely as a result of his 1843 victory
over Saint-Amant. He promoted a chess set of clearly
distinguishable pieces of standardized shape that is still the
style which must be used for competitions. He was the principal
organiser of the first international chess tournament in 1851,
which made England the world's leading chess center and caused
Anderssen to be recognized as the world's strongest player.
From 1840 onwards he became a leading chess commentator, and won
matches against top players of the 1840s. In 1847 he entered a
parallel career as a Shakespearean scholar. Ill health and his two
writing careers led him to give up competitive chess after 1851. In
1858 attempts were made to organise a match between Staunton and
Morphy, but they failed. It is often alleged that Staunton
deliberately misled Morphy while trying to avoid the match, but it
is also possible Staunton over-estimated his chances of getting
physically fit and of making time available for a match.
Modern commentators consider Staunton's understanding of positional
play to have been far ahead of his contemporaries. Although not an
all-out attacking player, he was known for accurate attacks when
his preparations were complete. His chess articles and books were
widely read and encouraged the development of chess in the United
Kingdom, and his Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) was a reference for
decades. In the chess openings, the English Opening and Staunton
Gambit were named because of his advocacy of them. Staunton has
been a controversial figure since his own time, and his chess
writings could be spiteful. On the other hand he maintained good
working relationships with several strong players and influential
chess enthusiasts, and showed excellent management skills.
++2.A Life
Most information about Staunton's early life is ultimately based on
claims he made. His registration of birth has never been found. The
chess historian H.J.R. Murray summarized the information that he
"gleaned" from various sources: Staunton was born in 1810,
reputedly the natural son of Frederick Howard, fifth Earl of
Carlisle; he was neglected in youth, receiving little or no
education; although he spent some time in Oxford, he was never a
member of the University; when he came of age he inherited a few
thousand pounds, which he soon squandered; in later life Staunton
often used to tell how he had once played Lorenzo in the Merchant
of Venice, with the famous English actor Edmund Kean playing
Shylock.
++2.A1 1836-1842, First steps in chess
In 1836 Staunton came to London, where he took out a subscription
for William Greenwood Walker's Games at Chess, actually played in
London, by the late Alexander McDonnell Esq. Staunton was
apparently twenty-six when he took a serious interest in chess. He
said that at that time the strongest players he saw in London,
Saint-Amant and George Walker, could easily have given him rook
odds. In 1838 he played many games with Captain Evans, inventor of
the Evans Gambit, and also lost a match against the German chess
writer Aaron Alexandre. He had improved sufficiently by 1840 to win
a match against the German master H.W. Popert, a slow, cautious
player with great defensive skill.
From May to December 1840 Staunton edited a chess column for the
New Court Gazette. He then became chess editor of the magazine
British Miscellany, and his chess column developed into a separate
magazine, the Chess Player's Chronicle, which Staunton owned and
edited until the early 1850s.
++2.A2 1843, competitive peak
Early in 1843 Staunton prevailed in a long series of games against
John Cochrane, a strong player and chess
theoretician. Chessmetrics treats these games incorrectly as one
match when it was in fact a series of matches, and lists it as
Staunton's best performance.
A little later that year he lost a short match (2=-3=) in London
against the visiting French player Saint-Amant, who was generally
regarded as the world's strongest active player.
Staunton challenged Saint-Amant to a longer match to be played in
Paris for a stake of 100 pounds Sterling, equivalent to about
73,000 pounds in 2006's money. Then he prepared new opening lines,
especially those beginning 1. c4, which became known as the English
Opening after this match. He also took Thomas Worrall and Harry
Wilson to Paris as his assistants; this is the first known case
where seconds were used in a match. Staunton gained a seven-game
lead but then struggled to keep it before winning the match 13-8
(eleven wins, four draws, and six losses) in December 1843.
Saint-Amant wanted a third match, but Staunton was initially
unwilling as he had developed heart trouble during the second
match. Von der Lasa later suggested this was why Staunton faded in
the second match. However after a long, difficult negotiation,
which he reported in the Chess Player's Chronicle, Staunton went to
Paris intending to start their third match in October 1844, but he
caught pneumonia while traveling and almost died; the match was
postponed and never took place.
Several modern commentators regard Staunton as de facto World
Champion after his match victory over Saint-Amant, although that
title did not yet formally exist. After Saint-Amant's defeat, no
other Frenchmen arose to continue the French supremacy in chess
established by Philidor, Deschapelles, La Bourdonnais and Saint-
Amant. Some contemporary English commentators, mainly in Staunton's
Chess Player's Chronicle, and some later writers hailed Staunton as
the world champion. The response was less enthusiastic elsewhere in
Europe. Even in England some writers suggested other players,
notably Buckle or von der Lasa, were stronger.
++2.A3 1845-1848, Chess writer and promoter
In 1845 Staunton began a chess column for the Illustrated London
News, which became the most influential chess column in the world
and which he continued for the rest of his life. Although his
articles mostly focused on over-the-board play, a significant
number featured correspondence chess. Some followed with enthusiasm
the progress of promising youngsters, including Paul Morphy.
Staunton produced over 1,400 weekly articles for the Illustrated
London News. The Chess-Player's Handbook
The first chess match by electric telegraph took place in 1844,
between Washington and Baltimore. In April 1845 Staunton and
Captain Kennedy traveled to Gosport to play two games by telegraph
against a group in London. Staunton took a long-term interest in
this solution to the difficulties of travel, and reported telegraph
games in the Illustrated London News. In 1871 his report of a
telegraphic match between Sydney and Adelaide calculated that the
74 moves of the longest game had traveled a total of 220,000 miles
(not much less than the distance between Earth and
Moon).
In 1847 Staunton published his most famous work, The Chess-Player's
Handbook, which is still in print. It contained over 300 pages of
opening analysis, and almost 100 pages of endgame analysis.
