Was Staunton World Champion?
Jeremy Spinrad
the newsgroup, so I will repeat my contentions as will as separating this
thread from Bobby Fischer.
Although he was a strong player, it is my belief that Staunton was never
the best player in the world, or even in England.
To me, Staunton seems to have always been slightly below Buckle in strength.
I know of only one match between the two; Staunton refused to play on even
terms but got crushed giving Buckle pawn and move (one draw and the rest
won by Buckle). Such odds matches were quite common in the mid 1800s, and
it is clear that this is evidence that Buckle was stronger at that time
period; in one well known match between top players, a player won the
portion of the match played on even terms but lost when given pawn and move!
Depending on exactly when one claims world supremacy for Staunton, there
are other players who also have at least as good a claim as Staunton. These
include Szen, the top Berlin players (e.g. Bledsow, Anderssen depending on
time period) and others. When do his supporters claim that Staunton deserved
the title of best in the world, and I will marshall facts for another
candidate.
As for supremacy in England, Buckle became inactive and died before Staunton;
I do not think there was ever a time that Staunton was better than both
Buckle and Boden (other players such as Kennedy, Bird, Blackburne come into
play as well over different periods of Staunton's life).
Other opinions welcome!
Jerry Spinrad
Louis Blair
> it is my belief that Staunton was never
> the best player in the world, or even in England.
>
> When do his supporters claim that Staunton
> deserved the title of best in the world, and I will
> marshall facts for another candidate.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
You want to focus your attention on 1843. That
is the year when he won the match in France that
caused people to think of him as best in the world
at that time.
Paul Morphy
Matt Nemmers <nemme...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20001011224550...@ng-cg1.news.cs.com...
> Bah.....that Staunton was a good player there is no doubt, but he was
never
> world champ. He made himself sound like he was in the weekly editorial
that he
> wrote for some newsletter in England, but he did this to save face for
ducking
> Paul Morphy for so long.
>
> He was considered the best player by some, and that's why Morphy wanted a
match
> with him because he'd beaten everyone else. Too bad he never got the
> chance....Morphy would've STOMPED Staunton and the high horse he rode on.
RIGHT ON, MATT!
Matt Nemmers
world champ. He made himself sound like he was in the weekly editorial that he
wrote for some newsletter in England, but he did this to save face for ducking
Paul Morphy for so long.
He was considered the best player by some, and that's why Morphy wanted a match
with him because he'd beaten everyone else. Too bad he never got the
chance....Morphy would've STOMPED Staunton and the high horse he rode on.
Matt Nemmers
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Jeremy Spinrad
Staunton seems to start in 1843.
The contention comes from Staunton's defeat of St. Amant. In a match earlier in
the year, St. Amant beat Staunton 3 to 2 with 1 draw; Staunton won a return match
11 to 6 with 4 draws.
Why would a match between Staunton and St. Amant have been considered to be for
the right to be called best in the world? Probably because St. Amant was
considered to be the natural successor of LaBourdonnais, who had the best claim
to such a title before his death; St. Amant became the house champion of the cafe
de la Regence.
However, St. Amant was not the dominant player LaBourdonnais was. Let us make
some comparisons with other contenders for the "title".
In 1836, both Szen and St. Amant played frequently in the Cafe de la Regence.
Szen did better than St. Amant at that time, winning the majority of his games
against LaBourdonnais with pawn and move odds, whil LaBourdonnais and St. Amant
were about even at these odds.
Szen played numerous matches around Europe, establishing a much better claim than
St. Amant for the title of best. Szen was called stronger than any master in
Vienna and London, and about even with St. Amant although better in endgames,
according to the Oxford companion of chess. In 1842-1846, Szen led the Hungarian
team to a decisive victory over Paris. Szen was still very stron in 1851, coming
closer to beating Anderssen than anyone. Szen was certainly a better candidate
for best in continental Europe than St. Amant, and I rank his accomplishments as
consistently higher than Staunton's.
Szen's worst result in his matches in Europe was a narrow loss to Bledow in 1839.
Although I have few records of Bledow's matches, he was also clearly a contender
for the title of best, leading the Berlin Pleiades group which contained a number
of strong players; Bledow died in 1846.
Another strong contender for this title was von der Lasa, who did not usually
play formal matches. Lasa played Staunton in 1844, winning a majority of their
games. He also held an advantage over Loewenthal in 1846, and beat Anderssen
10-5 in 1851, among many other fine accomplishments. I know he was playing at
least by 1839; I have individual games of his with Bledow, Mayet, and Hanstein,
other Pleiades members; my feeling was that he took over the top position in
Germany from Bledow at some point at or before Bledow's death. I remember Soltis
wrote an old Chess Life article claiming Lasa as best in the world for some time
period; perhaps someone can look up that claim. I believe there is a recent book
on him as well.
Now we come to Buckle. I will note an obscure "conflict of interest" in my claim
that Buckle was better than Staunton; my one keepsake from the man I was named
after is an inscribed (by my namesake) copy of Buckle's "History of England"
given as a gift to my father.
In 1843, Staunton gave Buckle odds of pawn and move, and lost 6-0 with 1 draw;
this is a clear indication of Buckle's superiority. Buckle beat Kieseritzky in a
close match 3-2 with 3 draws in 1848. , and won the 1849 knockout tournament by a
2-0 score over Williams; note that Williams beat Staunton 4-3 with 1 draw in
their match in the London 1851 tournament. Buckle beat Loewenthal 4-1 with 3
draws in 1851. Buckle also held his own (while noone else did) in games against
Anderssen in 1851; Anderssen claimed that Buckle was the strongest player he
faced.
Staunton's other good results were in 1846, when he beat Horwitz and Harrwitz. I
know Buckle also played Harrwitz in that year (Tartakower and DuMont give a game
won by Buckle); if someone knows of a match result, it would be interesting for
comparison.
As far as I can tell, Staunton's major match wins are in the time period 1843-46;
however, in those times he also had lost matches with Buckle and Lasa, and an
unclear result against Cochrane (Cochrane 3-1 with 2 draws given pawn and move,
and 3-3 on even terms) in that time period, and while he was clearly a top
master, I think his claim to being very best
was weak. I rank him below Lasa, Szen and Buckle, and probably Bledow; it is hard
to pick among theses using the information from my library, and I would love to
hear more evidence.
Other candidates who could come up in the discussion of best of the world in this
era:
Kieseritzky (also beat Horwitz in 1846
Dubois (better than Wyvill in 1845, Wyvill 2d in London 1851)
Petroff (beat Jaenisch)
Stanley is not taken seriously, but had some good results in my records. He beat
Staunton in 1841 with Staunton giving P+2; this should be viewed as showing
Staunton better, but perhaps not overwhelmingly so. Stanley was beating Schulten
and Rousseau in this time. Not really world champ classs, but better than he is
viewed.
Louis Blair
> it is my belief that Staunton was never
> the best player in the world, or even in England.
>
> When do his supporters claim that Staunton
> deserved the title of best in the world, and I will
> marshall facts for another candidate.
I wrote:
>You want to focus your attention on 1843. That
>is the year when he won the match in France that
>caused people to think of him as best in the world
>at that time.
Matt Nemmers wrote:
> Bah.....that Staunton was a good player there is no doubt, but he was never
> world champ. He made himself sound like he was in the weekly editorial that he
> wrote for some newsletter in England, but he did this to save face for ducking
> Paul Morphy for so long.
In 1843, Morphy was only about six years old.
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
sp...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Jeremy Spinrad) writes:
> Although he was a strong player, it is my belief that Staunton was never
> the best player in the world, or even in England.
>
> To me, Staunton seems to have always been slightly below Buckle in strength.
> I know of only one match between the two; Staunton refused to play on even
> terms but got crushed giving Buckle pawn and move (one draw and the rest
> won by Buckle). Such odds matches were quite common in the mid 1800s, and
> it is clear that this is evidence that Buckle was stronger at that time
> period;
I think this point can be refuted from Staunton's
own play. In 1846 Staunton played a strange match
with Harrwitz, consisting of seven even games,
seven at pawn and move, and seven at pawn
and two. Harrwitz won very much as Buckle did
at pawn and move (+6 =1 -1) but was wiped out
in the even match (+7 for Staunton).
Buckle probably surpassed Staunton at some time,
Anderssen (circa 1851) said he was the strongest
player he had ever met, but even as late as 1848
Buckle's narrow match win over Kieseritzky seems
to argue that even then he was at best Staunton's
equal.
It is true that Steinitz believed Buckle to
be the stronger, but Staunton's style was
anathema to Steinitz, particularly the systems
he pioneered of g3, e3, and c4, whose value was
ignored until hypermodern times.
The problem essentially with Buckle, and several
others you mention is: what did they do? With
Staunton we have clear results in the matches
with St Amant, Harrwitz, Horwitz, Williams,
and the narrow loss to Von Der Lasa, along with
matches against lesser lights (e.g. Jaenisch). With
Buckle we have some data, short matches, one
tournament and friendly games with Anderssen,
but with others we have even less.
in one well known match between top players, a player won the
> portion of the match played on even terms but lost when given pawn and move!
This sounds a bit like the Staunton match mentioned
above. Though he won only one game at pawn and
move, he won the match (+4 -3) at pawn and two!
This seems to have been a peculiarity of Staunton's
as he at other times showed better results at
pawn and two.
Paulsen did openly wonder whether Morphy might
not be more dangerous at pawn and move, because
of the open f file. Staunton's more positional
style was not likely to benefit in that way.
> Depending on exactly when one claims world supremacy for Staunton, there
> are other players who also have at least as good a claim as Staunton. These
> include Szen,
I see no real evidence for this. By 1851 perhaps
they were even or Szen was the better, but Staunton
had declined considerably by then (they both defeated
Horwitz that year, Szen more decisively, but he wasn't
organizing a tournament at the time). Szen was a
strong player, but I see no results to compare with
Staunton's wins over St Amant or Harrwitz.
Of course, I may well not be aware of all his
achievements.
> the top Berlin players (e.g. Bledsow, Anderssen
I have very little evidence for Bledlow
(do we know if he ever played a match against
fellow Pleiade Horwitz, defeated by Staunton
in 1846?). As for Anderssen, not long after
Staunton crushed Harrwitz, Anderssen drew a
long match with him. Even though Harrwitz
was improving at the time, I think one can
argue that Staunton was at least Anderssen's
equal as late as 1848.
> depending on
> time period) and others. When do his supporters claim that Staunton deserved
> the title of best in the world,
As far as I can tell the only person who can
seriously contest Staunton's claim to be the
best from 1843 to some time in the late 1840s
is von der Lasa. However, he never played
"formal" matches so a decision is difficult
to make. There was less distinction between
formal and informal play than there is now,
but results were variable. For example,
in 1851 he was +10 -5 vs Anderssen, but
a couple of years later only +5 -4 vs
Staunton. Clearly this does not mean that
Staunton was stronger than Anderssen!
(I wonder if Anderssen called Buckle the
strongest player he had ever faced before
or after he played von der Lasa?)
So indeed, von der Lasa may have been the
stronger, but this will remain in doubt as
he never showed his ability in serious events.
Of course, both von der Lasa and Buckle had
successful careers which prevented them from
playing seriously for lengthy periods.
and I will marshall facts for another
> candidate.
>
> As for supremacy in England, Buckle became inactive and died before Staunton;
> I do not think there was ever a time that Staunton was better than both
> Buckle and Boden
I do think he was better than Buckle in the
1840s, but probably not later. Buckle was
younger by a decade for that matter. Boden
didn't really grow strong until Staunton
was more or less retired. I wouldn't have
any problem with the claim that Boden was
stronger in 1857, but not much earlier.
(other players such as Kennedy, Bird, Blackburne come into
> play as well over different periods of Staunton's life).
It is not clear to me that Kennedy was ever
Staunton's superior, while Bird and Blackburne
only became so quite late.
Possibly I favour Staunton in reaction to the
character assassination he was subject to in
the books I read while young (may Fine, Chernev,
and even Edward Lasker be condemned in the afterlife
to a year of talking with Frederick edge for their
sins!) but I think the record shows that his strength
was real and that, if only for a few years, he was
the best active player in the world.
William Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
nemme...@cs.com (Matt Nemmers) writes:
> Bah.....that Staunton was a good player there is no doubt, but he was never
> world champ.
And you know this because ...
He made himself sound like he was in the weekly editorial that he
> wrote for some newsletter in England, but he did this to save face for ducking
> Paul Morphy for so long.
That would be why he started his column years before
anyone had heard of Morphy.
> He was considered the best player by some, and that's why Morphy wanted a match
> with him
At the time of the possible match with Morphy,
very few sane people thought Staunton to be the
best. At this time he probably wasn't even the
best in England.
> because he'd beaten everyone else.
Well, no. He had won three matches against some of
the best players (probably all better than Staunton
at this time).
Too bad he never got the
> chance....Morphy would've STOMPED Staunton
Probably. Beating up on old men is easy.
Paddington Bear
stauton was not a GM
In article <8s1rmj$pmr$1...@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
sp...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Jeremy Spinrad) wrote:
> William Hyde advises me that a post on this subject did not appear in
> the newsgroup, so I will repeat my contentions as will as separating
this
> thread from Bobby Fischer.
>
> Although he was a strong player, it is my belief that Staunton was
never
> the best player in the world, or even in England.
>
> To me, Staunton seems to have always been slightly below Buckle in
strength.
> I know of only one match between the two; Staunton refused to play on
even
> terms but got crushed giving Buckle pawn and move (one draw and the
rest
> won by Buckle). Such odds matches were quite common in the mid 1800s,
and
> it is clear that this is evidence that Buckle was stronger at that
time
> period; in one well known match between top players, a player won the
> portion of the match played on even terms but lost when given pawn
and move!
>
> Depending on exactly when one claims world supremacy for Staunton,
there
> are other players who also have at least as good a claim as Staunton.
These
> include Szen, the top Berlin players (e.g. Bledsow, Anderssen
depending on
> time period) and others. When do his supporters claim that Staunton
deserved
> the title of best in the world, and I will marshall facts for another
> candidate.
>
> As for supremacy in England, Buckle became inactive and died before
Staunton;
> I do not think there was ever a time that Staunton was better than
both
> Buckle and Boden (other players such as Kennedy, Bird, Blackburne
come into
> play as well over different periods of Staunton's life).
>
> Other opinions welcome!
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
--
"Mrs Bird's home-made marmalade is my favourite because it has lots of
chunks. When I was in darkest Peru, Aunt Lucy used to make marmalade.
She got her oranges in the jungle and they were very big.
I like marmalade in sandwiches best because eating is a bit difficult
with paws - marmalade tends to fall off the toast very easily, but
Michael
prefers his on toast."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Oberly
>
>
>stauton was not a GM
>
Neither was Morphy-or Steinitz,for that matter.The title wasn't
invented yet.
--
Mike Oberly * Rain can't wet me,
when I have my poui in my hand. *
* Rain can't wet me,
I advancing on the foe like a roaring lion!*
Soca/Calypso fan?Check out http://www.iere.com/thebarn
Matt Nemmers
>(Matt Nemmers) writes:
>> Bah.....that Staunton was a good player there is no doubt, but he was never
>> world champ.
>
> And you know this because ...
Because there was no such thing back then. What I meant when I said he wasn't
world champ was that he wasn't world champ material.
Lighten up, Billy-Boy. You're too high strung.
Matt Nemmers
<snip>
God, Billy. You really have way too much time on your hands to be READING a
post that long, let alone RESPONDING to it in DETAIL.
Sheesh. Don't they give you anything to do at Texas A&M?
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
nemme...@cs.com (Matt Nemmers) writes:
> hy...@rossby.tamu.edu wrote:
>
>>(Matt Nemmers) writes:
>>> Bah.....that Staunton was a good player there is no doubt, but he was never
>>> world champ.
>>
>> And you know this because ...
>
>
> Because there was no such thing back then.
Well, if you accept that Morphy wasn't champion either,
I would agree. But prior to 1886 there were a number
of people who were regarded, by a fair number of
people, as "champion". Staunton was one. They are
not considered to be official world champions.
What I meant when I said he wasn't
> world champ was that he wasn't world champ material.
So who was, at his peak, and why?
> Lighten up, Billy-Boy. You're too high strung.
Sorry to offend you. Put me in a killfile
and you won't have to worry about having
your personal version of events disputed.
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
nemme...@cs.com (Matt Nemmers) writes:
> God, Billy. You really have way too much time on your hands to be READING a
> post that long,
Some of us read faster than others.
> let alone RESPONDING to it in DETAIL.
Some of us think faster than others.
> Sheesh. Don't they give you anything to do at Texas A&M?
Nothing. I collect a $5 million salary and do
zip. Ain't it great?
And that's a weeky salary, funded by the good taxpaying
citizens of the USA.
Louis Blair
> The date at which some people claim the title of
> "best in the world" for Staunton seems to start in
> 1843. I think his claim to being very best was
> weak. I rank him below Lasa, Szen and Buckle,
> and probably Bledow; it is hard to pick among
> theses using the information from my library,
> and I would love to hear more evidence.
William Hyde wrote (in part):
> I think the record shows that his strength
> was real and that, if only for a few years, he was
> the best active player in the world.
Matt Nemmers wrote:
> God, Billy. You really have way too much time
> on your hands to be READING a post that long,
> let alone RESPONDING to it in DETAIL.
>
> Sheesh. Don't they give you anything to do at
> Texas A&M?
I, for one, am grateful for William Hyde's
comments. However, I would like to respond
on a few points.
William Hyde wrote:
> At the time of the possible match with Morphy,
> very few sane people thought Staunton to be the
> best. At this time he probably wasn't even the
> best in England.
And yet, there was a fellow who declared that
Staunton was "the representative of English chess",
and that it was therefore his duty not to play
Morphy. Staunton offered no objection. Indeed,
it seems likely to me that he had asked the fellow
to publicly write about the Morphy-Staunton
controversy.
William Hyde wrote:
> Morphy had won three matches against some
> of the best players (probably all better than
> Staunton at this time).
During much of the time that Morphy was
waiting for Staunton to name a date, none of
the three matches had been played. The first
match was finished near the end of August
1858, the second was finished in the beginning
of October. It was just a few days later (after
some prodding from Morphy) that Staunton
decided to tell people that he was unable to
play Morphy. At that time, Morphy's third
important match was still well in the future.
Matt Nemmers wrote:
> Morphy would've STOMPED Staunton
William Hyde wrote:
> Probably. Beating up on old men is easy.
I'm not sure whether or not William Hyde
intended his remark as a criticism of Morphy,
but, I have to add that such a criticism would
be unfair. In 1858, Staunton was about 48
years old. (Steinitz was playing championship
matches into his fifties.) Staunton had every
opportunity to indicate that he did not want
to play Morphy. Instead, for months, Staunton
led everyone to believe that he was able to
play (under the right conditions) and wished
to play. As the president of the chess
association put it at the time, Staunton gave
Morphy "every reason to suppose that he
would be ready to play the match within no
long time". At one point, Staunton even
went so far as to publicly portray himself as
waiting for Morphy to "be forthcoming" with
"representatives to arrange the terms and
money for the stakes". Under the
circumstances, it was perfectly
appropriate for Morphy to complain and
to ask Staunton to name the date when he
was willing to play.
William Hyde wrote:
> may Fine, Chernev, and even Edward
> Lasker be condemned in the afterlife to a
> year of talking with Frederick edge for their
> sins!
I don't think that they would mind at all. Some
people have been pretty loud about their
disapproval of Edge, but when it comes to
providing details of specific criticisms, somehow,
the anti-Edge faction never seems to have the
enthusiasm that one would expect.
William Hyde wrote:
> Possibly I favour Staunton in reaction to the
> character assassination he was subject to in
> the books I read while young
I would be interested to see some examples
of this "character assassination". We should
remember what some of Staunton's most
enthusiastic defenders have said. The late G.
H. Diggle acknowledged that Staunton's
"conduct in many respects cannot be excused".
Recently, in CHESS, C. P. Ravilious said that
Staunton had "behaved shabbily toward Morphy."
Even Ken Whyld has admitted that Staunton "did
make mistakes and may have been too haughty
to admit them."
Anders Thulin
Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
> Although he was a strong player, it is my belief that Staunton was never
> the best player in the world, or even in England.
> To me, Staunton seems to have always been slightly below Buckle in strength.
> Depending on exactly when one claims world supremacy for Staunton, there
> are other players who also have at least as good a claim as Staunton. These
> include Szen, the top Berlin players (e.g. Bledsow, Anderssen depending on
> time period) and others.
Just to throw a little sidelight on the discussion, here are Elo's
retrospective best 5-year average ratings for some of the people
mentioned in this thread, sorted by score:
(* = Data covers period of active play ... whatever that means)
Bledow - (not included -- my guess: too early?)
Saint-Amant 2400*
Szen 2450*
Boden 2470*
Buckle 2480*
Kieseritzky 2480*
Löwenthal 2510*
Harrwitz 2520*
Staunton 2520*
Anderssen 2600
von der Lasa 2600*
If 1880 is taken as an suitable (approximate) end-of-life year, here are
a few more relevant names:
Hanstein 2480*
Petrov 2520
Neumann, G. 2570
Morphy 2690*
Unfortunately, Elo does not state which 5-year period is relevant for each
person, nor, I believe, do we get an error estimate. Source is, of course,
Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present.
--
Anders Thulin a...@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
PJDBAD
>stauton was not a GM
No body was a Grand Master then.
Unknown
>>
>>stauton was not a GM
>
>No body was a Grand Master then.
not before 1914 i understand.
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Louis Blair <lbl...@pilot.lsus.edu> writes:
>
>> At the time of the possible match with Morphy,
>> very few sane people thought Staunton to be the
>> best. At this time he probably wasn't even the
>> best in England.
I should make a few things clear before
I go on (at great length!):
Staunton was not a nice person. Were he alive today and
playing in my club I'd probably dislike him intensely. But
a false accusation is wrong, whether against someone you
like or someone you don't. And many chess players have
been influenced by authors (Horowitz, Chernev, Fine, as
I will show) who were more interested in denigrating Staunton
than in telling the truth.
> And yet, there was a fellow who declared that
> Staunton was "the representative of English chess",
Sure, and there are people who declare
Fischer world champion today.
> and that it was therefore his duty not to play
> Morphy. Staunton offered no objection.
Staunton liked praise, no doubt. But
Like many an older player, he wasn't prepared
to admit, even to himself, that he wasn't in
the top few any longer.
>> Probably. Beating up on old men is easy.
>
> I'm not sure whether or not William Hyde
> intended his remark as a criticism of Morphy,
Absolutely not.
> but, I have to add that such a criticism would
> be unfair. In 1858, Staunton was about 48
> years old.
To the not yet 21 year old Morphy, Staunton
must have seemed old indeed. Even today most
players are well past their peak at age 48. The
Staunton of 1845 would probably still have lost
to the Morphy of 1857, but it would have been more
of a fight. Age 48 today, or even in 1890, was a
different thing from 1850 as far as general health
is concerned.
Staunton had every
> opportunity to indicate that he did not want
> to play Morphy.
Indeed, he is seriously at fault in this. But the
older I get the more I sympathize, even if I don't agree.
>> may Fine, Chernev, and even Edward
>> Lasker be condemned in the afterlife to a
>> year of talking with Frederick edge for their
>> sins!
>
> I don't think that they would mind at all. Some
> people have been pretty loud about their
> disapproval of Edge,
Your postings at the chess cafe have caused me to
revise my opinion of Edge considerably. However, from
his writings I regard him as a somewhat tiresome person,
(though I'd really like to ask him some questions!)
and in that sense I made the above joke.
>> Possibly I favour Staunton in reaction to the
>> character assassination he was subject to in
>> the books I read while young
>
> I would be interested to see some examples
> of this "character assassination".
I read all of these more than two decades ago,
so quotes will not be exact, to say the least.
Horowitz claimed that Staunton's literary work was
worthless, today only cited when someone says in a
footnote "Staunton wrongly assumes". Had Horowitz
taken the trouble to actually research Staunton's work
he could not possibly have said this. But he didn't.
