Howard Staunton to be recognized as an official World Champion by WCF
world chess federation
the WCF World Chess Championships on December 1st, 2009 at the Riviera
Hotel in Las Vegas recognize Howard Staunton as an official WCF World
Chess Champion. The WCF will present a plaque to the Howard Staunton
Society (GM Raymond Keene is President of this society) recognizing
Howard Staunton as official WCF World Chess Champion for 1843-1845 as
a result of his first to 11 wins , draws not counting match victory
over St. Amant. Staunton is also recognized for his contribution of
the standard Staunton pieces used throughout the world today.
The World Chess Federation, Inc (WCF) will, due to a special
agreement with sponsor International Capital Consulting, grant FREE
ENTRY into the upcoming WCF World Chess Championship Qualifying
Tournament (Reuben Fine Memorial) that will be held December 1-13
Entry forms are at the Tournament registration page at www.americanchessassociation.org
and reservation details Use group name World Chess are also available
at the same site regarding the special $39 room rates being offered.
And, due to an additional sponsor, players have a chance to compete
for free for $163,200 in prizes in stage 1, $1,280,000 in prizes in
Stage 2 and a chance to qualify into play for a 6 million WCF title
match. WCF expects this to possibly be the biggest chess tournament in
history.
Offramp
<wcfworldchesschamp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The World Chess Federation will at the upcoming opening ceremonies for
> the WCF World Chess Championships on December 1st, 2009 at the Riviera
> Hotel in Las Vegas recognize Howard Staunton as an official WCF World
> Chess Champion.
I have been in astral contact with Mr Staunton and he said he is very
pleased.
The Masked Bishop
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer next.
Maroons...
Taylor Kingston
What about Anderssen, Labourdonnais, Philidor, Greco, Ruy Lopez, al-
Lajlaj and as-Suli, to name but a few?
ChessFire
wrote:
> On Nov 20, 7:52 pm, world chess federation
> What about Anderssen, Labourdonnais, Philidor, Greco, Ruy Lopez, al-
> Lajlaj and as-Suli, to name but a few?
I agree. On the one hand I suppose Staunton gets credit for really
generating the modern scientific game in England, and making it a
widespread event in the culture, as differentiated from the 'game of
manners' as Eales puts it.
On the other hand Staunton ducked Morphy, who was clearly superior to
Staunton, so wherefore W CH Staunton?
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
Staunton's prime came well before the rise of Morphy. Although it's
hard to be sure due to the lack of regular, organized competition back
then, there was a period, circa 1843-48, and perhaps into 1851, when a
good case could be made that Staunton was the best player in the
world. In April-May 1843 he narrowly lost a brief match to Saint-Amant
+3 -2 =1, but in November-December 1843 he won convincingly +11 -6 =4.
Since Saint-Amant was considered the successor to Labourdonnais,
Staunton's win led many to regard the Englishman as the world's best.
Staunton had continued success in the following years, winning
matches against Tuckett, Mongredien, Spreckley, Williams and Kennedy,
in all of which he gave odds of pawn and two. Most impressive were his
wins at even strength against Bernard Horwitz (+14 -7 =3) and Daniel
Harrwitz (7-0) in 1846. In contrast, Anderssen could only tie against
Harrwitz 5-5 in 1848.
After 1848 Staunton played relatively little, and might have retired
from serious chess altogether had he not been called on to organized
the London 1851 tournament. There, of course, Anderssen knocked him
out in the 3rd round and eventually won the tournament, and thus came
to be considered the world's best from then on. However, Staunton's
match win over Jaenisch (+7 -2 =1 in 1851) and his narrow loss to von
der Lasa (+4 -5 =3 in 1853) show that he could still play well after
that.
Morphy did not make his mark in Europe until 1858, and thus had no
bearing on Staunton's status as #1 ten to fifteen years earlier.
world chess federation
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
LaBourdonnais, Philidor, Greco, Ruy Lopez all recognized as Modern
Chess WCF World Chess Champions at the website, among others
ChessFire
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:52 am, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 11:59 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 20, 7:52 pm, world chess federation
> > > What about Anderssen, Labourdonnais, Philidor, Greco, Ruy Lopez, al-
> > > Lajlaj and as-Suli, to name but a few?