Staunton's Handbook was based on Bilguer and von der Lasa's
Handbuch des Schachspiels (first published in 1843), but enhanced
by many variations and analyses of Staunton's own. His book The
Chess-Player's Companion followed in 1849.
He still found time for two matches in 1846, comfortably beating
the professionals Bernhard Horwitz (fourteen wins, three draws, and
seven losses) and Daniel Harrwitz. The match against Harrwitz was
set up in a very unusual way: seven games in which Staunton gave
Harrwitz odds of pawn and two moves (Staunton won four and lost
three), seven games where he gave pawn and move (Staunton lost six
and won one), and seven at no odds (Staunton won all
seven).
++2.A4 1849, Marriage and design of a chess set
On July 23, 1849 Staunton married Frances Carpenter Nethersole, who
had had eight children by a previous marriage.
In 1849 Nathaniel Cook registered a chess set design, and Jaques of
London obtained the manufacturing rights. Staunton advertized the
new set in his Illustrated London News chess column, pointing out
that the pieces were easily identifiable, very stable, and good-
looking. Each box was signed by Staunton, and Staunton received a
royalty on each set sold. The design became popular, and has been
the standard for both professional and amateur chess players ever
since. Anthony Saidy and Norman Lessing wrote that, "if a vote was
taken among chess-players as to which pieces they most enjoyed
playing with, ... the Staunton chessmen would win by an
overwhelming margin."
The front entrance of the Great Exhibition.
++2.A5 1851, London International Tournament
Staunton proposed and then took the lead in organising the first
ever international tournament, as he thought the Great Exhibition
of 1851 presented a unique opportunity, because the difficulties
that obstructed international participation would be greatly
reduced. He may also have been motivated by reports that a few
years earlier Ludwig Bledow had proposed to organise an
international tournament in Germany, whose winner was to be
recognized as the world champion. Staunton and his colleagues had
ambitious objectives for this tournament, including convening a
"Chess Parliament" to complete the standardisation of various rules
and procedures for competitive chess and for writing about chess.
Staunton also proposed the production of a compendium showing what
was known about chess openings, preferably as a table. Before the
tournament started Captain Kennedy and the Liberty Weekly Tribune
in Missouri wrote that the winner should be regarded as "the
World's Chess Champion".
The organisers obtained financial contributions from Europe, the
USA and Asia, enabling the committee to set up a prize fund of 500
pounds Sterling, equivalent to about 359,000 pounds in 2006's
money. Adolf Anderssen.
Staunton offered to pay Anderssen's travel expenses if necessary.
Anderssen won the London 1851 chess tournament and the rival
tournament organized by the London Chess Club.
Despite the generally enthusiastic response, several major players
were unable to participate, including von der Lasa, Saint-Amant and
Cochrane. Adolf Anderssen was at first deterred by the travel
costs, but accepted his invitation when Staunton offered to pay
Anderssen's travel expenses out of his own pocket if necessary. The
committee had also organized a "London Provincial Tournament" for
other British players, and "promoted" some of the entrants to play
in the International Tournament in order to obtain the right number
of players for a knock-out
tournament.
The tournament was a success, but disappointing for Staunton
personally; in the second round he was knocked out by Anderssen,
who won the tournament convincingly; and in the play-off for third
place Staunton was narrowly beaten by Elijah
Williams. Staunton's defeat by Williams suggests that Staunton had
over-stretched himself by acting as both a competitor and the
Secretary of the organising committee.
The London Chess Club, which had fallen out with Staunton and his
colleagues, organized a tournament that was played a month later
and had a multi-national set of players (many of whom had competed
in Staunton's tournament), and the result was the same - Anderssen
won.
In 1852 Staunton published his book The Chess Tournament, which
recounted in detail the efforts required to make the London
International Tournament happen and presented all the games with
his comments on the play. Unfortunately some of Staunton's comments
in the book and in the Illustrated London News were intemperate,
because he was disappointed with the placing he achieved.
++2.A6 1852-1860, Final stages of playing career and Shakespeare
publication
Immediately after the London International tournament Staunton
challenged Anderssen to a match of twenty-one games, for 100 pounds
Sterling. Anderssen accepted the challenge but the match could not
be arranged: Staunton was physically unfit for an immediate
contest, and Anderssen had to return to work.
Carl Jaenisch had arrived too late for the tournament; Staunton
convincingly won a match with him soon after (seven wins, one draw,
and two losses). Later in 1851 Staunton played a match against
Elijah Williams, who had won their play-off for third place in the
London International tournament. Staunton won more games (six wins,
three draws, and four losses) but lost the match because he had
given Williams a three-game start.
In 1853, while trying to arrange a match against Anderssen,
Staunton met von der Lasa in Brussels. The two began a match, but
had to abandon it in the middle of the thirteenth game, with von
der Lasa leading (five wins, four losses, and three draws).
Staunton was unfit to continue because of heart palpitations, which
had affected him in the second match against Saint-Amant in 1843.
In von der Lasa's opinion there was no chance that Staunton's
health would be good enough for a serious contest from 1853
onwards.
In the mid-1850s Staunton obtained a contract with the publishers
Routledge to edit the text of Shakespeare. This edition appeared in
parts from 1857 to 1860, and Staunton's work was praised by
experts.