This fabrication, or lie if you like, is typical. Pity,
for Horowitz seems to have been an amiable person, and
I have to respect the man who kept chess review going
all those years. Unfortunately Horowitz died before
Stauntons's Shakespeare edition was reprinted in the 1970s -
not bad for a worthless book written a century earlier.
Very long ago I read an article by Chernev on the
original play of Elijah Williams. The idea being that
the very slow play of which Staunton complained was
due to Williams' inventing hypermodern chess over
the board in the 1850s! If Chernev had bothered to
play over the games of Staunton, he'd have seen that
Williams' original opening ideas were actually Staunton's.
So Chernev simultaneously manages to put Staunton
in a bad light for his complaints, and assign his
life's work to another man. Contemptible. Luckily
Fischer set the record straight on this.
Fine, in commenting on some moves by Staunton and
St Amant, says dismissively "if the reader does not
understand this, don't worry - I don't either". But
Fine must have known that Tartakower had annotated
this game earlier, and commented on exactly what
these moves accomplished. Fine comments sarcastically
on the mistakes made later in the game, never telling
the reader (IIRC) that these games were played without
adjournment. I'm sure that Fine's own precise style
would have crumbled in the face of ten hours of
play. Of all the players in this book, only
Staunton, IIRC, gets such shabby treatment.
> Even Ken Whyld has admitted that Staunton "did
> make mistakes and may have been too haughty
> to admit them."
>
I would agree, but put it much more strongly.
But so what? He didn't play chess in nazi events,
didn't denounce the Jews, didn't throw games, didn't
force others to throw games, didn't fabricate games,
didn't plagiarize other people's writings - all accusations
which have been leveled at other world class chessplayers,
many of whom have a better reputation than he does.
On the other hand he did help the refugee Lowenthal,
and (according to chess life in 1990) tried to get
Morphy away from the civil war, wrote some good chess books,
organized the first international tournament, played
many matches with the toughest of his day despite his
late start, pioneered new opening systems, and added this
to a literary career. There is much to admire there, and
he did a lot for chess.
No doubt there is much that I don't know about this,
but surely the whole idea of history is to look at
people and events objectively. Staunton had
bad traits which it would be foolish to deny
or minimize, but he had good traits which have
indeed been denied or ignored.
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
ranier venner (ven...@streubel.com) writes:
> On 16 Oct 2000 04:56:05 GMT, pjd...@aol.com (PJDBAD) wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>No body was a Grand Master then.
>
More like 1950.
The Czar named five players as grandmasters in
1914, but I hardly think the opinion of that
rather dense autocrat should matter.
Any system that called Marshall a GM, but not
Schlechter or Rubenstein is a pretty clear failure.
The word "grandmaster" was used as early as 1838.
John Macnab
General Zod <sigf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sg63h$epk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
>
> Now the GM title doesn't mean anything. After politics, people
> fixing games, and the rating inflation of the 80s where Fischer's rating
> would be now be considered 2900
This rather tedious sentiment comes up regularly. Of course, nobody can
back it up because it isn't true. How Fischer is elevated to this god-like
status is beyond me. He was a great chessplayer--one of the greatest. But
we hardly need to keep inventing new accolades for him every time another
great player does something significant. Yawn.
John
General Zod
Now the GM title doesn't mean anything. After politics, people
fixing games, and the rating inflation of the 80s where Fischer's rating
would be now be considered 2900, it is either easy to become a GM or not
worth it.
In article <8sg2q3$pqu$2...@news.tamu.edu>,
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu wrote:
> In article <39eb7636...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
> ranier venner (ven...@streubel.com) writes:
> > On 16 Oct 2000 04:56:05 GMT, pjd...@aol.com (PJDBAD) wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>stauton was not a GM
> >>
> >>No body was a Grand Master then.
> >
> > not before 1914 i understand.
>
> More like 1950.
>
> The Czar named five players as grandmasters in
> 1914, but I hardly think the opinion of that
> rather dense autocrat should matter.
>
> Any system that called Marshall a GM, but not
> Schlechter or Rubenstein is a pretty clear failure.
>
> The word "grandmaster" was used as early as 1838.
>
> William Hyde
> Department of Oceanography
> Texas A&M University
> hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
>
>
--
"Cor-el, YOU will kneel before Zod "
PJDBAD
A rose by another name would smell as sweet.
Willie
Roman M. Parparov
> Now the GM title doesn't mean anything. After politics, people
> fixing games, and the rating inflation of the 80s where Fischer's rating
> would be now be considered 2900, it is either easy to become a GM or not
> worth it.
Words of someone who never probably got far than a 1400...
Unless you're in Myanmar you need to play very well to achieve a GM norm.
And even if you live in Myanmar, you need to play at least better than most
Myanmar players and be of 2350-2400 strength.
I've seen the difficulties of young talented Israeli players who are
very strong, and still mastering the GM norm has been quite a quest for them,
for Avrukh, Finkel, Gershon and others. They ARE a GM class now.
(Oh, la-la, I have a +2-0 score against Gershon, but one game was played
when he was 10 (and already a 2100+), other a rapid one 3 years ago.)
--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: ro...@empire.tau.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)54-629-884 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann
Chesspride
>> fixing games, and the rating inflation of the 80s where Fischer's rating
>> would be now be considered 2900, it is either easy to become a GM or not
>> worth it.
I read his comment as meaning that Fischer's phenomenal (abberant?) 2785 rating
(or 2810 prior to the Spassky match in 72...where his rating actually went
DOWN in winning the title)....was so exceptional with regard to the rating pool
at that time ....
...that in today's "rating currency" it would be 2900+. And it would be
unrepeatable, as he would not win short matches 6-0, 6-0 6-2 again if he played
them 10 times.
That's really all he's saying...and that because the two pools are so different
today...and there has been both growth in the number of strong players and a
change in players (turnover)....that Kasparov's initial 2800+ ratiing...and his
current 2850 or so....while surpassing Fischer in absolute terms...really
doesn't really do so in adjusted terms. But it makes for good PR spin...just
as when a 16-game 1,000 yard rusher today is compared to a 14 (or 12)-game
1,000 yard rusher from NFL seasons of the past.
Eric C. Johnson
Louis Blair
> Possibly I favour Staunton in reaction to the character
> assassination he was subject to in the books I read
> Lasker be condemned in the afterlife to a year of
I wrote:
> I would be interested to see some examples of this
> "character assassination".
William Hyde now writes:
> a false accusation is wrong ... many chess players
> have been influenced by authors (Horowitz,
> Chernev, Fine, as I will show) who were more
> interested in denigrating Staunton than in telling
> the truth.
First, I have to note that I asked about the "character
assassination" with the intention of perhaps saying
some words in defense of Fine, Chernev, and
Edward Lasker. Now, it seems that Edward
Lasker has been dropped from the list of offenders
and replaced with Horowitz.
William Hyde writes:
> Horowitz claimed that Staunton's literary work
> was worthless, today only cited when someone
> says in a footnote "Staunton wrongly assumes".
> ... This fabrication, or lie if you like, is typical. ...
> Unfortunately Horowitz died before Stauntons's
> Shakespeare edition was reprinted in the 1970s
> - not bad for a worthless book written a century
> earlier.
I believe that William Hyde has the wrong author.
This seems to be the quote that he is thinking of:
"Staunton ... believed that his chief life-work and
claim to subsequent fame lay in his edition of
Shakespeare. But if there is a reference to it
nowadays it's only in a variorum footnote which
starts off something like 'Staunton wrongly
surmises', and so on. The fact is that, though he
was widely read in Elizabethan drama, those
powers of analysis that distinguished him over
the chessboard seemed to desert him when
he was considering a Shakespearian text."
Harry Golombek made these remarks on a radio
program that was broadcast around 1960. Later
on, they appeared in a collection of essays by
Chernev.
However, I have to agree that, taken literally, what
was said was wrong. I once looked up the
variorum Shakespeare and, after much searching,
found a few footnotes that mentioned Staunton.
None of them said anything like "Staunton wrongly
surmises ...". Nevertheless, I do not think that
words like "fabrication" and "lie" are appropriate.
Most likely, what we are seeing is due to
carelessness. I suspect that Golombek asked
some Shakespeare scholar for an assessment
of Staunton, and the scholar (perhaps not even
really remembering who Staunton was) made the
remarks that Golombek copied down and
believed without checking for himself. I have
encountered such things during my own researches.
At any rate, as anyone who has read the complete
essay by Golombek can clearly see, it would
border on the absurd to suppose that he was
"more interested in denigrating Staunton than in
telling the truth." He was not saying "that
Staunton's literary work was worthless". It
seems to me that Golombek's intended point was
that the Shakespeare edition is now largely
forgotten, and this, at least, seems to be true.
One can go through quite a few books about
Shakespeare's plays without finding any
reference to Staunton. It might be a mistake
to attach too much significance to the 1970s
reprint. For a publisher, it offered several
advantages: It is big, there are lots of footnotes
and illustrations, and it is in the public domain.
Whatever the merits of Golombek's remarks, I do
not see how it can reasonably be called "character
assassination".
William Hyde writes:
> Very long ago I read an article by Chernev on
> the original play of Elijah Williams. The idea
> being that the very slow play of which Staunton
> complained was due to Williams' inventing
> hypermodern chess over the board in the
> 1850s! If Chernev had bothered to play over
> the games of Staunton, he'd have seen that
> Williams' original opening ideas were actually
> Staunton's. So Chernev simultaneously
> manages to put Staunton in a bad light for his
> complaints, and assign his life's work to another
> man. Contemptible. Luckily Fischer set the
> record straight on this.
I have not seen the Chernev quote, but just
judging from William Hyde's own description, it
sounds as though more is being read into what
Chernev wrote than was intended. All I see is an
attempt to offer an explanation for why Elijah
Williams played slowly. Two natural questions
arise:
(1) Is it a plausible explanation?
Based on what I see here, I would say, "why not?"
I have seen Fischer's remarks, and I do not
remember anything that would rule out the
possibility that E. W. was exploring new territory.
"Inventing hypermodern chess" was not Staunton's
"life's work". According to the Oxford Companion,
"for the most part he played the usual openings of
his time but he introduced several positional
concepts. ... he may be regarded as the precursor
of the hypermodern movement". After Staunton,
hypermodernism was not a finished product that
any player could simply adopt by imitating
Staunton's opening moves. If E. W. was playing in
a new hypermodern style, he undoubtedly had a lot
of new territory to explore and on-the-spot
inventing to do.
(2) Were Chernev's remarks an attempt to
denigrate Staunton?
Based on what I see here, I would say no. About
E. W., Staunton wrote, "Mr. Williams' systematic
delay over every move called forth the marked
animadversion of the looker-on. When games are
prolonged to twelve, thirteen, and twenty hours
each, and single moves occupy two hours and a
half, the effect upon an invalid can be well
imagined." I see nothing in the description of
what Chernev wrote that would contradict what
Staunton wrote, so I fail to see in what sense
Staunton was being "put ... in a bad light".
Perhaps Chernev failed to give proper credit for
Staunton's contribution to hypermodernism, but,
at the moment, I see nothing to indicate that
Chernev said that E. W. was the absolute first
hypermodern player. Even if Chernev, did make
such a mistake, he would hardly have been the
only author to do so. It is the sort of mistake
that is easy to make, and no conclusions about
any motive to denigrate Staunton are justified.
I still do not see anything that could reasonably be
called "character assassination".
William Hyde writes:
> Fine, in commenting on some moves by Staunton
> and St Amant, says dismissively "if the reader
> does not understand this, don't worry - I don't
> either". But Fine must have known that
> Tartakower had annotated this game earlier, and
> commented on exactly what these moves
> accomplished.
Once, again I do not see how, by any stretch of the
imagination, this could be considered to be
"character assassination". I do not even see how
one could say that Fine's comment was "false".
Fine said that he did not understand some of the
moves. What reason is there to doubt this?
I suppose we might blame Fine for not doing more
research into the annotations of others, but Fine's
book was, it seems obvious to me, not intended to
be a presentation of deep and comprehensive
annotations. In his day, Fine was one of the best
players in the world. I imagine that he assumed
that if he did not perceive something, it was not
worth perceiving. An arrogant attitude perhaps
and maybe lazy too, but hardly an indication that
Fine was "more interested in denigrating Staunton
than in telling the truth." Fine wrote favorably
about Staunton's Shakespeare work (too
favorably, I suspect) and also observed,
"Staunton ... was doing great work for chess.
