Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook
samsloan
The name “Staunton” has become so closely associated with chess that
the words have become virtually synonymous. All modern tournament
chess games are required to be played with Staunton chess pieces. The
First International Chess Tournament, London 1851, was organized by
Staunton. The leading distributor of chess books and equipment in the
USA has taken the name “House of Staunton”. Howard Staunton was the
leading popularizer of the game of chess though his authorship of many
chess publications, including this book, “The Chess Player's Handbook”
by Howard Staunton, or “Staunton's Chess-Player's Handbook”.
This Handbook was the leading and most authoritative reference to the
game of chess for a half a century. It is still popular today, as
evidenced by perhaps 30 re-printings, including this one.
Staunton is a controversial personality in the history of chess. He is
best known for his refusal to play Paul Morphy during 1858-1959, when
Morphy came to Europe. This in itself was strange. All commentators
agree that Staunton in 1858 would have been no match for Morphy.
Morphy would have defeated Staunton easily. Thus, the real question
is: Why was Morphy so insistent on wanting to play Staunton?
Perhaps the answer is this Handbook. Morphy was thoroughly familiar
with all chess literature. He was what we call today, “Booked-up”. He
must have studied this book and perhaps he had worked out ways to play
lines advocated in this book. Also, he may have had a hero-worshiping
relationship with Staunton. Staunton was the leading writer on the
game of chess so naturally Morphy would have wanted to meet and play
him.
Frederick Edge, Morphy's principal biographer who accompanied Morphy
on much of his tour of Europe, wrote about Staunton's refusal to play
Morphy. Perhaps Edge was exaggerating the issue.
On the other hand, it was partly Morphy's fault that he failed to play
Staunton. Both were entered to play in the tournament at Birmingham
1858. However, Morphy withdrew and did not play. Staunton was
eliminated when he lost to Lowenthal by 2-0. Staunton obviously must
have realized that he was off his game and that he would have no
change against Morphy, who had defeated Lowenthal when he was only 13
years old.
Staunton was controversial in other ways as well. He was born
illegitimate. His dates are listed as 1810-22 June 1874. This is
because his date of death is known to have been June 22, 1874, but his
date of birth is only estimated to have been 1810. No record has been
found of his birth, although birth records were maintained at that
time. Nobody seems to know where the name “Howard Staunton” came from.
Staunton was born in 1810, reputedly the natural son of Frederick
Howard, fifth Earl of Carlisle. This seems to explain where the name
“Howard” came from. Where the name Staunton came from is a mystery,
but it is likely that he just gave himself that name.
Staunton had little or no formal education, yet he became a noted
Shakespearean scholar. Prior to Staunton, the leading authority on
Shakespeare was Thomas Bowdler, who was the author of “The Family
Shakespeare”. It is a surprising coincidence that Bowdler was also a
chess player who played many recorded games against Philidor.
This question has never previously been mentioned, but perhaps
Staunton met Bowdler or was influenced by him. Thomas Bowdler was born
1 July 1754 and died 24 February 1825, so there is a possibility that
they met.
Another controversy concerns whether Staunton was entitled to be
called “World Champion”. The claim that he was World Champion was
based on his defeat of Saint Amant, a leading French player, in 1843.
Many writers have concluded that those games were not of world
championship caliber. However, Bobby Fischer opined “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 must be considered the first modern
player.”
Staunton played such openings as the Sicilian Defense and the Queens
Gambit in the modern style, while the other leading players were still
bashing each other with King's Gambits. Here is the concluding game of
Staunton's match with Saint Amant, which is considered to be
Staunton's best game of the matches. One of the remarkable things
about this game is it lasted 14 hours. As chess clocks has not yet
been invented, the players could take as long as they wanted for a
move. There was no need for sealed move envelopes, again because there
were no time clocks.