While Staunton was busy with the Shakespeare edition, he received
a courteous letter from the New Orleans Chess Club, inviting him to
that city to play Paul Morphy, who had won the recent First
American Chess Congress. Staunton replied, thanking the New Orleans
Chess Club and Morphy "for the honor implied in your selection of
me as the opponent of such a champion" and pointing out that he had
not competed for several years and was working six days a week (on
editing Shakespeare), and that he could not possibly travel across
the Atlantic for a match. He also wrote in the Illustrated London
News that he had "been compelled, by laborious literary occupation,
to abandon the practice of chess, beyond the indulgence of an
occasional game... If Mr. Morphy -- for whose skill we entertain
the liveliest admiration -- be desirous to win his spurs among the
chess chivalry of Europe, he must take advantage of his purposed
visit next year; he will then meet in this country, in France, in
Germany and in Russia, many champions ... ready to test and do
honor to his prowess." Chess historian H.J.R. Murray wrote that
Staunton's letter and article should have been interpreted as a
courteous refusal of the offer, but that Morphy interpreted them
differently, and one of the main reasons for his visit to Europe in
1858 was the hope of playing a match with Staunton. Some other
chess historians disagree with Murray's interpretation of
Staunton's response. Staunton did offer to play Morphy by electric
telegraph, a technology whose progress and uses for chess he
reported enthusiastically. However this offer arrived after Morphy
had left for Europe -- which perhaps was fortunate, as the newly-
laid cable broke down after a month and was not replaced until
1866.
Upon arriving in England in June 1858, Morphy promptly challenged
Staunton to a match. At first, Staunton declined Morphy's offer
saying that the challenge came too late. Morphy did not give up
negotiations and urging Staunton to play. In early July Staunton
agreed provided he was given time to get back into practice on
openings and endgames, and provided that he could manage all this
without breaking the publication contract for his Shakespearean
work. In early August, Morphy wrote asking Staunton when the match
could occur, and Staunton asked again for a delay of some weeks.
Staunton competed in a tournament that started in on 22 August in
Birmingham, but this was a knock-out tournament and he was
eliminated in the second round by Johann Loewenthal, after playing
a total of four games. This was to be Staunton's last public chess
competition. H.J.R. Murray wrote that Staunton had overexerted
himself and damaged his health by trying both to get ahead of
schedule on the Shakespeare project and to play some competitive
chess. Just before Staunton left London for Birmingham, his old
enemy George Walker published an article accusing him of trying to
delay the match indefinitely, and Staunton received another letter
from Morphy pressing him to name a date for the match. Staunton and
Morphy met socially in Birmingham and, after a tense discussion,
Staunton agreed to play in early
November. Just after the tournament a letter signed by "Anti-book"
appeared in Staunton's column in the Illustrated London News,
alleging that Morphy did not actually have the money for his share
of the stakes. This letter is widely thought to have been written
by Staunton himself; if so, he must have written it immediately
after reading Walker's article and Morphy's letter and immediately
before leaving for Birmingham. Around this time Morphy wrote to
friends in the USA asking them to obtain the stake money for the
Staunton match. Morphy's family refused to contribute as they
"should not allow him to play a money match either with his own
money or anyone else's", but the New Orleans Chess Club sent 500
pounds Sterling. Meanwhile Morphy went to Paris to play against
continental masters. In September the Illustrated London News
printed both a complimentary full-page article about Morphy and a
complimentary mention of him in its chess column. On October 6,
1858, while in Paris Morphy wrote Staunton an open letter which was
also circulated to several publications, in which Morphy complained
about Staunton's conduct. Staunton replied on October 9, re-stating
the difficulties he faced, but now giving them as reasons to cancel
the match. On October 23, Staunton published his entire reply along
with a partial copy of Morphy's open letter, omitting the reference
to the "Anti-book" letter. Various chess columns then printed
anonymous and acrimonious letters. Morphy took no part in any of
this, but wrote to Lord Lyttelton, the president of the British
Chess Association, explaining his own efforts to bring about the
match, accusing Staunton of avoiding the match by all means short
of admitting he did not wish to play, complaining about Staunton's
representation of the facts in the Illustrated London News, and
demanding "that you shall declare to the world it is through no
fault of mine that this match has not taken place." Lyttelton
replied that it was reasonable for Staunton to decline the match,
but that in his opinion Staunton should have done so plainly in his
first letter to America, but had instead often given the impression
that he would soon be ready to start the match.
++2.A7 Later life
Staunton continued writing the chess column in Illustrated London
News until his death in 1874, greeting new developments with
enthusiasm. In 1860 he published Chess Praxis, a supplement to his
1847 work The Chess Player's Handbook. The new book devoted 168
pages to presenting many of Morphy's games and praised the
American's play. Five years later Staunton published Great Schools
of England (1865), whose main subject was the history of major
English public schools but which also presented some progressive
ideas: learning can only take place successfully if the active
interest of the student is engaged; corporal punishment is to be
avoided and fagging should be abolished. But most of his later life
was occupied in writing about Shakespeare, including: a
photolithographic reproduction of the 1600 Quarto of Much Ado about
Nothing in 1864 and of the First Folio of Shakespeare in 1866; and
papers on Unsuspected Corruptions of Shakespeare's Text, published
from 1872 to his death. All these works were highly regarded at the
time. When he died suddenly of heart disease, on June 22, 1874, he
was at his desk writing one of these papers. At the same time he
was also working on his last chess book, Chess: Theory and
Practice, which was published posthumously in 1876.
A memorial plaque now hangs at his old residence of 117 Lansdowne
Road, London W11. In 1997 a memorial stone bearing an engraving of
a chess knight was raised over his grave at Kensal Green Cemetery
in London, which had previously been unmarked and
neglected.
++2.B Assessment
Staunton has been a controversial figure ever since his own time.