He wrote, he played, he traveled all over, lecturing
and giving simultaneous exhibitions."
William Hyde writes:
> Fine comments sarcastically on the mistakes
> made later in the game, never telling the reader
> (IIRC) that these games were played without
> adjournment. I'm sure that Fine's own precise
> style would have crumbled in the face of ten
> hours of play.
I think William Hyde does not remember correctly.
I see nothing sarcastic in Fine's comments about
the errors. After the game, Fine wrote, "It is
recorded that this game lasted 9 1/2 hours; today
it would take between 4 and 5. The introduction
of the chess clock has speeded up the game and
made for better chess." In essence, it seems to
me that Fine made exactly the point that W. H.
says he would have liked to see: an indication
that the errors may have been due to the long
time that the players were sitting at the board.
I wrote:
> Staunton had every opportunity to indicate that
> he did not want to play Morphy. Instead, for
> months, Staunton led everyone to believe that
> he was able to play (under the right conditions)
> and wished to play. As the president of the
> chess association put it at the time, Staunton
> gave Morphy "every reason to suppose that he
> would be ready to play the match within no long
> time". At one point, Staunton even went so far
> as to publicly portray himself as waiting for
> Morphy to "be forthcoming" with
> "representatives to arrange the terms and money
> for the stakes".
William Hyde writes:
> Indeed, he is seriously at fault in this. But the
> older I get the more I sympathize, even if I
> don't agree.
In some respects, I would be a little sympathetic
myself, but I would not attack authors who chose
to be less sympathetic. Many chess players have
become old, but I believe it has been quite rare
for a chess player to cause everyone to believe
that he was going to play a match, then quietly
delay the match, then try to deceive people
about who was delaying the match, then decide
that he was not going to play a match, then put
off telling people that he was not going to play
the match, and then resort to belligerent ridicule
in reaction to complaints.
I wrote:
> We should remember what some of Staunton's
> most enthusiastic defenders have said. The late
> G. H. Diggle acknowledged that Staunton's
> "conduct in many respects cannot be excused".
> Recently, in CHESS, C. P. Ravilious said that
> Staunton had "behaved shabbily toward
> Morphy." Even Ken Whyld has admitted that
> Staunton "did make mistakes and may have
> been too haughty to admit them."
William Hyde writes:
> so what?
So, maybe when authors make statements about
Staunton's character, one should be cautious
about accusing them of indulging in "character
assassination" or being "more interested in
denigrating Staunton than in telling the truth."
William Hyde writes:
> Staunton ... didn't play chess in nazi events
That would have been rather hard to due in
Staunton's time.
William Hyde writes:
> Staunton ... didn't denounce the Jews
But he did complain publicly about players from
foreign countries being hired to write chess
columns for English newspapers.
William Hyde writes:
> Staunton ... didn't throw games
I cannot think of any time when it would have
been to Staunton's advantage to throw a game.
William Hyde writes:
> Staunton ... didn't force others to throw games
I cannot think of any time when it would have been
possible for Staunton to have forced someone to
throw a game.
William Hyde writes:
> Staunton ... didn't fabricate games
How can we be sure about that?
William Hyde writes:
> Staunton ... didn't plagiarize other people's
> writings
Well, I guess I have to concede on this one.
William Hyde writes that the above are all:
> accusations which have been leveled at other
> world class chessplayers, many of whom
> have a better reputation than Staunton does.
We should keep in mind that an accusation is not
the same thing as confirmation of guilt, but the
main point is that I fail to see how Fine, Chernev,
Edward Lasker, or Golombek can be blamed for
the supposedly undeserved better reputation of
some as yet unnamed world class chessplayer.
None of these authors, so far as I know, ever
claimed to present a comprehensive assessment
of the characters of all the world class chessplayers.
It is particularly hard to understand why William
Hyde objects to Fine, who, after all, loudly
denounced Alekhine and the U. S. S. R. and even
had things to say about Fischer's psychological state.
William Hyde writes:
> Staunton ... did help the refugee Lowenthal
And later turned on him, ridiculing him publicly.
Also, consider Staunton's attack on the hiring of
foreigners mentioned above.
> Staunton ... tried to get Morphy away from the
> civil war
If I remember correctly, all Staunton did was
suggest in his column that Morphy travel to
England. I do not think that that cost Staunton
very much. Nor do I see how Staunton's
suggestion made it any easier for Morphy to get
away from the civil war.
> Staunton ... wrote some good chess books
with some nasty remarks about other players.
> Staunton ... organized the first international
> tournament
and made money from writing a book about it.
> Staunton ... played many matches with the
> toughest of his day despite his late start
and behaved horribly when he faced opponents
who were better than he would have liked.
> Staunton ... pioneered new opening systems
and also denounced "the mannerism of modern
openings" as one of the "evils" that resulted from
"the zealous or the mercenary" attaching too
much importance to "victory at any cost".
> Staunton ... added this to a literary career
in which he also attacked others.
> Staunton ... had good traits which have been
> denied or ignored.
By whom?
Charles Blair
and I would say not to get into a big argument about an unfortunate
choice of words ("character assassination").
Thanks to a recent book sale, I have extra copies of Levy's
Chess and Computers and More Chess and Computers. Would you
like them?
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Louis Blair <lbl...@pilot.lsus.edu> writes:
> William Hyde wrote:
I tried very hard to keep my last post under
200 lines, and will try (and fail) to do so again.
Not every point made in a usenet post demands a paragraph
response. If I delete some of your comments without
response, it does not mean I am being dismissive.
>> I would be interested to see some examples of this
>> "character assassination".
You have made clear that we are using different
definitions of this. On consideration, I think
that yours is the accurate one.
Thus let me rephrase things. The authors cited
were prone to unjust denigration of Staunton's
work. This does not, indeed, amount to attacking
his character per se. Nor do I think that they
were consciously blackening Staunton's reputation.
They already had so negative an opinion of him
that the results followed naturally. When
Chernev sees Williams fianchetto a bishop, in
what is evidently a fully worked out opening
system, the question does not even arise as
to whether the system originated with Staunton.
>> Horowitz claimed that Staunton's literary work
>> was worthless, today only cited when someone
>> says in a footnote "Staunton wrongly assumes".
>> ... This fabrication, or lie if you like, is typical. ...
> I believe that William Hyde has the wrong author.
I am rather sure Horowitz did say the above.
He may have been copying/quoting Golombek
(or vice-versa) but I did read this in one of his books.
> However, I have to agree that, taken literally, what
> was said was wrong. I once looked up the
> variorum Shakespeare and, after much searching,
> found a few footnotes that mentioned Staunton.
In my own field of climate one can read book after book,
paper after paper, with few references to James Croll.
Yet he pretty much founded that branch which deals with
the relation between perturbations of the earth's orbit
and the ice ages. And Croll was without doubt a great
scientist of his day, if not of the stature of (e.g.) Maxwell.
To say that Croll only is found in a few footnotes today
would not be denigration. To characterize those footnotes
as mainly saying "Croll wrongly surmises" would be. And
though Croll was wrong frequently, it would be a fabrication.
> None of them said anything like "Staunton wrongly
> surmises ...". Nevertheless, I do not think that
> words like "fabrication" and "lie" are appropriate.
> Most likely, what we are seeing is due to
> carelessness.
When carelessness is systematic or biased it
ceases to be mere carelessness.
Did Horowitz or Golombek ever "carelessly" comment
that Buckle's history has long since been discarded,
or that Anderssen was teaching an antiquated form
of mathematics, or that Tarrasch's medical practices
would get him a malpractice suit nowadays?
> It might be a mistake
> to attach too much significance to the 1970s
> reprint. For a publisher, it offered several
> advantages: It is big, there are lots of footnotes
> and illustrations, and it is in the public domain.
This seems to miss the point. Quite a few editions are
in the public domain, but whose was published? As to the
footnotes, who wrote them?
> I have not seen the Chernev quote, but just
> judging from William Hyde's own description, it
> sounds as though more is being read into what
> Chernev wrote than was intended.
I think you are right as far as Chernev's conscious
motivation is concerned. But his writing was still
wrong, denigrating, and part of a pattern.
All I see is an
> attempt to offer an explanation for why Elijah
> Williams played slowly.
As I recall it the tone of the article was "wow, look
at this hypermodern stuff in 1851!", and the slowness
naturally fitted into the hypothesis.
> (1) Is it a plausible explanation?
>
> Based on what I see here, I would say, "why not?"
Because he was slow in the endgame, as well as the
middlegame and opening? And because his openings
were not original?
> (2) Were Chernev's remarks an attempt to
> denigrate Staunton?
We will have to suspend the question of whether there was
any attack on Staunton here, as I don't have the
text with me. As I recall - and I could be wrong -
the general line was "here's Staunton whining while
Williams revolutionizes chess". Among other things,
this clearly implies that Staunton wasn't enough of
a player to see what was before him. This was certainly
not the point of the article, but it was (IIRC) there.
> Based on what I see here, I would say no.
Any remotely fair writer would have pointed out, at the
very least, the strong resemblance between Williams'
play and that of Staunton - if, that is, he knew of it.
And it was his job to know it.
I repeat that I doubt that Chernev was really aware
of what he was doing. Rather the idea of Staunton as a
poor player was so set in his mind that he quite possibly
had never bothered to look at his games. And that attitude
we see presented here (r.g.c.m) on a regular basis.
I should also say that I do not intend to denigrate
Williams at all. He was an excellent player. I wish
we could have seen him play Morphy.
> An arrogant attitude perhaps
> and maybe lazy too, but hardly an indication that
> Fine was "more interested in denigrating Staunton
> than in telling the truth."
On the contrary, if Morphy or Anderssen had made those
moves, I suspect that Fine would have looked a little deeper.
That is part of the pattern. Surely failure to seriously
examine the moves of two players considered among the best
in the world in their time constitutes "disinterest in the
truth", and to respond with a flip comment, rather than
silence, does seem to imply denigration.
Your other quotes from Fine have caused me to rethink
my opinion. Still, the annotation is jarring.
> In some respects, I would be a little sympathetic
> myself, but I would not attack authors who chose
> to be less sympathetic.
I do not attack any of the above authors for their
attitude towards Staunton's non-match with Morphy.
> So, maybe when authors make statements about
> Staunton's character, one should be cautious
> about accusing them of indulging in "character
> assassination" or being "more interested in
> denigrating Staunton than in telling the truth."
I admire Horowitz, Fine and Chernev for their other work.
In print no doubt I would have been more careful in my choice
of words. But the truth re Staunton really didn't matter enough
to these gentlemen to make them research questionable points.
I will no longer use the phrase "character assassination".
> We should keep in mind that an accusation is not
> the same thing as confirmation of guilt,
Stay on this group for a while, or read old posts on deja
(if it is still there) and you will see the fruits of the
writings of the above authors. Staunton is repeatedly
cited on this group as being beneath contempt, a poor player,
and so on. In the court of public opinion he was convicted
long ago, with these writers acting as prosecutor.
> main point is that I fail to see how Fine, Chernev,
> Edward Lasker, or Golombek can be blamed for
> the supposedly undeserved better reputation of
> some as yet unnamed world class chessplayer.
Is Whyld right to say that Morphy promised a return match
to Anderssen, then reneged on this? I never read
that in Fine, Horowitz, or Chernev. *If* Whyld is
right, (I don't trust his work as much as I once
did) that is a clear double standard, is it not?
> William Hyde writes:
>> Staunton ... did help the refugee Lowenthal
>
> And later turned on him, ridiculing him publicly.
He wasn't a nice man. That is agreed.
The point is that he did some good things along with the
bad. Did Anderssen help Lowenthal? Did Falkbeer, Lange,
von Der Lasa, St Amant? (Stanley did, oddly enough).
>> Staunton ... had good traits which have been denied or ignored.
>
> By whom?
Horowitz and Chernev, for a start. Apparently
not by Fine, though.