>
> > I agree. On the one hand I suppose Staunton gets credit for really
> > generating the modern scientific game in England, and making it a
> > widespread event in the culture, as differentiated from the 'game of
> > manners' as Eales puts it.
>
> > On the other hand Staunton ducked Morphy, who was clearly superior to
> > Staunton, so wherefore W CH Staunton?
>
> Staunton's prime came well before the rise of Morphy. Although it's
> hard to be sure due to the lack of regular, organized competition back
> then, there was a period, circa 1843-48, and perhaps into 1851, when a
> good case could be made that Staunton was the best player in the
> world.
In England or in London v Paris anyway.
Latterly Paris became the chief centre of chess for a few seasons,
then to Berlin and to Budapest. The point is that Staunton initiated
the /public/ game to the masses, and was massively successful in doing
so.
> In April-May 1843 he narrowly lost a brief match to Saint-Amant
> +3 -2 =1, but in November-December 1843 he won convincingly +11 -6 =4.
> Since Saint-Amant was considered the successor to Labourdonnais,
> Staunton's win led many to regard the Englishman as the world's best.
That is, the Euro-centric world, but your point acknowledged, even if
by one match won one match lost.
> Staunton had continued success in the following years, winning
> matches against Tuckett, Mongredien, Spreckley, Williams and Kennedy,
> in all of which he gave odds of pawn and two. Most impressive were his
> wins at even strength against Bernard Horwitz (+14 -7 =3) and Daniel
> Harrwitz (7-0) in 1846. In contrast, Anderssen could only tie against
> Harrwitz 5-5 in 1848.
yet it needs to be mentioned that Staunton's Greatest Games was never
published, since [see Winter] it seemed to annotators that opponents
lost more than Staunton won.
The relative level of these games if you play over them would
embarrass an "A expert".
The thing of it is, was Staunton more than a strong expert, maybe a
master?
It is interesting to establish his strength in current terms, since if
he was not more than 2100, then Morphy who he didn't play can be no
more than... ? 2300? You see why claims of Morphy being 2500 in
retrospective analysis seems to be absent of any evidence that he
could score 9/10 against a 2200?
2100 was probably good enough to beat all of England, and any Paris
school. And I do not dispute the idea that Staunton may have pre-
Morphy been the best in the world, but instead say he was an
insufficiently tested best. And certainly not best when Morphy got
lose in London and Paris.
> After 1848 Staunton played relatively little, and might have retired
> from serious chess altogether had he not been called on to organized
> the London 1851 tournament. There, of course, Anderssen knocked him
> out in the 3rd round and eventually won the tournament, and thus came
> to be considered the world's best from then on. However, Staunton's
> match win over Jaenisch (+7 -2 =1 in 1851) and his narrow loss to von
> der Lasa (+4 -5 =3 in 1853) show that he could still play well after
> that.
> Morphy did not make his mark in Europe until 1858, and thus had no
> bearing on Staunton's status as #1 ten to fifteen years earlier.
So Staunton won some and lost some in the decade before Morphy, and is
therefore worthy or unworthy of a W Ch title, without actually playing
for such, and elsewhere achieved equivocal results?
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
>
> The thing of it is, was Staunton more than a strong expert, maybe a
> master?
That's a separate issue from his status as the world's best circa
1843-48. As far as his relative rank in the world goes, he could be a
C-player by today's standards and still be #1, if everyone else was
class D or worse.
> So Staunton won some and lost some in the decade before Morphy, and is
> therefore worthy or unworthy of a W Ch title, without actually playing
> for such, and elsewhere achieved equivocal results?
Don't expect me to be a big defender of Staunton, Phil; he's
definitely not among my favorites in chess history. But one must give
him his due. As far as "actually playing" for "a WCh title," neither
Staunton nor anyone else — not Morphy, nor Philidor, Labourdonnais,
McDonnell, Saint-Amant, von der Lasa, Anderssen etc. — did so
officially until the Steinitz-Zukertort match of 1886. We can hardly
fault Staunton for failing to compete for a title that did not exist
in his lifetime.