In the words of chess journalist Mark Weeks, "Staunton represents
a unique challenge to chess history. Many players immediately
associate his name with Paul Morphy, as in 'Staunton ducked a match
with Morphy'. ... This is extremely unfair, as it concentrates the
focus on Staunton to a relatively minor, factually controversial
incident, while it ignores his significant achievements." As chess
historian Edward Winter writes, "The issue of national bias does,
unfortunately, require consideration in the Staunton-Morphy
affair." Chess historian Dale Brandreth makes a similar point, from
an American
perspective: "the fact is that the British have always had their
'thing' about Morphy. They just can't seem to accept that Staunton
was an unmitigated b------ in his treatment of Morphy because he
knew d----- well he could never have made any decent showing
against him in a match." However, Frederick Edge (1830-1882) and
Philip W. Sergeant (1872-1952), two of Staunton's harshest critics,
were British, while former world champion Bobby Fischer
(1943-2008), one of the biggest fans of both Staunton and Morphy,
was American.
++2.B1 The Staunton-Morphy controversy
Chess historians trace much of the 20th-century animosity against
Staunton to books by Sergeant about Morphy. Sergeant in turn made
use of a book by Edge, who accompanied Morphy to Europe in 1858 as
his secretary and personal assistant, but returned to the USA in
January 1859, a few months before
Morphy. Opinions of Edge's value as a historical source vary
widely:
* American chess journalist Daniel Willard Fiske, reviewing
Edge's book, commented, "Mr. Morphy expressly disclaims any
connection with it in any way or manner. ... will afford
the reader a half-hour's entertainment".
* Sergeant's books and David Lawson's Paul Morphy The Pride
and Sorrow of Chess (New York, 1976) make extensive use of
Edge's book, but note Edge's strong anti-Staunton bias.
Lawson also suggests that Morphy had seen the manuscript of
Edge's book, disliked its treatment of the Staunton affair
so much that he disavowed it, and objected to Edge's
treatment of other matters.
* Chess historians H.J.R. Murray, David Hooper and Ken Whyld
described Edge as unreliable and having an extreme bias
against Staunton.
* Edward Winter wrote "The word 'liar' has been applied to
(Edge) by a small number of (English, notably) authors, but
what is the precise basis? That he was anti-Staunton is
incontestable, but was being anti-Staunton a sign of
mendacity, prejudice or, for that matter, clear-
sightedness?"
Edge's letters to Fiske show that Edge regarded Morphy as lazy and
rather helpless, and himself as the one who would make Morphy's
name immortal, and that Morphy wanted to keep the negotiations with
Staunton discreet while Edge insisted on making them as public as
possible.
H.J.R. Murray wrote that Staunton's response to Morphy's initial
challenge and his article about the same in the Illustrated London
News should have been interpreted as a courteous refusal of the
offer, but that Morphy interpreted them differently, and one of the
main reasons for his visit to Europe in 1858 was the hope of
playing a match with Staunton. Murray also commented on the whole
affair, "In all this there is but little in which we can reproach
Staunton, beyond the fact that he kept open the possibility of a
match for so long, and even here there is a good deal that could be
urged in justification of the course followed by Staunton" but also
noted that both sides were playing tactical games with each other
in front of the public, and that comments made by both players or
their respective supporters were acrimonious. In response to
Morphy's complaints Lord Lyttelton, then president of the British
Chess Association, said that it was reasonable for Staunton to
decline the match, but that in his opinion Staunton should have
done so plainly in his first letter to America, but had instead
often given the impression that he would soon be ready to start the
match. von der Lasa later wrote, although not specifically about
this affair, that he thought there was no chance of Staunton's
health being good enough for a serious contest from 1853 onwards.
William Norwood Potter wrote in his obituary of Staunton in the
City of London Chess Magazine, "... nor were his innuendoes
concerning Morphy otherwise than an utterly unworthy means of
getting out of an engagement, which he could have either declined
with a good grace at first, or afterwards have honourably asked to
be released from. Nevertheless, all said and done, Staunton was, as
we have often heard a distinguished enemy of his say, emphatically
a MAN. There was nothing weak about him, and he had a backbone that
never curved with fear of any one."
Some 20th-century commentators have been more critical of Staunton.
However some well-known chess writers, including Fred Reinfeld,
Israel "Al" Horowitz and Reuben Fine, have been criticized by chess
historians for their lack of accuracy, both in general and
specifically where Staunton is concerned. Edward Winter writes, "It
is unwise for the 'non-playing' historian to publish his own
analysis, although he may be a useful compiler. Similarly, players
who are unversed in, and indifferent to, chess history should not
touch it." William Hartston wrote of Staunton's non-match with
Morphy, "Sadly, this blemish on Staunton the man also did
considerable harm to the reputation among later generations of
Staunton the chess player." G.H. Diggle wrote in the British Chess
Magazine, "That (Staunton) excused himself ... from playing a match
against the greatest player of the century, then at the zenith of
his youth and fame, was no tragedy for chess. The contest would
have been a fiasco. But it would have been happier, both for the
young champion and the old, had the latter never said he would play
at all."
++2.B2 Playing strength and style
There is a famous story that Paul Morphy described Staunton as the
author of "some devilish bad games". Chess historian Edward Winter
traced this back to a book published in 1902, whose author said he
had seen a copy of Staunton's The Chess Tournament in which Morphy
had written "some devilish bad games" on the title page; Winter was
unable to trace the copy. Around the time of Staunton's death
Morphy is said to have commented that Staunton may have been the
strongest player of his time, had great analytical ability and
judgement of positions but lacked the imagination required to
deliberately create opportunities for combinations.
Twentieth-century opinions of Staunton's play varied enormously.
Reinfeld, Horowitz and Fine all condemned it. On the other hand,
Tartakower wrote, "A remarkable feature of Staunton's play is the
number of ultra-modern ideas with which he was familiar, e.g. the
restricted center, the fianchetto development, bilateral work, the
theory of the local engagement, etc., and, last but not least, the
English Opening (sometimes called the Staunton Opening)." Kasparov
considered Staunton "by the early 1840s ... superior to all his
rivals". Bobby Fischer opined that "Staunton was the most profound
opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but
nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day... In addition,
he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players
hold dear, and thus - with Steinitz - must be considered the first
modern player."