Summary: Though a number of "historical revisionists"
seem to have tried to sanitize Staunton's conduct in
the Morphy affair, they have, I believe, failed to make
their case. On the other hand, in a great many of the
books chess players (at least on this continent) read
there is a consistent pattern of inaccurate and denigrating
comments about Staunton, despite his evident achievements.
Despite what I implied in my earlier posts, I do not
believe that the writers consciously tried to deceive
the readers about Staunton, rather that they were already
strongly biased against him (owing no doubt to the Morphy
affair) and that his was reflected in their work.
Louis Blair
> Possibly I favour Staunton in reaction to the character
> assassination he was subject to in the books I read
> while young (may Fine, Chernev, and even Edward
> Lasker be condemned in the afterlife to a year of
> talking with Frederick edge for their sins!)
I wrote:
> I would be interested to see some examples of this
> "character assassination".
William Hyde now writes:
> You have made clear that we are using different
> definitions of this. On consideration, I think that
> yours is the accurate one. ... I will no longer use
> the phrase "character assassination". ... I do not
> believe that the writers consciously tried to deceive
> the readers about Staunton
In that case, could it be that such words and
phrases as "false accusation", "fabrication", "lie",
and "more interested in denigrating Staunton than
in telling the truth" were not quite the best choices,
either?
William Hyde writes:
> let me rephrase things. The authors cited were
> prone to unjust denigration of Staunton's work.
At this point, I wish I knew who "the authors
cited" refers to. Has Edward Lasker been
granted a pardon?
William Hyde wrote:
> Fine, in commenting on some moves by Staunton
> and St Amant, says dismissively "if the reader
> does not understand this, don't worry - I don't
> either". But Fine must have known that
> Tartakower had annotated this game earlier, and
> commented on exactly what these moves
> accomplished.
I wrote:
> I suppose we might blame Fine for not doing more
> research into the annotations of others, but Fine's
> book was, it seems obvious to me, not intended to
> be a presentation of deep and comprehensive
> annotations. In his day, Fine was one of the best
> players in the world. I imagine that he assumed
> that if he did not perceive something, it was not
> worth perceiving. An arrogant attitude perhaps
> and maybe lazy too, but hardly an indication that
> Fine was "more interested in denigrating Staunton
> than in telling the truth."
William Hyde now writes:
> On the contrary, if Morphy or Anderssen had made
> those moves, I suspect that Fine would have
> looked a little deeper. That is part of the pattern.
An argument based on suspicion is not very
convincing to me.
William Hyde writes:
> Surely failure to seriously examine the moves
> of two players considered among the best in the
> world in their time constitutes "disinterest in the
> truth"
Or a belief that he saw on his own all the truth
that was worth seeing.
William Hyde writes:
> to respond with a flip comment, rather than
> silence, does seem to imply denigration.
Of course, it was denigration. The question is
whether Fine's low opinion of the moves caused
Fine's decision to denigrate, or Fine's supposed
bias caused his low opinion of the moves.
I see no reason to choose the second possibility
over the first. A man can make mistakes without
having a bias. (And, by the way, Fine made a
lot of mistakes.)
Incidentally, so that everyone can
make their own judgment about the magnitude
of the injustice committed by Fine, here are the
first few moves of the game in question. (Staunton
had the black pieces.) 1 e4 c5 2 f4 e6 3 Nf3 Nc6
4 c3 d5 5 e5 Qb6 6 Bd3 Bd7 7 Bc2 Rc8 8 0-0
Nh6 9 h3 Be7 10 Kh2 f5 11 a3 a5 12 a4. It
was at this point that Fine commented, "If the
subtleties of some of these moves escape the
reader, he need not be too surprised; they
escape me too." Perhaps William Hyde will
share with us some of the Tartakower insights.
Could it be that Fine did look at the
Tartakower notes and disagreed with their
validity?
William Hyde writes:
> Your other quotes from Fine have caused me
> to rethink my opinion.
This is something that is worth keeping in mind
while considering other matters. At the moment,
I would say that William Hyde has not yet provided
convincing evidence that Fine was "prone to unjust
denigration of Staunton's work."
William Hyde wrote:
> Very long ago I read an article by Chernev on
> the original play of Elijah Williams. The idea
> being that the very slow play of which Staunton
> complained was due to Williams' inventing
> hypermodern chess over the board in the
> 1850s! If Chernev had bothered to play over
> the games of Staunton, he'd have seen that
> Williams' original opening ideas were actually
> Staunton's. So Chernev simultaneously
> manages to put Staunton in a bad light for his
> complaints, and assign his life's work to another
> man. Contemptible. Luckily Fischer set the
> record straight on this.
I wrote:
> "Inventing hypermodern chess" was not Staunton's
> "life's work". According to the Oxford Companion,
> "for the most part he played the usual openings of
> his time but he introduced several positional
> concepts. ... he may be regarded as the precursor
> of the hypermodern movement".
No response from William Hyde on this point.
I wrote:
> I have not seen the Chernev quote, but just
> judging from William Hyde's own description, it
> sounds as though more is being read into what
> Chernev wrote than was intended.
William Hyde now writes:
> I think you are right as far as Chernev's conscious
> motivation is concerned. But his writing was still
> wrong, denigrating, and part of a pattern.
Since William Hyde has only given us one Chernev
example, I don't see any "pattern" that could justify
conclusions about Chernev's unconscious
motivations or justify saying that Chernev was
"prone to unjust denigration of Staunton's work."
I wrote:
> All I see is an attempt to offer an explanation for
> why Elijah Williams played slowly. Two natural
> questions arise: (1) Is it a plausible explanation?
> Based on what I see here, I would say, "why not?"
William Hyde now writes:
> Because he was slow in the endgame, as well as
> the middlegame and opening?
If E. W. got into difficulties because of lack
of experience with hypermodern openings and
middlegames, it would be only natural for him
to have trouble in the ending. The real test
would be to consider whether or not E. W. was
slow in his nonhypermodern games. Anyway,
I wonder if Chernev claimed that
hypermodernism was the only reason for
the slowness or whether he just offered it
as a contributing factor.
William Hyde writes:
> And because his openings were not original?
I do not see why this would rule out the possibility
that E. W. would have trouble with a hypermodern
opening. William Hyde talks about E. W. playing
"evidently a fully worked out opening system",
but I do not know what makes this evident.
Perhaps this is another thing like the "life's work"
issue.
I wrote:
> (2) Were Chernev's remarks an attempt to
> denigrate Staunton? Based on what I see here,
> I would say no.
William Hyde now writes:
> We will have to suspend the question of whether
> there was any attack on Staunton here, as I don't
> have the text with me. As I recall - and I could
> be wrong - the general line was "here's Staunton
> whining while Williams revolutionizes chess".
> Among other things, this clearly implies that
> Staunton wasn't enough of a player to see what
> was before him. This was certainly not the point
> of the article, but it was (IIRC) there.
After the experience with William Hyde's "IIRC"
Fine memories, I would say that suspending the
question is a very good idea.
William Hyde writes:
> Any remotely fair writer would have pointed
> out, at the very least, the strong resemblance
> between Williams' play and that of Staunton
> - if, that is, he knew of it. And it was his job
> to know it.
I do not see that it was Chernev's job to trace
the origins of hypermodernism. Staunton did not
leave hypermodernism as a finished product that
any player could simply adopt by imitating
Staunton's opening moves. If E. W. was playing in
a new hypermodern style, he undoubtedly had a lot
of new territory to explore and on-the-spot
inventing to do. It sounds to me as though that
was Chernev's main point. If Chernev, did make
a mistake about hypermodern origins, it could have
been due to bias, but it is just as easy to believe
it was the sort of mistake that has been made
countless times in chess history writings.
William Hyde wrote:
> Horowitz claimed that Staunton's literary work
> was worthless, today only cited when someone
> says in a footnote "Staunton wrongly assumes".
> ... This fabrication, or lie if you like, is typical. ...
> Unfortunately Horowitz died before Stauntons's
> Shakespeare edition was reprinted in the 1970s
> - not bad for a worthless book written a century
> earlier.
I wrote:
> I believe that William Hyde has the wrong author.
> This seems to be the quote that he is thinking of:
> "Staunton ... believed that his chief life-work and
> claim to subsequent fame lay in his edition of
> Shakespeare. But if there is a reference to it
> nowadays it's only in a variorum footnote which
> starts off something like 'Staunton wrongly
> surmises', and so on. ..." Harry Golombek made
> these remarks
William Hyde now writes:
> I am rather sure Horowitz did say the above. ...
> I did read this in one of his books.
I am rather skeptical since William Hyde does
not provide any additional details.
I wrote:
> I have to agree that, taken literally, what
> was said was wrong. ... Nevertheless, I do not
> think that words like "fabrication" and "lie" are
> appropriate. Most likely, what we are seeing is
> due to carelessness.
William Hyde now writes:
> James Croll ... pretty much
> founded that branch which deals with the relation
> between perturbations of the earth's orbit and the
> ice ages. And Croll was without doubt a great
> scientist of his day ... To say that Croll only is
> found in a few footnotes today would not be
> denigration. To characterize those footnotes as
> mainly saying "Croll wrongly surmises" would
> be. And ... it would be a fabrication.
Well Golombek did not write about Croll. He
wrote about Staunton who, as far as I can tell,
was not a great founder of anything outside of
chess. It is quite possible that Golombek
asked some Shakespeare scholar for an
assessment of Staunton, and the scholar
(perhaps not even really remembering who
Staunton was) made the remarks that
Golombek copied down and believed without
checking for himself. Another possibility is that
perhaps somewhere there is a cluster of
footnotes that mostly criticize Staunton and
Golombek, through sheer bad luck, came
across them first in his research and assumed
that they were representative. This is less
likely than my previous idea, but either is
far more likely than the wild notion that
Golombek committed a "fabrication".
William Hyde writes:
> When carelessness is systematic or biased it
> ceases to be mere carelessness.
Where is the evidence that the carelessness of
Golombek is systematic or biased?
William Hyde does his best to come up with
something:
> Did Horowitz or Golombek ever "carelessly"
> comment that Buckle's history has long since
> been discarded, or that Anderssen was
> teaching an antiquated form of mathematics,
> or that Tarrasch's medical practices would
> get him a malpractice suit nowadays?
What an argument! If I make a careless
remark about Jack the Ripper and never make
a careless remark about Adolf Hitler, would
that prove that I am systematically biased against
Jack the Ripper? I have to note that William
Hyde can not bring himself to explicitly say that
he is advocating the ideas that Golombek
committed a fabrication or was systematically
biased against Staunton. People would laugh.
I wrote:
> Golombek's intended point was that the
> Shakespeare edition is now largely
> forgotten, and this, at least, seems to be
> true. ... It might be a mistake to attach too
> much significance to the 1970s reprint. For a
> publisher, it offered several advantages:
> It is big, there are lots of footnotes and
> illustrations, and it is in the public domain.
William Hyde now writes:
> Quite a few editions are in the public domain,
> but whose was published?
Jules Verne's novel, The Adventures of Captain
Hattaras, was republished sometime around 1970.
Nevertheless, it is a now largely forgotten work.
William Hyde writes:
> As to the footnotes, who wrote them?
Believe me, there is no mistaking Staunton's
style. However, consider this quote from a
recent issue of CHESS: "Staunton's
Shakespeare ... is a beached whale of an
edition, its virtues rendered irrelevant by the
advance of scholarship, its pages now scarcely
turned. If the work survives at all ... it is for the
thousand-or-so illustrations by Sir John Gilbert
... rather than for Staunton's text or commentary."
I saw no objection in subsequent issues of the
English magazine.
William Hyde wrote:
> Staunton ... did help the refugee Lowenthal
I wrote:
> And later turned on him, ridiculing him publicly.
> Also, Staunton complained publicly about players
> from foreign countries being hired to write chess
> columns for English newspapers.
William Hyde now writes:
> The point is that he did some good things along
> with the bad.
Since we are not talking about "character
assassination" any more, I do not see why this
point is being brought up.
William Hyde writes:
> Did Anderssen help Lowenthal? Did Falkbeer,
> Lange, von Der Lasa, St Amant?
I do not see how it can be known for sure one
way or the other. History does not contain a
complete record of all efforts at assistance that
have been made. We might also ask if
Falkbeer, Lange, von Der Lasa, or St Amant
ever publicly ridiculed Lowenthal or argued that
foreigners should not be writing for English
newspapers.