[Site "Paris"]
[Date "1843.12.19-20"]
[Round "21"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Saint Amant"]
[Black "Howard Staunton"]
[ECO "D30"]
[PlyCount "132"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.e3 c5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Bd3 b6 7.O-O O-O 8.b3
Bb7 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Qc2 Nc6 11.a3 a6 12.Rd1 cxd4 13.exd4 h6 14.b4 Bd6
15.Re1 b5 16.h3 Rc8 17.Qb3 Qc7 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Be3 Ne7 20.Rac1 Nh5
21.Qd1 Nf6 22.Nh4 Rc7 23.Qd2 Nh7 24.Qc2 Nf6 25.Kh1 Ne8 26.Nf5 Nxf5
27.Bxf5 a5 28.Qb3 axb4 29.axb4 Rc4 30.Na2 Nf6 31.Bd3 Qc6 32.Qb2 Qd7
33.Kg1 Nh5 34.Qd2 f5 35.f4 Ng3 36.Bxc4 dxc4 37.Qb2 Rf6 38.Nc3 Ne4
39.Re2 Rg6 40.Rd1 Nxc3 41.Qxc3 Bf3 42.Rde1 Bxe2 43.Rxe2 Qe7 44.Qb2 Re6
45.Kf2 Re4 46.Qa2 Kf7 47.g3 Qb7 48.Qa3 Re8 49.Qc3 Qh1 50.h4 g5 51.Qe1
Qh2+ 52.Kf1 Qh3+ 53.Kg1 Qg4 54.hxg5 Bxf4 55.Bxf4 Qxe2 56.Qxe2 Rxe2
57.gxh6 c3 58.Kf1 Re4 59.Bc1 Kg6 60.d5 c2 61.Bd2 Rxb4 62.d6 Rd4 63.Ke2
Rxd6 64.Ke3 Kxh6 65.Ke2 Kg6 66.Ke1 b4 0-1
XABCDEFGHY
8-+-+-+-+(
7+-+-+-+-'
6-+-tr-+k+&
5+-+-+p+-%
4-zp-+-+-+$
3+-+-+-zP-#
2-+pvL-+-+"
1+-+-mK-+-!
xabcdefghy
This game certainly looks like a game played in the modern style in
the Queens Gambit Declined, Tarrasch Defense. However, one should also
look at the opening in this, another game:
[Site "Paris]
[Date "1843.03"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Howard Staunton"]
[Black "Saint Amant"]
[ECO "A34"]
[PlyCount "93"]
1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 f5 3.e4 d6 4.Bd3 e6 5.exf5 exf5 6.Nh3 Nf6
XABCDEFGHY
8rsnlwqkvl-tr(
7zpp+-+-zpp'
6-+-zp-sn-+&
5+-zp-+p+-%
4-+P+-+-+$
3+-sNL+-+N#
2PzP-zP-zPPzP"
1tR-vLQmK-+R!
xabcdefghy
Just the first few moves of this game are presented here as the rest
of the game is unspeakably terrible. Somehow, this game is left out of
most collections of Staunton's games, even though he won it.
Perhaps Morphy had this game in mind when described Staunton as the
author of "some devilish bad games"
Here is another amazing game. This game is amazing because of its
length. This game lasted 18 hours. Again, there were no time clocks
and no need for sealed moves.
[Event "London"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "1857.08.06-07"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Adolf Anderssen & Allies"]
[Black "Howard Staunton & Allies"]
[ECO "C00"]
[PlyCount "106"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 g6 3.Be3 Bg7 4.Nd2 Ne7 5.Bd3 b6 6.Ne2 Bb7 7.O-O d6 8.c3
Nd7 9.Qb3 O-O 10.f4 d5 11.e5 Rb8 12.Rac1 c5 13.Qa3 c4 14.Bc2 a6 15.g4
b5 16.Ng3 Re8 17.b4 cxb3 18.axb3 Rc8 19.Bd3 Qb6 20.Qb2 f6 21.Rce1 Qc6
22.Nb1 fxe5 23.fxe5 Bxe5 24.dxe5 Nxe5 25.Bc2 Rf8 26.Bg5 Nf3+ 27.Rxf3
Rxf3 28.Bd1 Qc5+ 29.Kg2 Rf7 30.Kh3 Qd6 31.Qe2 Rc6 32.Qe3 Bc8 33.Kg2
Rc7 34.b4 Nc6 35.Qd2 Rcd7 36.Bb3 Ne5 37.Bf4 Rxf4 38.Qxf4 Nd3 39.Qe3
Nxe1+ 40.Qxe1 Rc7 41.Qe3 Kg7 42.Nd2 e5 43.Qg5 Qe7 44.Nh5+ Kh8 45.Nf6
Bb7 46.Kg1 Rxc3 47.h4 Kg7 48.Nh5+ Kf7 49.Qh6 Ke8 50.Ng7+ Kd7 51.Qxh7
Rg3+ 52.Kf2 Rxg4 53.Ke2 Rg2+ 0-1
XABCDEFGHY
8-+-+-+-+(
7+l+kwq-sNQ'
6p+-+-+p+&
5+p+pzp-+-%
4-zP-+-+-zP$
3+L+-+-+-#
2-+-sNK+r+"
1+-+-+-+-!
xabcdefghy
It seems surprising that White resigned this position. After playing
for 18 hours, why not play a few hours more? Of course, with best
play, White is lost but there are likely a number of chances to
blunder in this polition.
The final nail in the coffin of the claim that Staunton deliberately
avoided playing Morphy is this game, that is one of two consultation
games played by Staunton against Morphy. This game features a wild
opening. It appears that Staunton and his partner were winning but
missed several of the best moves.