The website Chessmetrics ranks Staunton as world number one from
May 1843 to August 1849, in the top ten from July 1851 to May 1853,
and in the top five from June 1853 to January 1856.
From the early 1840s to 1851 Staunton could successfully give odds
to almost any UK-based player, including eventually Cochrane; the
exceptions were Buckle, to whom Staunton gave pawn and move in 1843
and lost their match (six losses, no draws, one win), and Elijah
Williams in 1851, against whom Staunton won more games but lost the
match because he had given Williams a three-game start. According
to match records collected by Jeremy P. Spinrad, the only players
who were successful against Staunton without receiving odds from
1840 to 1852 were: Saint-Amant, who won their first match in London
in 1843 and lost their second, longer match in Paris the same year;
Anderssen, who eliminated Staunton from the 1851 London
International tournament; and Williams, who beat Staunton in the
play-off for third place in the same tournament. Before 1840
Staunton was still a relative beginner, and after 1851 his health
was too fragile for serious competition. In the late 1840s some UK
commentators wrote that Buckle was stronger, and von der Lasa was
regarded by some as the world's best. Staunton did not play von der
Lasa until 1853, and was forced by ill-health to abandon the match.
In his own time Staunton was regarded as belonging to the "closed"
category of chess players (along with, for example, Philidor and
Jozsef Szin) rather than to the "heroic" category (which included
La Bourdonnais, Morphy and Anderssen) - instead of seeking
immediate combat, Staunton deferred it until he was ready. The
closed English Opening got its name from Staunton's frequent use of
it, especially against Saint-Amant in
1843. However he was noted for the accuracy and incisiveness of his
combinations.
++2.B3 Personality
Staunton's virtues and defects were both on a large scale. Former
World Champion Kasparov commented that Staunton "founded and edited
the magazine Chess Player's Chronicle ... wrote a chess column
(1845-1874), studied opening theory ... published four remarkable
books ... endorsed the famous 'Staunton pieces' ... organized the
first international chess tournament in history ..." However
British International Master William Hartston wrote that Staunton's
many achievements were done "with the full weight of an arrogant
and pompous nature which has scarcely been matched in the history
of the game." Even contemporaries sympathetic to Staunton admitted
that he could be spiteful in response to unexpected
defeats, and to proposals or arguments that he considered ill-
founded or
malicious. Staunton had a highly volatile relationship with George
Walker, the founder of the London Chess Club, a dedicated
popularizer of chess and one of Staunton's earliest supporters.
Staunton's enemies gave as good as they got. Chess journalism could
be a bruising business in those days, even when Staunton was not
involved. However it does seem that Staunton was involved in more
than his fair share of chess disputes. H.J.R. Murray suggested that
these frequent wars of words may have originated from leading
players' and commentators' jealousy over Staunton's unexpected rise
to the top in the early 1840s, and from snobbish disdain about his
humble and possibly illegitimate birth. Saidy and Lessing wrote
that, "He can hardly be blamed if the struggles and privations of
his youth warped his character so that he became a jealous,
suspicious, and vitriolic man."
On the other hand Staunton's often-criticized description of
Anderssen as Germany's second best player, after Anderssen had won
the 1851 London International tournament, may have been reasonable
on the basis of what is now known about von der Lasa's skill.
Staunton was sometimes an objective chess commentator: a large
percentage of his 1860 book Chess Praxis was devoted to Morphy's
games, which he praised highly; and in The Chess-Player's Companion
(1849) Staunton sometimes criticized his own play, and presented a
few of his losses.
Staunton showed excellent management skills in building the team to
organize the London International tournament of 1851, and
determination and resourcefulness in overcoming the difficulties of
getting enough competitors. He also maintained good working
relationships with important players and enthusiasts, for example:
Popert and Cochrane helped him to prepare for his second match
against Saint-Amant; Captain Evans agreed to be one of his seconds
in that match and later helped Staunton to organize the 1845
telegraphic match; the Calcutta Chess Club contributed 100 pounds
Sterling to help finance the London International Tournament in
1851, and in addition its principal officers Cochrane and T.C.
Morton made two of the four largest personal contributions;
Staunton corresponded with von der Lasa for over 30 years, although
they only met once; Staunton's last letter to von der Lasa,
November 1873, expressed his sorrow at the deaths of various
masters and enthusiasts, including Saint-Amant. In conversation
Staunton was charming and witty.
Despite the disappointing way in which his playing career ended,
Staunton continued to write with enthusiasm about the progress of
new technologies, players and developments in chess theory. At the
time of his death his last book, Chess: Theory and Practice, was
sufficiently complete to be published posthumously in 1876, and it
was described as up-to-date fourteen years after his death.
++2.B4 Influence on chess
Staunton proposed and was the principal organizer of the first
international chess tournament, which proved that such events were
possible, and which produced a clear consensus on who was the
world's strongest player - Adolf Anderssen. All subsequent
international tournaments took place in Great Britain until Paris
1867.
Contemporaries, including Steinitz and Morphy, regarded Staunton's
writings on chess openings as among the best of their time. His
Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) immediately became the leading
English-language chess
textbook. It went through twenty-one reprints by 1935, spawned
several imitators, and remained in print (in a revised edition)
until the 1940s. Around 1888 Staunton's Chess: Theory and Practice,
published posthumously in 1876, was regarded as modern in most
respects, but there was a growing need for more up-to-date analysis
of openings. His obituary in The City of London Chess Magazine
said, "... his literary labours are the basis upon which English
Chess Society ... stands".
His play, however, had little influence on other players of the
day. William Hartston explains that, "... his chess understanding
was so far ahead of his time. A deep strategist living in an era
when shallow tactics were still the rule, Staunton's conceptions
could not be assimilated by his contemporaries." Staunton's style
and the openings that accompanied it were eclipsed by the more
directly aggressive styles of Anderssen and Morphy, which dominated
chess from 1851 until Steinitz unveiled his positional approach in
1873.