William Hyde writes:
> I admire Horowitz, Fine and Chernev for their
> other work. ... you will see the fruits of the
> writings of the above authors. Staunton is
> repeatedly cited on this group as being beneath
> contempt,
If William Hyde thinks that Chernev's long forgotten
essay about E. W. is in any way responsible for this,
I can only say that the amount of merit in that
idea is so glaringly obvious that no comment from
me is necessary. As for Fine, it is true that he does
not mention all of Staunton's good deeds, but he
does not mention nearly all the bad ones either.
There is only one sentence about the Morphy-
Staunton affair. On Staunton's personality, the
Fine account seems to me to be pretty balanced.
As for Horowitz, his history books - whatever
they said - are, I would guess, pretty well
forgotten by now. My guess is that the biggest
single influence on internet opinion is the Sergeant
book on Morphy which understandably does
not go into details about Staunton's good deeds.
It is, after all, a book about Morphy.
William Hyde writes:
> Staunton is repeatedly cited on this group as
> being ... a poor player
The Chernev and Horowitz historical writings
are so long forgotten now, that I would still find
it hard to believe their influence persists today.
Perhaps Fine could be blamed for only saying
that Staunton "was by far the strongest player
in England" without identifying him as having
ever been the best in the world.
Really, however, I think that the word has spread
pretty well that Staunton had some notable ability.
A fellow named Pete said at first, "most people
sucked, and Staunton had a fairly acceptable grasp
on the game." Later, he added, "I like Staunton, I
have his book, ... I have a small collection of his
games, Staunton played very well."
Jerry Spinrad wrote, "it is my belief that Staunton
was never the best player in the world, or even
in England." Nevertheless, he acknowledged that
Staunton "was a strong player", and only ranked
him below "Lasa, Szen and Buckle, and probably
Bledow".
Matt Nemmers told us that "Morphy would've
STOMPED Staunton", but he also said, "that
Staunton was a good player there is no doubt".
Considering that this is a place where, to put it
mildly, people are not always careful in their
choice of words (and some people just seem to
enjoy stirring up a fight) I do not think that
Staunton is doing too badly.
William Hyde writes:
> Is Whyld right to say that Morphy promised a
> return match to Anderssen, then reneged on
> this?
Recently, I asked about a list of Whyld claims
in the magazine CHESS, published in the United
Kingdom. Since then, I have never seem him provide
information about the sources for any of them.
Moreover, I saw no sources identified by anyone
else. It is as if Whyld is the only person on the
planet who knows where those claims come
from. A similar effort at www.chesscafe.com
had similar results.
It is interesting to consider the story of one
particular claim that I tried to investigate.
Talking about the Birmingham tournament,
Whyld wrote that in August 1858, "Staunton
played so poorly that he realized that he had
no chance against Morphy unless he took time
off from his Shakespearian work, and Routledge,
the publisher, threatened him with legal action if
he were to break his contract."
Later, Gareth Williams (after reading a paper
by Whyld) wrote, "Staunton claimed that
Routledge threatened him with legal action if he
delayed his regular manuscripts in order to play
a chess match with Paul Morphy." Naturally,
in a letter to CHESS, I tried to ask about the
notion that Staunton received a threat from his
publisher in 1858. The only response that I have
seen from Whyld was a public letter that ignored
that issue, misrepresented what my letter had
said, and declared that I take "Morphy idolatry
to new limits." That might be all we would know,
but it appears that Whyld was a little more open
with a fellow named Chris P. Ravilious who had
"much correspondence with Ken Whyld". C. P. R.
casually let everyone know that "there is no
documentary proof of a specific threat by
Routledge during the period when the Morphy
challenge was on the table." He also referred to
the idea as speculation.
People can decide for themselves whether or
not it is a good idea to believe something that
only Whyld seems to know about Morphy and
Staunton.
William Hyde writes:
> I never read that in Fine, Horowitz, or Chernev.
> *If* Whyld is right, (I don't trust his work as
> much as I once did) that is a clear double
> standard, is it not?
No, for two reasons.
(1) If Whyld keeps secrets, how can others
be blamed for not knowing those secrets?
(2) There is no real parallel between Staunton-
Morphy and Morphy-Anderssen. Again, we
criticize Staunton because he caused everyone
to believe that he was going to play a match,
then quietly delayed the match, then tried to
deceive people about who was delaying the
match, then decided that he was not going to
play the match, then put off telling people that he
was not going to play the match, and then
resorted to belligerent ridicule in reaction to
complaints.
Nothing like that happened between Morphy
and Anderssen.
phil
> William Hyde wrote:
> > Very long ago I read an article by Chernev on
> > the original play of Elijah Williams. The idea
> > being that the very slow play of which Staunton
> > complained was due to Williams' inventing
> > hypermodern chess over the board in the
> > 1850s! If Chernev had bothered to play over
> > the games of Staunton, he'd have seen that
> > Williams' original opening ideas were actually
> > Staunton's. So Chernev simultaneously
> > manages to put Staunton in a bad light for his
> > complaints, and assign his life's work to another
> > man. Contemptible. Luckily Fischer set the
> > record straight on this.
>
> I wrote:
> > "Inventing hypermodern chess" was not Staunton's
> > "life's work". According to the Oxford Companion,
> > "for the most part he played the usual openings of
> > his time but he introduced several positional
> > concepts. ... he may be regarded as the precursor
> > of the hypermodern movement".
>
> No response from William Hyde on this point.
this technique of response is not entirely feasable given that it only
addresses the impressions offered by Dr. Hyde, and is somewhat at the
expense of the subject matter - so there results two subjects
what is true in chess is that chess is a performance activity - and no
amount of post-facto opinion addresses how players actually *performed*
at the board
i should prefer a strong chess-player to address this point
phil innes
phil
> was never the best player in the world, or even
> in England." Nevertheless, he acknowledged that
> Staunton "was a strong player", and only ranked
> him below "Lasa, Szen and Buckle, and probably
> Bledow".
>
> Matt Nemmers told us that "Morphy would've
> STOMPED Staunton", but he also said, "that
> Staunton was a good player there is no doubt".
>
> Considering that this is a place where, to put it
> mildly, people are not always careful in their
> choice of words (and some people just seem to
> enjoy stirring up a fight) I do not think that
> Staunton is doing too badly.
yes indeed, of these named players - "Lasa, Szen and Buckle, and
probably
Bledow" it is the mysterious Szen that might offer any serious challenge
it seems as if the gentleman was a hungarian resident, of unclear
ancestry, though sometimes a player of some substance
i would agree with this sentiment, if not unequivocally expressed, that
staunton did well against them, in the sense that he did so on a
consistent basis
> William Hyde writes:
>
> > Is Whyld right to say that Morphy promised a
> > return match to Anderssen, then reneged on
> > this?
>
> Recently, I asked about a list of Whyld claims
> in the magazine CHESS, published in the United
> Kingdom. Since then, I have never seem him provide
> information about the sources for any of them.
> Moreover, I saw no sources identified by anyone
> else. It is as if Whyld is the only person on the
> planet who knows where those claims come
> from. A similar effort at www.chesscafe.com
> had similar results.
in which i took part, arguing two themes, one pro one con
it is necessary for any would-be biographer to own his sentiment
and i supported ken in his interpretation of an issue, not for the sake
of the issue but in the necessity of making such a claim - this against
the views of edward winter, and others
against him in that, as you intimate, there can be various
interpretations of perception - that these are seperate issues
(perception and interpretation) - and that some standard needs to be
established beyond that of opinion in order for further clarity
this challenge against mr whyld went unanswered by either pro or con
factions to the issue at hand
i should further state that i had some communication directly with mr
whyld about an interview with a russian native - and expressed a reserve
in any interpretation of what this gentleman might say, without the
context of his knowledge be also as known to interviewer
~~~
i break this long and interesting subject into yet a third post
phil innes
phil
yes - this is an excellent point, not that any case is proved by it, but
that it is the responsibility of mr. whylde to make clear his
attributions, and where he makes his (necessary) determinations of them
> > William Hyde writes:
> >
> > > I never read that in Fine, Horowitz, or Chernev.
> > > *If* Whyld is right, (I don't trust his work as
> > > much as I once did) that is a clear double
> > > standard, is it not?
> >
> > No, for two reasons.
> >
> > (1) If Whyld keeps secrets, how can others
> > be blamed for not knowing those secrets?
i excuse you, sir, for not answering the question directly. the
situation is more complex than a direct answer may allow - however, the
question must thereby stand unanswered unless sufficient cause is
offered to widen its scope
> > (2) There is no real parallel between Staunton-
> > Morphy and Morphy-Anderssen. Again, we
> > criticize Staunton because he caused everyone
> > to believe that he was going to play a match,
> > then quietly delayed the match, then tried to
> > deceive people about who was delaying the
> > match, then decided that he was not going to
> > play the match, then put off telling people that he
> > was not going to play the match, and then
> > resorted to belligerent ridicule in reaction to
> > complaints.
> >
> > Nothing like that happened between Morphy
> > and Anderssen.
to obfusticate matters further (i admit it!) staunton dealt through a
particularly complicated agent, one who had ambitions, a somewhat
insecure gentleman who perhaps blackmailed staunton with a homosexual
scandal
all of which proves nothing - except that, in this case, i enlarge the
field of inquiry to include this cove
is this also your understanding of the situation - does it moderate your
understanding of staunton's behavior?
cordially, phil innes
Louis Blair
> Chernev manages to assign Staunton's life's
> work to another man.
I wrote:
> "Inventing hypermodern chess" was not Staunton's
> "life's work". According to the Oxford Companion,
> "for the most part he played the usual openings of
> his time but he introduced several positional
> concepts. ... he may be regarded as the precursor
> of the hypermodern movement".
After another note from William Hyde, I commented:
> No response from William Hyde on this point.
Phil Innes writes:
> i should prefer a strong chess-player to address
> this point
So would I, provided that the strong player also
had adequate historical knowledge in order to
make a judgment about Staunton's life's work.
Until such a player comes forward, I can think
of nothing to do other than to consult what
previous writers have said. (See, for example,
the Oxford Companion or the book that was
once published about Staunton's games.)
Phil Innes writes:
> this is an excellent point, not that any case is
> proved by it
Proof or even much in the way of further sensible
discussion is going to be difficult unless someone
comes forward with more verifiable facts. While
waiting, the only thing that I can think of to do is
to consider things like the attempt to defend
himself that Staunton wrote for the October 23,
1858 issue of the Illustrated London News. As
I said in a letter to CHESS, "Anyone who has the
Hippocrene edition of Max Lange's Morphy book
(page 99) or the Dover edition of Morphy Gleanings
(page 90) can see that Staunton said absolutely
nothing about Routledge making a threat in 1858."
So far, I have seen no response from anyone.
By the way, anyone wanting to see the CHESS
discussion can look at page 47 of the October
1997 issue, page 48 of the May 1998 issue,
pages 32-34 of the December 1998 issue, pages
23-24 of the May 1999 issue, page 37 of the
June 1999 issue, page 41 of the August 1999
issue, and page 48 of the June 2000 issue. At
the www.chesscafe.com bulletin board, someone
wrote, "I've just been through the CHESS letters
... Mr. Whyld wrote many things that he refused
to back up and he twisted what Mr. Blair said.
He just wasn't prepared to discuss Mr. Blair's
real points. Mr. Whyld was also very aggressive
... Mr. Whyld came across badly in CHESS"
Phil Innes writes:
> to obfusticate matters further (i admit it!) staunton
> dealt through a particularly complicated agent,
> one who had ambitions, a somewhat insecure
> gentleman who perhaps blackmailed staunton
> with a homosexual scandal ... is this also your
> understanding of the situation
I'm afraid not. As far as I know, Staunton dealt
with Morphy in person (the president of the chess
association was a witness) and in his newspaper
column. Records of that column still exist. I
have never seen anyone (until now) try to suggest
that Staunton was a homosexual or that he was
ever blackmailed by anyone for any reason.
William Hyde wrote:
> Chernev's writing was still
> wrong, denigrating, and part of a pattern.