[Event "London"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Staunton / Owen"]
[Black "Morphy / Barnes"]
[ECO "C41"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "68"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 6.e6 Nh6 7.Nc3 c6
8.Ngxe4 dxe4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qe5 Rg8 11.Bxh6 Bxh6 12.Rd1 Qg5 13.Qc7 Bxe6
14.Qxb7 e3 15.f3 Qe7 16.Qxa8 Kf7 17.Ne4 Bf4 18.Be2 Kg7 19.O-O Qc7
20.Nc5 Bxh2+ 21.Kh1 Bc8 22.Rd4 Bg3 23.Re4 Kh8 24.Rd1 Qg7 25.Rh4 Bxh4
26.Qxb8 Ba6 27.Qh2 Bxe2 28.Rd7 Qh6 29.Ne4 Bc4 30.Nf6 e2 31.Re7 Qc1+
32.Qg1 Qxg1+ 33.Kxg1 e1=Q+ 34.Rxe1 Bxe1 0-1
XABCDEFGHY
8-+-+-+rmk(
7zp-+-+-+p'
6-+p+-sNp+&
5+-+-+-+-%
4-+l+-+-+$
3+-+-+P+-#
2PzPP+-+P+"
1+-+-vl-mK-!
xabcdefghy
In this game, the Staunton team seems to have missed several wins. For
example, White could have played 11. Bg5 in which case the reply of
Bg7 was forced. Also, 23. Re4 was a week move. Even with all these
mistakes, White seemed to be winning almost until the very end.
The above was also one of the last recorded games that Staunton ever
played in his life.
The great accomplishment for which Staunton is best remembered today
are his chess men, which set the world standard today. Staunton did
not design the chess pieces. The designer, Nathaniel Cook, registered
the design in 1849. Jaques of London obtained the manufacturing rights
and brought them to Staunton for his endorsement. Staunton was so
enthusiastic about them that he not only endorsed them but he
personally signed every box of chess pieces that were sold. To this
very day, the manufacturer of the chess pieces is Jaques of London and
every box carries the signature of Howard Staunton on it.
Sam Sloan
New York
November 2, 2009
ISBN 4-87187-821-X
978-4-87187-821-0
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=487187821X
Offramp
> Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook
>
> The name “Staunton” has become so closely associated with chess that
> the words have become virtually synonymous.
Would anyone here like a game of staunton? Has anyone seen Staunton:
The Musical? Snooker is like a game of staunton with balls. Chuck
Berry started off at Staunton Records. I sometimes play hexagonal
staunton. He is a pushover.
Who in his right mind would read Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook
nowadays? What is there of any interest to a 21st Century boy? Apart
from the massively passé concepts there is the mediaeval notation to
deal with:
12...The King's Knight he hieth he unto the fifth case of the King's
Bishop, and after long battle he annihilateth the Pawn belong Bishop
of the Opposing Syde. All that shit. Who needs it?
Taylor Kingston
Also, if someone does want the book, why buy Sloan's cruddy reprint
when hardcover copies are available for as little as $1.80?
And paperback for a mere dollar:
samsloan
wrote:
> On Nov 2, 10:31 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 Nov, 04:24, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook
>
> > > The name “Staunton” has become so closely associated with chess that
> > > the words have become virtually synonymous.
>
> > Would anyone here like a game of staunton? Has anyone seen Staunton:
> > The Musical? Snooker is like a game of staunton with balls. Chuck
> > Berry started off at Staunton Records. I sometimes play hexagonal
> > staunton. He is a pushover.
>
> > Who in his right mind would read Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook
> > nowadays? What is there of any interest to a 21st Century boy? Apart
> > from the massively passé concepts there is the mediaeval notation to
> > deal with:
> > 12...The King's Knight he hieth he unto the fifth case of the King's
> > Bishop, and after long battle he annihilateth the Pawn belong Bishop
> > of the Opposing Syde. All that shit. Who needs it?
>
> Also, if someone does want the book, why buy Sloan's cruddy reprint
> when hardcover copies are available for as little as $1.80?
>
>
> And paperback for a mere dollar:
>
Taylor Kingston is mistaken as usual.
That is the "American Chess Players Handbook" based on Staunton's
Chess-Players Handbook. The American Chess Players Handbook is only
238 pages, less than half the size of the original book by Staunton.
It is true however that the original Chess-Players Handbook has been
reprinted many many times and there are a lot of cheap used copies
around. However, there are still a few people who would rather by a
new book than a 70-year old used book.
Let me ask you: Would you give an old used book for a Christmas
Present?
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
> On Nov 2, 12:28 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Also, if someone does want the book, why buy Sloan's cruddy reprint
> > when hardcover copies are available for as little as $1.80?