There is little evidence that Staunton had much direct influence on
modern chess. Although he introduced the English Opening, it has
been called "really a twentieth century invention" that only became
fully respectable after future World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik
began playing it in the 1930s. Similarly, although he was an early
champion of the Sicilian Defense, which is today the most popular
opening, and the most successful response to 1. e4, he seems to
have had little influence on how the Sicilian is played today: he
regarded it as a safe defensive line, while it is now treated as a
vigorous but slightly risky counter-attack. On the other hand,
Raymond Keene wrote that "Taimanov revived some old, forgotten
ideas of Staunton ..." in the Sicilian.
Staunton's "spike" gambit against the Dutch Defense: Staunton and
modern GMs agree that Black gets a good game after 1. d4 f5 2. h3
Nf6 3. g4 d5!
Staunton introduced the Staunton Gambit against the Dutch Defense
(1. d4 f5 2. e4!?). Although it was once a feared attacking line,
it has been out of favor since the mid-1920s, and is thought to
"offer White equality at best". Staunton also analyzed a different
gambit approach to the Dutch, 2. h3 followed by g4. In 1979 Viktor
Korchnoi, one of the world's leading players, successfully
introduced this line into top-class competition, but later
authorities concluded, as Staunton had, that Black gets a good game
with 2. ...N f6 3. g4 d5!
Staunton also advocated the Ponziani Opening 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.
c3, which was often called "Staunton's Opening". It is rarely
played today because it allows Black to choose between a sharp
counter-attack and a safe line that usually leads to a draw.
++2.B5 His other writings
Staunton's edition of Shakespeare's plays was
respected.
++2.C Staunton Memorial Tournament
Every year since 2003 a Howard Staunton Memorial Tournament has
been held at Simpson's-in-the-Strand, London, a restaurant which
Staunton regularly visited in the 19th century to play and discuss
chess (it was then a coffee house known as "The Divan" or
"Simpson's Divan"). The 2008 tournament was the strongest to be
held in London since 1986.
++2.D Notable games
* "John Cochrane vs Howard Staunton, match London 1841".
Staunton calmly focuses on his queenside attack and then
shows that his opponent's kingside attack simply exposed
the white king.
* "John Cochrane vs Howard Staunton, match London 1842".
Cochrane starts an apparently threatening attack while
behind in development; Staunton sacrifices a piece for a
counterattack that leads to a decisive material advantage.
* "Howard Staunton vs Pierre de Saint Amant, match Paris
1843". Staunton develops faster, weakens his opponent's K-
side, creates threats on the queenside and then launches a
mating attack.
* "Pierre de Saint Amant vs Howard Staunton, match Paris
1843". Staunton develops his pieces more effectively in a
closed position. When Saint Amant mistakenly opens the
position, Staunton produces a sacrificial combination that
gives him an easily won endgame.
* "Staunton-Horwitz, match, London 1851, game 7 - English
Opening". Staunton uses a modern-looking formation in the
English Opening, with both Bishops fianchettoed; gains
superior space and mobility; weakens his opponent's
queenside and then kingside; and wins by a brisk attack.
* "Adolf Anderssen vs Howard Staunton, 1857, in London".
Staunton adopts a Hippopotamus formation, opens the center
to start a queenside attack, and uses a couple of small
sacrificial combinations to halt Anderssen's kingside
attack and gain a decisive material advantage.
++2.E Tournament results
1851 London International Tournament
4th - A knockout tournament in which the contestants played
mini-matches in each round, increasing from best-of-three
in the first round to best-of-eight in the final. Staunton
was eliminated in the semi-final (-4 =0 +1) by Adolf
Anderssen, who won the tournament. Staunton was then beaten
by Elijah Williams in the play-off for third place.
1858 Birmingham
A knockout tournament in which the contestants played
three-game mini-matches in each round. Staunton was
eliminated in the second round (-2 =0 +0) by the eventual
runner-up, Johann Jacob Loewenthal.
++2.F Match results
Notes:
1. In some cases it is known who won but not by what score.
2. Books and articles about most players often omit games at
odds. But Staunton gave odds, usually successfully, in his
matches against most UK-based players and most of his
matches were played this way.
3. Odds are indicated in parentheses: "P + 1" means "Pawn and
move", "P + 2" means "Pawn and two moves".
1838 Alexandre
Lost (No odds) London score unknown
1840 Popert
Won (No odds) London 13/21 +8 =2 -3
1841 Stanley
Lost (P + 2) London 2.5/6 +2 =1 -3
1841 Zytogorski
Lost (P + 2) .5/7 +0 =1 -6
1843 Cochrane
Won (No odds) London 14/18 +14 =0 -4 Sources disagree about
how many games should be counted and whether there was more
than one match.
1843 Taverner
Won (P + 2) 5/6
1843 Saint-Amant
Lost (No odds) London 2.5/6 +2 =1 -3
1843 Brooke-Greville
Lost (P + 1) 0/3 +0 =0 -3
1843 Brooke-Greville
Won (P + 2) 5/6 +5 =0 -1
1843 Buckle
Lost (P + 1) London 1/3 +1 =0 -6
1843 Saint-Amant
Won (No odds) Paris 13/21 +11 =4 -6
1844 Tuckett
Won (P + 2) 7.5/9 +7 =1 -1
1845 Tuckett
Won (P + 2) 7.5/9 +7 =1 -1
1845 Mongredien
Won (P + 2) 3.5/5 +2 =3 -0
1845 Spreckley
Won (P + 2) 3.5/5 +3 =1 -1
1845 Williams
Won (P + 2) 3.5/4 +3 =1 -0
1845 Kennedy
Won (P + 2) 8.5/11 +7 =2 -2
1846 Horwitz
Won (No odds) London 15.5/24 +14 =3 -7
1846 Hannah
Won (Queenside Knight) 5.5/8 +5 =1 -2
1846 Daniel Harrwitz
Won (No odds) London 7/7 +7 =0 -1 The three Harrwitz
matches may have been one complicated contest.