But based on what competitions there were, one can determine with
reasonable confidence that some players were better than others at
certain times. And for the period 1843-1848, it's hard to argue that
anyone had a better record than Staunton. If you have valid data
showing that someone did, by all means present it here. Perhaps you
could establish your own version of the WCF and declare your alternate
World Champion(s) for various periods.
Given the fact that you didn't even realize Staunton's prime came
when Morphy was just six years old, I would say you first need to do a
good deal of reading just to familiarize yourself with the basic
facts, let alone devise a credible case for someone else.
Mike Murray
Fischer's opinion of Staunton was quite high, as I remember.
Taylor Kingston
>
> Fischer's opinion of Staunton was quite high, as I remember.
Yes. This is what Fischer wrote in an article titled "The Ten
Greatest Masters in History" in a 1964 issue of CHESSWORLD:
"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. Playing over his games, I discover that they are
completely modern; where Morphy and Steinitz rejected the fianchetto,
Staunton embraced it. In addition, he understood all the positional
concepts which modern players hold so dear, and thus — with Steinitz —
must be considered the first modern player.
"Staunton appears to have been afraid to meet Morphy and I think his
fears were well-founded. Morphy would have beaten him, but it wouldn't
have been the one-sided encounter than many writers now think it
would. It would have been a great struggle."
parrt...@cs.com
FISCHER'S 10 BEST LIST
Bobby’s opinions about the game have provoked as much controversy as
his exploits over the board. For example, the brouhaha occasioned by
his selection of Morphy, Staunton, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Tchigorin,
Alekhine, Capablanca, Spassky, Tal and Reshevsky as the ten greatest
chess players of all time. This list appeared in the first issue of
the now defunct Chessworld, which noted:
"In naming the ten greatest masters in the history of chess, Bobby
(who, in the editor’s opinion, belongs in the list himself ) gives
decisive significance to the quality
of their play, not to their successes and results. This may explain
the exclusion from the list of such players as Lasker, Botvinnik, and
others."
That Bobby considered Staunton, for example, as stronger than either
Lasker or Botvinnik, was curious indeed. He justified his choice
saying, "Just because a man was champion for many years doesn’t mean
that he was a great chessplayer, just as we wouldn’t necessarily call
a ruler of a country great just because he was in power for a long
time."
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans
Taylor Kingston
I quite agree that some of Fischer's choices were dubious. To rate
Tarrasch above Lasker was absurd, for example, and I can hardly credit
Staunton as one of the top ten of all time. But Fischer's saying "he
was the strongest player of his day" seems quite reasonable, if by
"his day" we mean late 1843 to 1848 or thereabouts.
raylopez99
wrote:
> What about Anderssen, Labourdonnais, Philidor, Greco, Ray Lopez, al-
> Lajlaj and as-Suli, to name but a few?
Well, modesty aside, I'm not that strong to be fetted. I'm about as
strong as you, TK.
RL
raylopez99
wrote:
> > The thing of it is, was Staunton more than a strong expert, maybe a
> > master?
>
> That's a separate issue from his status as the world's best circa
> 1843-48. As far as his relative rank in the world goes, he could be a
> C-player by today's standards and still be #1, if everyone else was
> class D or worse.
Rating inflation offset by an expanding pyramid. Pile of sand grows
larger, that sort of thing. Hence Kasparov > Karpov > Fischer.
Though for longivity, nobody beats Lasker.
It's in Arpad Elo's book, if you care to read it.
You kan reed kan't you TK?
RL
Offramp
> On Nov 22, 5:42 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> Though for longivity, nobody beats Lasker.
Perhaps not, But for longevity, Kortschnoi beats Lasker. Or are you
talking just about world champs?
RayLopez99
Yes, I was talking about world champs. Also if you look at the Jonas
Elo site you'll see Lasker was at the top longer than anybody. But
Kortchnoi is also in second place, like you say.
RL
madams
------
Don't 'fett' the troll, 'ees in 'is knoll surrounded by fungular-things,
reading/reading/reading - understanding nothink ........................
______
Matt Nemmers
Discussing CHESS on RGCP??? I thought that was considered off-topic
here now.