>
> >http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=staunton&bi=h&bx=off...
>
> > And paperback for a mere dollar:
>
> >http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=staunton&sts=t&tn=ch...
>
> Taylor Kingston is mistaken as usual.
>
> That is the "American Chess Players Handbook" based on Staunton's
> Chess-Players Handbook. The American Chess Players Handbook is only
> 238 pages, less than half the size of the original book by Staunton.
No, Sam. While some on those lists are the "American" version, there
are plenty of cheap copies of the original 1847 Handbook. Not all are
equally cheap, but they're none too expensive either. And the
cheapest, just $1.00, is practically new.
> It is true however that the original Chess-Players Handbook has been
> reprinted many many times and there are a lot of cheap used copies
> around. However, there are still a few people who would rather by a
> new book than a 70-year old used book.
Where do you get this "70-year" bullshit? Most of those listed are
recent reprints, just like your ripoff edition will be. My own copy,
purchased a few years ago for purposes of historical reference, is a
like-new 1989 hard-cover reprint from Bracken Books, with an intro by
GM Raymond Keene.
> Let me ask you: Would you give an old used book for a Christmas
> Present?
The question is quite pointless, since I can't imagine a situation
where I would ever give the Handbook as a gift. It's of very little
interest to anyone besides history buffs like me.
BTW, neither of your links works.
None
> On Nov 2, 12:41 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Staunton was born in 1810, reputedly the natural son of Frederick
Howard, fifth Earl of Carlisle. This seems to explain where the name
“Howard” came from. Where the name Staunton came from is a mystery,
but it is likely that he just gave himself that name. --SS
After extensive research I have discovered the orgins of Mr.
Staunton's name.
His first name does indeed relate to the man that fathered the
bastard. For many years he had no surname. Then he took as his last
name the name for a specific style of chess pieces: The Staunton chess
pieces. Sam Sloan did a similar thing. Sam's original last name was
Thesailorman just like his father, Popeye. Ashamed of his father he
decided to change his last name. One day while enjoying some urine
soaked bread at a public bathroom, he noticed all the urinals had the
name Sloan on them. The rest is history.
MrVidmar
>
> Let me ask you: Would you give an old used book for a Christmas
> Present?
>
> Sam Sloan
A first edition Staunton's CPH? Yes indeed.
MrVidmar
notation to algebraic? There are lots of old chess book available for
free out there. I will sometimes be able to pull up a specific game
with chessbase or ChessAssistant and simply follow the comments with the
computer generated game. But, not all games in the old book are in a
database.
Offramp
Offramp
Chessbase does descriptive.
I just realised that that sounds like a 1970s porn film.
But it won't copy into pgn to transfer over.
John Sheatsley
In ChessBase 10, you can switch among short algebraic, long algebraic,
and descriptive notation under Tools | Options and select the Notation tab.
Is this what you are looking for?
Regards,
John
Offramp
"Happy Christmas, Darling!"
"What's this?"
"Er... It's Staunton's Chess-Players Handbook."
"Really? [Looks at back cover of book] A buck an' a half, huh?"
"It's a rare book... It's actually quite hard to, er, get hold of.
Er..."
Offramp
But can you copy a chess game pgn to this newsgroup in Anglo-Spanish
notation? I bet you can't!
samsloan
As far as I know, there have been many attempts to solve this problem,
and none have succeeded.
In other words, there is not as yet a program that can convert 1. P-K4
P-QB4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-QKt5 P-QR3 4. BxKt PxB into 1. e4 c5 2.
Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 bxc6
Sam Sloan
samsloan
> Then he took as his last name the name for a specific style of chess pieces: The Staunton chess
> pieces.
I heard this theory from somebody else earlier today, that the chess
pieces were not named after Staunton. Rather, Staunton named himself
after the chess pieces.
Thus is an interesting theory. Do you have any support for it?
Sam Sloan
None
Was your father named Popeye?
MrVidmar
madams
>
> On 2 Nov, 04:24, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook
> >
> > The name �Staunton� has become so closely associated with chess that
> > the words have become virtually synonymous.
>
> Would anyone here like a game of staunton? Has anyone seen Staunton:
> The Musical? Snooker is like a game of staunton with balls. Chuck
> Berry started off at Staunton Records. I sometimes play hexagonal
> staunton. He is a pushover.
>
> Who in his right mind would read Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook
> nowadays? What is there of any interest to a 21st Century boy?
-------
Is there a section on masturbation ? ...
Baden-Powell had a lot to say on this topic - like: 'plunge the
offending "stiffy" into a glass of ice-cold water' or words to that
effect xxxxx tho' nowadays that practice is seen as actually harmful (to
the prostate) ..................
_______
Apart
> from the massively pass� concepts there is the mediaeval notation to