1846 Daniel Harrwitz
Won (P + 1) London 1.5/8 +1 =1 -6 The three Harrwitz
matches may have been one complicated contest.
1846 Daniel Harrwitz
Lost (P + 2) London 4/7 +4 =0 -3 The three Harrwitz matches
may have been one complicated contest.
1847 Kenny
Drawn (Queenside Rook) 2/4 +2 =0 -2
1847 Loewe
Lost (P + 2) 2/7 +1 =2 -4
1847 Medley
Won (P + 2) 7.5/10 +6 =3 -1
1851 Carl Jaenisch
Won none London 7.5/10 +7 =1 -2
1851 Elijah Williams
Lost none London 7.5/13 +6 =3 -4 Although Staunton won more
games, he lost the match because he had given Williams a
three-game start.
1853 von der Lasa
Lost (No odds) Brussels 5.5/12 +4 =4 -5 von der Lasa's
account presents this as just a long series of games while
the players were in the same place. Abandoned due to
Staunton's illness.
1854 Brien
Result unknown (P + 2)
1859 Worrall
Won (Queenside Knight) 7.5/10 +6 =3 -1
++3. Saint-Amant-Staunton Paris 1843, Round 13
Saint-Amant-Staunton Match, Paris 1843, Round 13
White: Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant
Black: Howard Staunton
Result: 1-0
ECO: D40 - Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch Variation,
Symmetrical Variation
Notes by R.J. Macdonald
1. d4 e6
2. c4 d5
3. e3 Nf6
4. Nc3 c5
(This line is known as the Semi-Tarrasch Variation.)
5. Nf3 Nc6
(Now we have the Symmetrical Variation.)
6. a3
(More usual is the Exchange Variation with 6. cxd5. Also possible
for white are (a) 6. Be2 dxc4 7. 0-0 Be7 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. Bxc4 Qxc5
10. Qe2 0-0 11. Rd1 Rd8 12. Rxd8+ Bxd8 13. Bd2; and (b) 6. Bd3 dxc4
7. Bxc4 Be7 8. 0-0 0-0 9. dxc5 Bxc5 10. Qc2 Bd7 11. Rd1 Qe7 12.
Bd2. In all three variations both sides have equal chances.)
6. ... Be7
(This move gives white a slight advantage. Black can equalize with
either (a) 6. ... cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. c5 b6 9. b4 bxc5 10. dxc5 0-0
11. Bb5 Bb7 12. 0-0 Ne4; or (b) 6. ... a6 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Be2 cxd4
9. exd4 h6 10. Bf4 Bd6 11. Be5 0-0 12. 0-0 Re8 13. Bxf6.)
7. Bd3
(This allows black to equalize. Better is 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. b4 Be7 9.
Bb2 0-0 10. Bd3 dxc4 11. Bxc4 Bd7 12. 0-0 Rc8 13. Bd3 g6 14. b5 Na5
15. Ne5, with a slight edge for white.)
7. ... 0-0
8. 0-0 b6
9. b3
(Also possible is 9. dxc5 bxc5 10. Re1 dxc4 11. Bxc4 Na5 12. Be2
Qxd1 13. Rxd1 Bb7 14. Bd2 Nb3 15. Rab1 Rad8 16. Be1 Bd6 17. Bc4,
leading to equality. The text move also equalizes.)
9. ... Bb7
10. cxd5 exd5?
(Better is 10. ... Nxd5 11. Nxd5 Qxd5 12. Qc2 Na5 13. b4 Nb3 14.
Rb1 Nxc1 15. Rbxc1 cxd4 16. Rfd1 Rac8 17. Bc4 Qh5, with a slight
advantage for black. The text move offers a slight edge for white.)
11. Bb2 cxd4
12. exd4 Bd6
13. Re1 a6
14. Rc1
(White has a number of better choices that give white a slight
advantage: (a) 14. Na4 Rc8 15. Ne5 Re8 16. Rc1 b5 17. Nc5 Nxe5 18.
dxe5 Rxc5 19. Rxc5 Bxc5 20. exf6 Rxe1+; (b) 14. Ne5 Rc8 15. Na4 Re8
16. Rc1 b5 17. Nc5 Nxe5 18. dxe5 Rxc5 19. Rxc5 Bxc5 20. exf6 Rxe1+;
or (c) 14. Bc2 Rc8 15. Qd3 Na5 16. Ne5 g6 17. Rac1 Re8 18. Qd2 Ne4
19. Nxe4 dxe4 20. Bxe4.)
14. ... Rc8
(Perhaps a bit better is 14. ... b5 15. Ne5 Rc8 16. a4 Nxd4 17.
Bxh7+ Kxh7 18. Qxd4 bxa4 19. Nxa4 Rxc1 20. Rxc1 Qe7 21. Nc5 Re8,
with a slight edge for white. The text move also gives white a
slight advantage.)
15. Rc2
(Better is 15. Na4 Ne4 16. Ne5 Re8 17. f3 Nxe5 18. dxe5 Rxc1 19.
Qxc1 Nc5 20. Nxc5 Bxc5+ 21. Kh1 a5 22. Qf4, giving white a slight
advantage.)
15. ... Rc7
(15. ... b5 16. b4 Re8 17. Rxe8+ Qxe8 18. Re2 Qd8 19. h3 Rc7 20.
Bc2 Re7 21. Bb3 g6 leads to an even position.)
16. Rce2
(16. Na4 h6 gives white a slight advantage.)