I wrote:
> Since William Hyde has only given us one Chernev
> example, I don't see any "pattern" that could justify
> conclusions about Chernev's unconscious
> motivations or justify saying that Chernev was
> "prone to unjust denigration of Staunton's work."
I have just remembered another example that adds
strength to William Hyde's case against Chernev.
On pages 9 and 10 of The Bright Side of Chess,
Chernev wrote, "Staunton had a high reputation
- and he was jealous of it. One time he confronted
Lowenthal, a rival master, with, 'I understand,
Mr. Lowenthal, that you have published a
statement in your chess column to the effect that
you have beaten me the majority of games'. 'I
did write that', answered Lowenthal. 'You will
have to retract that assertion in your next issue',
said Staunton. 'But I did beat you the majority
of the games we played', protested Lowenthal.
'That does not matter', Staunton replied, 'you
must retract the statement!'"
An apparently somewhat better description of
what happened appeared in the July 1881 issue
of Brentano's Chess Monthly, "A correspondent
wrote to the Era - wherein Lowenthal was at the
time conducting a chess column - asking what
was his score with Staunton. Lowenthal, in
reply, did not, as well as I remember, specify
the names of the players referred to, but he
indicated them so very clearly to the initiated
that there could be no mistake as to their identity,
and claimed for himself a score exceeding his
opponent's in a certain ratio. Thereupon, another
correspondent wrote to Staunton inquiring as to the
score, and he claimed for himself a majority in a
still greater ratio, and, at the same time, he sent
for Lowenthal and requested of him a letter
corroborative of his statement to be published
in the Illustrated London News. Lowenthal was
frightened, but refused his request on the ground
that such a statement would be untrue; whereupon,
Staunton told him he regarded him as an impostor,
and should renounce his acquaintance. ... What
particularly irritated Staunton in this matter was
the seeming ingratitude of his protégé. He had
been Lowenthal's first and best friend from the
time of his arrival in this country. He had treated
him with unbounded hospitality, had recommended
him to pupils, had used his influence successfully
to get him appointed secretary to the St. George's
Club at a salary of 100 pounds a year, and therefore
he considered, and rightly I think, that, even granting
the score given by Lowenthal to be correct, he was
not justified in making it public. On the other hand,
I must add that Staunton's persecution of the
Hungarian from that time forward was wholly
inexcusable."
These two versions of the story were reproduced in
the May - June 1988 issue of Edward Winter's Chess
Notes. (Anyone interested in chess history really
ought to acquire copies of his works.) After
comparing the two accounts above, I must confess
that I now have much greater sympathy for
William Hyde's notion that Chernev ought to
"be condemned in the afterlife to a year of
talking with ... a somewhat tiresome person".
For the moment, I am still inclined to defend
Edward Lasker, Fine, and Golombek. Also,
I still doubt that much of the influence
of Horowitz and Chernev persists today.
Indeed, I suspect that in the last 23 years
the pro-Staunton writers have published
more historical distortion than the
anti-Staunton writers.
On page 488 of the September 1999 issue
of the British Chess Magazine an early
October 1858 letter from Morphy was described
as "lamenting" Staunton's "refusal to play" a match
with Morphy. In a letter to the BCM, I pointed
out that at the time of the Morphy letter there
had been no "refusal" from Staunton. Indeed
Staunton had been portraying himself as wishing
to play, able to play, and waiting for Morphy to
"be forthcoming" with "representatives to arrange
the terms and money for the stakes". The purpose
of the Morphy letter was to put his "true position
with reference to" Staunton "in its proper light
before the public." So far, I have seen no
correction in the BCM.
William Hyde wrote:
> The Czar named five players as grandmasters
> in 1914
It is understandable that William Hyde believes
this often repeated story, but I would like to add
that in some circles, there has been a lot of
skepticism about it lately. Searches have been
made through newspaper reports at the time
without finding any reference to the Czar in
connection with the tournament. The reports
seem to indicate that all the participants were
regarded as grandmasters before the start of
the event. I once found a book that indicated
that the Czar and his family were all out of
town at the time. Marshall's book seems
to be what got this Czar-story going. He
wrote that he and four others had been
given the grandmaster title by the Czar. Marshall
is the same fellow who said that one of his games
once thrilled spectators to such an extent that
they showered the board with gold coins.
It is completely speculation on my part, but
my guess is that all that happened in 1914
was that some official ceremoniously read
a statement on behalf of the Czar saying
something like, "Congratulations to the
grandmasters of chess."
More on the Czar-story can be found in the
works of Edward Winter.
PJDBAD
hypermodernisms over the board. The remark is so obviously intended to be
ironic that it requires little critical comment other than to identify it as
such.
phil
a few months ago at chess.cafe whyld, winter and others, went at this
subject vigorously
there is much speculation how the gentleman i mentioned wrote staunton a
letter mentioning 'love' meant it to be received - it seems that this
gentlaman was an intermediary staunton/morphy
chesscafe archives have substantial corres on the subject
phil innes
lta...@my-deja.com
sp...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Jeremy Spinrad) wrote:
(Interesting comments on Staunton, Szen and von der Lasa snipped)
> Now we come to Buckle. I will note an obscure "conflict of interest"
> in my claim that Buckle was better than Staunton; my one keepsake
> from the man I was named after is an inscribed (by my namesake) copy
> of Buckle's "History of England"
> given as a gift to my father.
>
> In 1843, Staunton gave Buckle odds of pawn and move, and lost 6-0
> with 1 draw; this is a clear indication of Buckle's superiority.
> Buckle beat Kieseritzky in a
> close match 3-2 with 3 draws in 1848. , and won the 1849 knockout
> tournament by a 2-0 score over Williams; note that Williams beat
> Staunton 4-3 with 1 draw in their match in the London 1851
> tournament. Buckle beat Loewenthal 4-1 with 3
> draws in 1851. Buckle also held his own (while noone else did) in
> games against Anderssen in 1851; Anderssen claimed that Buckle was
> the strongest player he faced.
>
This post led me to look at some of Buckle's efforts in The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Vol. I.
The OECG unfortunately gives only three of the pawn-and-move games
between Buckle and Staunton. It's hard to say what conclusion we may
draw from them. In all three games, Staunton seems to have succeeded in
completely neutralizing Buckle's initial advantage, but in two of the
three Buckle eventually outplayed him in even or unclear positions.
The OECG gives all the games from the Buckle-Löwenthal match, with
light annotations by Staunton. Here Buckle clearly outplayed his
opponent, and the games are quite interesting if you're looking for
precursors of hypermodernism. Buckle at the time was fond of set-ups
with f4 and b3, or (with Black) f5 and b6. One game began 1. d4 e6 2.
c4 Bb4+ 3. Nc3 Bxc3+, an unprovoked exchange which on the face of it
looks pretty Nimzowitschian. Interestingly Staunton considered 3. Nc3
to be a mistake, preferring 3. Bd2 (unfortunately the OECG doesn't
explain why).
Larry Tapper
Charles Blair
Elijah Williams was way ahead of his time in positional concepts.
Louis Blair
> to obfusticate matters further (i admit it!) staunton
> dealt through a particularly complicated agent,
> one who had ambitions, a somewhat insecure
> gentleman who perhaps blackmailed staunton
> with a homosexual scandal ... is this also your
> understanding of the situation
I wrote:
> I'm afraid not. As far as I know, Staunton dealt
> with Morphy in person (the president of the chess
> association was a witness) and in his newspaper
> column. Records of that column still exist. I
> have never seen anyone (until now) try to suggest
> that Staunton was a homosexual or that he was
> ever blackmailed by anyone for any reason.
Phil Innes now writes:
> a few months ago at chess.cafe whyld, winter
> and others, went at this subject vigorously
>
> there is much speculation how the gentleman i
> mentioned wrote staunton a letter mentioning
> 'love' meant it to be received
>
> chesscafe archives have substantial corres on
> the subject
Things seem to be seriously garbled here. Here
are a few key quotes. One person wrote,
"While recently browsing through The Oxford
Companion to Chess ..., I came upon the entry
for Frederick Edge. In that rather long entry,
... it says: '... in March 1859, Edge wrote (in
an unpublished letter), "I have been a lover, a
brother, a mother to you..."' The letter was to
Paul Morphy."
Ken Whyld said that Edge was saying that he
had been the "guardian" and "supporter" of
Morphy.
I said, "the letter was not to Morphy ... The
Edge quote actually comes from a letter to
Fiske, Morphy's friend in New York. Edge
was upset because he felt that he had been
unfairly treated by Morphy. Edge was
describing what he was tempted to say to
Morphy."
Another person wrote, "This quote pops up
now and then in discussions of whether
Morphy might have been homosexual.
Perusing David Lawson's lengthy and heavily
researched biography Paul Morphy: The Pride
and Sorrow of Chess ..., I found no mention
of any homoerotic involvement in Morphy's
life, but I did see a good many incidents and
traits that indicate normal heterosexual interest.
Also, Edge was already married at the time he
worked for Morphy, and he would almost
certainly not reveal a homosexual relationship
to a third party, in this case Fiske. These facts
argue strongly against any homoerotic liaison.
... 'lover' denoted romantic or sexual love
centuries before Morphy, as it does today. One
does also find the sense in which Edge used it,
i. e. admiration or hero-worship, as in
Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, when the note
warning Caesar of his impending assassination
is signed 'Thy lover, Artemidorus.' When that
meaning disappeared from common usage is
a question for lexicographers, though it would
seem one still sees vestiges of it in 'art-lover,'
'music-lover,' 'lovers of fine cuisine' and other
such phrases."
I provided a quote from a pamphlet about
Morphy that was written by his niece: "Paul
Morphy ... very seldom missed a performance
at the old French Opera House ... During
intermissions, he would call upon some of his
lady friends who occupied boxes and invite
them to a promenade in the 'foyer' ... He was
a great admirer of the fair sex ... he would ...
give feminine charms an admiring glance"
Ken Whyld added, "Had Edge's letter been
published when it was written, nobody would
have read a homosexual meaning into it."
There was quite a bit of argument at the
www.chesscafe.com bulletin board, but it
was all on related issues. I can not remember
anyone explicitly advocating the idea that
Morphy was homosexual.
Most of the discussion took place under the
heading, 212 Morphy & Edge. There was also
some related discussion under the heading,
213 Morphy-Staunton Match.
Phil Innes writes:
> it seems that this
> gentlaman was an intermediary staunton/morphy
As I mentioned before, as far as I know, Staunton
dealt with Morphy in person (the president of the
chess association was a witness) and in his
newspaper column. Records of that column still
exist. Edge's "intermediary staunton/morphy" role
was to write up the letters that Morphy would sign.
Louis Blair
Good grief, I never thought of that possibility.
Thank you for pointing out what should have
been obvious. Somehow, I had this image locked
in my head of a dignified scholarly article, but this
is Chernev we are talking about. My brain better
wake up.
phil
about mr edge and his 'lover' letter
i had previously posted a sort of provocative post suggesting that is
was staunton who was blackmailed (thinking that no-one would know better
anyway - and teasing a certain london rezident)
however, mr blair is correct that it is the other gent, morphy. he cites
some of the <laugh> © material from chesscafe (undoubtably as a review)
and seem to dismiss the idea that there was ever an intermediary between
morphy and staunton, and that this individual could have threatened
morphy with homosexual blackmail
i must say that the correspondence at chesscafe did not come to this
conclusion, and did indicate an agenda inserted between the two chess
players by edge, whose letter, if innocent, is extraordinarily so
in fact mr whyld spoke of 'love' as not a term that would have been
significant of sex at that time (late 1900s), and i myself wrote a
lineage of it from the 16th century somewhat contradicting him, and
which received no reply
such, such...
phil innes
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Louis Blair <lbl...@pilot.lsus.edu> writes:
557 lines!
I shall once again ruthlessly snip and decline to respond on points
where we largely agree (I include your exchange with Phil),
or points that don't seem worth pursuing.
Kindly email me if I leave anything out you consider crucial.
I will cut much of your debate because of my lack of sources. As
indicated, I cannot give chapter and verse on my Chernev or Horowitz
comments, so I can only give them as what I recall. Should I find
the sources (not likely for a while) I'll give you the corrected
versions. But from the limited number of books available to me I
have culled a few other examples.