16. ... Qc8
(16. ... b5 17. b4 gives equality.)
17. h3
(This prevents an intrusion on g4. 17. b4 b5 is slightly better for
white.)
17. ... Nd8
(Better is 17. ... b5 18. b4 with equality.)
18. Qd2
(18. Na4 Qb8 is slightly better for white.)
18. ... b5
(White stands slightly better.)
19. b4 Ne6
20. Bf5 Ne4
(20. ... Re7!? gives an equal position.)
21. Nxe4
(White now has a moderate advantage. Inferior is 21. Bxe4 dxe4 22.
Rxe4 Bxe4 23. Rxe4 f5, with a moderate advantage for black.)
21. ... dxe4
22. d5
(22. Bxe4? doesn't solve anything: 22. ... Bxe4 23. Rxe4 Rc2 is
decisive for black.)
22. ... exf3?
(Better is 22. ... Bf4, which would be a reprieve: 23. Qd1 exf3 24.
Rxe6 Qd8 with a moderate advantage for white.)
Key Move Diagram:
2q2rk1/
1br2ppp/
p2bn3/
1p1P1B2/
1P6/
P4p1P/
1B1QRPP1/
4R1K1
Position after black's 22nd move.
23. Rxe6!
(this gives white a decisive advantage. 23. dxe6?! fxe2 24. exf7+
Rcxf7 25. Bxc8 Rxf2 26. Be6+ Kh8 27. Qxe2 Rxe2 28. Rxe2 Re8 gives
equality.)
23. ... Qd8
(23. ... fxe6 does not win a prize after 24. Bxe6+ Rff7 25. Bxc8
Rxc8 26. Be5 Bxe5 27. Rxe5 fxg2 28. Qe1, with a decisive advantage
for white. Of course not 23. ... fxe6 24. Bxe6+, winning the
queen.)
Key Move Diagram:
3q1rk1/
1br2ppp/
p2bR3/
1p1P1B2/
1P6/
P4p1P/
1B1Q1PP1/
4R1K1
Position after black's 23rd move.
24. Bf6!! gxf6
(24. ... fxe6 is a last effort to resist the inevitable: 25. Bxe6+
Kh8 26. Bxd8 Rxd8 27. gxf3 Re7, with a decisive advantage for
white.)
Key Move Diagram:
3q1rk1/
1br2p1p/
p2bRp2/
1p1P1B2/
1P6/
P4p1P/
3Q1PP1/
4R1K1
Position after black's 24th move.
25. Rxd6!
(Mate attack)
25. ... Kg7
(If 25. ... Qxd6, 26. Qh6 forces mate. Black could resign here.)
26. Rxd8 Rxd8
27. Be4
(27. Qf4 Rc4 28. Qg3+ Kh8 29. Qxf3 Kg7 30. Qg3+ Kh8, with a
decisive advantage for white.)
27. ... fxg2
(27. ... Rcd7 is not much help in view of 28. Qf4 Bxd5 29. Qg3+ Kf8
30. Bxh7, with a decisive advantage for white.)
28. Qf4
(28. Re3 seems even better: 28. ... Kf8 29. Rg3, with a decisive
advantage for white.)
28. ... Rc4
(28. ... Re7 29. Re3 Rxe4 30. Rg3+ Kf8 31. Qxe4 Rxd5 gives white a
decisive advantage.)
29. Qg4+
(29. Qg3+ Kh8 30. Qh4 f5 31. Qxd8+ Kg7 32. Qg5+ Kf8 33. Qh6+ Kg8
34. Bxf5 Re4 35. Rxe4 Bc6 36. Qxh7+ Kf8 37. Qh8#)
29. ... Kf8
30. Qh5 Ke7
(30. ... Ke8 does not save the day: 31. Bf5+ Re4 32. Rxe4+ Kf8 33.
Qxh7 Bxd5 34. Qh8#)
Key Move Diagram:
3r4/
1b2kp1p/
p4p2/
1p1P3Q/
1Pr1B3/
P6P/
5Pp1/
4R1K1
Position after black's 30th move.
31. d6+
(White could win a bit faster with 31. Bf5+.)
31. ... Kxd6
(If 31. ... Rxd6 32. Bd5+ Kd8 33. Qxf7 Rd7 34. Qxf6+ Kc7 35. Bxc4
Bc6 36. Be6 Rd3 37. Bf5 Rd5 38. Rc1 Rxf5; Or if 31. ... Kxd6 32.
Bxb7 Rd7 33. Bxa6 h6 34. Rd1+ Ke6 35. Qe2+ Kf5 36. Rxd7 Kg6 37.
Bxb5 Rc1+ 38. Kxg2 f5. Any other move leads to a quick mate.)
32. Bxb7 Kc7
(32. ... Rd7 doesn't get the bull off the ice: 33. Bxa6 Rc3 34. Qf5
Kc7 35. Qxb5 h6 36. Qb7+ Kd6 37. Rd1+ Ke5 38. Qxd7 Rc1 39. Rxc1 h5
40. Rc5+ Ke4 41. Rd5 Kf3 42. Qf5#)
33. Bxa6 Rc3
(33. ... Rc2 is no salvation.: 34. Qxb5 Rd7 35. Qb7+ Kd6 36. Rd1+
Rd2 37. Rxd2+ Ke7 38. Rxd7+ Kf8 39. Qd5 Kg7 40. Qxf7+ Kh6 41. Qxf6+
Kh5 42. Rxh7#)
34. Qxb5
(Black resigned.)
1-0
==========
The blind-chess mailing list
View list information and change your settings: //www.freelists.org/list/blind-chess
List archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/blind-chess
=========
Other related posts:
- » [blind-chess] Annotated Game #20: Pierre Saint-Amant - Howard Staunton, Paris 1843 - Roderick Macdonald