I have a copy of "the best of chess life and review", volume 2,
so I looked up Staunton in the index. An article on "sitzfleisch"
singles out Staunton, in the first paragraph, as being prone to win
games by outsitting his opponent. Not Paulsen or Williams, two
players for which we have some evidence for slow play, but Staunton.
Now there, I think, is a fairly gratuitous slam. I failed to take down
the author's name or an exact quote, but I believe it was by
a Dr Wagner.
Browsing Reinfeld's "Treasury of chess lore" we find
on page 101:
" [Staunton's] ... one material success was a victory
over St Amant in 1943".
This was originally published in Horowitz' chess
review. In the past on this group at least one
person has commented that "Staunton only won one
match". Perhaps we know where he got that idea?
Looking for points for your side, I looked at Saidy's
"Battle of chess ideas". I thought there might be some
Staunton-Positive comments there. But while he credits
Staunton for showing the value of 1c4, he adds:
"effectively his greatest impact on chess was a negative
one: by refusing to go through with a match with morphy he
presumably effected the latter's disillusionment and
permanent withdrawal from chess".
I always knew Saidy was a strong player, I was unaware
that he could read minds.
I was able to check out only one of Edward Lasker's
books, "the adventure of chess". No attention paid to
the good Staunton did, but no crass misrepresentation.
A hostile portrait with a few errors, but not that bad.
Fine did a much better job.
On the topic of gratuitous slams, a short story in
Chess life, 1986, referred thus to Staunton's games:
"they were grasping, clutching, tawdry affairs, the
games of an insurance salesman".
The above is naturally far from a complete list. But
I submit that a casual reading of the literature will
leave a strongly misleading impression about Staunton.
There was a favourable article about Staunton in
Chess Life circa 1990, but I was unable to find
it (the library collection is incomplete).
>> ... I do not
>> believe that the writers consciously tried to deceive
>> the readers about Staunton
>
> In that case, could it be that such words and
> phrases as "false accusation", "fabrication", "lie",
A false accusation is still false, whether known to be so
or not. Thus I think it is a valid comment. If Horowitz got
his comment from Golombek, then he was neither lying nor
fabricating something, and neither was Golombek if he was
told this and believed his source.
On the other hand, the "dictionary of national
biography" is a source Golombek, and even Horowitz,
could and should have consulted. It seems to
be reasonably complimentary, referring to Staunton's
broad knowledge of Elizabethan times, his common
sense, and exhaustive research.
> and "more interested in denigrating Staunton than
> in telling the truth" were not quite the best choices,
> either?
No, I think this latter is still arguable.
A writer who is interested in the truth takes
the trouble to check sources.
With regard to Fine: Tartakower's annotations can
be found in "500 master games", by Tartakower and
du Mont. I see from my new copy of Fine's book that
he is as harsh with Anderssen as he is with Staunton,
so with regard to this book I withdraw all comments
on Fine. He need only talk with Edge if he wishes
to do so.
> If E. W. got into difficulties because of lack
> of experience with hypermodern openings and
> middlegames,
It seems to me that by 1851 Staunton's system and his
advocation of the English opening were quite familiar to
all strong players in the UK. Williams had no doubt studied
the games of Staunton, the leading English player. Keene
points out how Staunton's ideas evolved in the St Amant match,
and I think that no strong English player would be unfamiliar
with these games. He certainly held his own vs Staunton.
> it would be only natural for him to have trouble in the ending.
Given how well he did in the event (third or fourth place,
I believe), I'd say he was probably not in trouble much.
> I do not see why this would rule out the possibility
> that E. W. would have trouble with a hypermodern
> opening. William Hyde talks about E. W. playing
> "evidently a fully worked out opening system",
> but I do not know what makes this evident.
I was thinking of "The Staunton System" by Coles.
>> I am rather sure Horowitz did say the above. ...
>> I did read this in one of his books.
>
> I am rather skeptical since William Hyde does
> not provide any additional details.
As I said at the very beginning, this is entirely
from memory and I do not have these books to hand.
I have on several occasions indicated that my memory
is fallible, certainly as to details, but I know I
did not read the above in a book of Golombek's, for
the reason that I didn't even know of his existence
for years afterwards (it is an unusual name, after all).
> William Hyde writes:
>
>> When carelessness is systematic or biased it
>> ceases to be mere carelessness.
>
> Where is the evidence that the carelessness of
> Golombek is systematic or biased?
If a number of authors are "careless" with their
statements about one player, but are fair to
others, it is a case of systematic bias. It
need not be bias on the part of one writer.
> What an argument!
See above.
> However, consider this quote from a
> recent issue of CHESS: "Staunton's
> Shakespeare ... is a beached whale of an
> edition, its virtues
So it does have virtues! Someone tell the
shades of Golombek (and, I insist, Horowitz).
> rendered irrelevant by the advance of scholarship,
As are Croll's articles. Which was the point of my
Croll anecdote.
> its pages now scarcely turned.
I'd like to thank you for providing me with another
example. Quite a few copies of this work were sold
in the late 1970s. Now, without taking some sort of poll
of the owners, just how does the author of this quote
know that "its pages are scarcely turned"? I wouldn't
be at all surprised - I own a Shakespeare that I rarely
look at - but why is he so sure?
It is clear that it was a good, thorough, and scholarly
work in its day, and undeserving of the sneers it has
received.
I can't see what your quote is intended to show.
>> Did Anderssen help Lowenthal? Did Falkbeer,
>> Lange, von Der Lasa, St Amant?
>
> I do not see how it can be known for sure one
> way or the other.
I think this is a case of bending over backwards to
ignore or belittle the good that he did. History
tells us that Staunton, Stanley (surely a more obscure
figure than Anderssen) and later Morphy all helped
Lowenthal. If there is no record of help from these
other gentlemen I think it is reasonable to hold
that they did not help in any serious way, always
keeping in mind the uncertainty you cite.
>> I admire Horowitz, Fine and Chernev for their
>> other work. ... you will see the fruits of the
>> writings of the above authors. Staunton is
>> repeatedly cited on this group as being beneath
>> contempt,
>
> If William Hyde thinks that Chernev's long forgotten
Many of the books I refer to are available in libraries -
which is where I read them and why I don't have copies.
These works were certainly read in the 1970s and some
at least are read today. Even the meager collection
at our local library has the quotes given above, and more.
> As for Horowitz, his history books - whatever
> they said - are, I would guess, pretty well
> forgotten by now.
But the attitude is copied by the next generation,
as my introductory quotes show.
And the point often made by Winter, that chess writers
tend to copy earlier works unthinkingly?
> Jerry Spinrad wrote, "it is my belief that Staunton
> was never the best player in the world, or even
> in England."
Mr Spinrad is well informed and has a case to
make. I was in no way referring to him in
my above comments. He and I may disagree (as you
also seem to) but we can debate.
This whole thread is a bit better informed (even aside
from Mr Spinrad) than the standard "Staunton" thread.
Maybe that is progress.
We had a pro-Staunton type on this group a while ago,
he even used the name "Howard Staunton" for some time.
Other than him, the pro-Staunton revisionists have been
thin on the ground. And he may well have been trolling.
> Recently, I asked about a list of Whyld claims
> in the magazine CHESS, published in the United
> Kingdom.
I take it this is a "no", or at least a "not proven"?
If Whyld is that unreliable, then there is no point in
debating his ideas.
So, am I to take it also that the Oxford Companion's
comment that Morphy broke a promise to play Kolisch
is also unsupported? Is there a consensus on this?
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Mr Blair,
Is it not Whyld who claims to have seen the text of Alekhine's
nazi broadcasts in Alekhine's own hand? It always seemed
to me bizarre that a lawyer like Alekhine (even if he didn't
practice) would not dispose of such, or that his wife, in the ten
years after his death, wouldn't get rid of such incriminating
evidence. Has anyone else seen these?
Chesspride
>... it says: '... in March 1859, Edge wrote (in
>an unpublished letter), "I have been a lover, a
>brother, a mother to you..."' The letter was to
>Paul Morphy."
>
>Ken Whyld said that Edge was saying that he
>had been the "guardian" and "supporter" of
>Morphy.
>
>I said, "the letter was not to Morphy ... The
>Edge quote actually comes from a letter to
>Fiske, Morphy's friend in New York. Edge
>was upset because he felt that he had been
>unfairly treated by Morphy. Edge was
>describing what he was tempted to say to
>Morphy."
This topic is discussed in a article in issue # 2 of Chess Pride, the only
magazine dedicated to gay and lesbian chessplayers.
Folks interested in receiving a copy may contact me via email.
>traits that indicate normal heterosexual interest.
>Also, Edge was already married at the time he
>worked for Morphy, and he would almost
>certainly not reveal a homosexual relationship
>to a third party, in this case Fiske. These facts
Although the climate of the time (1800s) might argue against such a
revelation...the fact that Edge was married carries almost no explanatory
weight. There is a rather large number of married gay/bisexual men in the US
(some estimates put this at 1-2 million).
>When that
>meaning disappeared from common usage is
>a question for lexicographers, though it would
>seem one still sees vestiges of it in 'art-lover,'
>'music-lover,' 'lovers of fine cuisine' and other
>such phrases."
But one must question the level of interest shown by Edge in the much younger
Morphy (something like 27 vs. 20).
A married man...leaves his wife...attends to the needs of the younger,
feminine-appearing Morphy...travels to Europe for an extended stay? Is he
simply a Don King-type of pr man? Or was there more?
And then there is the matter of the break-up/disagreement. Morphy and Edge
parted company very abruptly. Why? Be creative.
>During
>intermissions, he would call upon some of his
>lady friends who occupied boxes and invite
>them to a promenade in the 'foyer' ... He was
>a great admirer of the fair sex ...
Might be propaganda just like Edge's book.
Might indicate bisexuality.
Might indicate a young fellow suffering from an earlier traumatic emotional
relationship/breakup (with Edge)...who then overcompensates in rather obvious
fashion....or is in denial. Remember that Morphy gave up chess very soon after
the breakup....as if he wanted to forget it all.
Also, he was conflicted because chess was not seen as a proper activity for a
gentleman.
> I can not remember
>anyone explicitly advocating the idea that
>Morphy was homosexual.
>
I think the matter is unclear.
Eric C. Johnson
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Louis Blair <lbl...@pilot.lsus.edu> writes:
> Thank you for pointing out what should have
> been obvious. Somehow, I had this image locked
> in my head of a dignified scholarly article, but this
> is Chernev we are talking about. My brain better
> wake up.
I imagine it appeared first in Chess review,
or something like that, so indeed it was never
intended to be a "dignified scholarly article".
However, unless I am totally misremembering it,
it was not at all ironic. It was intended to
be informative, with the perfectly valid aim
of letting people know about this man who was
well in advance of his time.
Naturally also, Chernev never claimed that Williams
was reproducing the whole hypermodern movement.
But the Staunton system and other fianchetto openings
of that period do look strangely modern compared to
Steinitz. In Koenig's "chess from Morphy to Botvinnik"
there is a Staunton-Horwitz game whose opening style
(if not the exact move order) would be unremarkable in a
tournament in the 1970s, but almost unthinkable in a
Steinitz game.
PJDBAD
It was a dark and stormy night and hypermodernism was edging out of it's crypt
in the deepest cellar of the castle, slouching towards London to be born.
Seriously, though, hypermodernism was a term that was not only applied to chess
but to literature, art and music. To the extent that hypermodernism in chess
has stood the test of time better better than hypermodernism in some of the
other areas the use of the term is misleading as it has implications out side
of chess of being radical and unsound rather than just being un appriciated.
Anders Thulin
> in fact mr whyld spoke of 'love' as not a term that would have been
> significant of sex at that time (late 1900s), and i myself wrote a
> lineage of it from the 16th century somewhat contradicting him, and
> which received no reply
It's pretty clear, isn't it, that (a) one counter-example from (b)
300 years back does very little to clear up the question how *Edge*
used the term at the time.
If we can't produce any clear evidence of his personal usage, the next best
thing is probably to consider how it was used in the society he lived in
(unless we can argue that Edge was not part of it). In this case, Whyld is
certainly right about common usage: love was not used to mean sexual love.
A 'lover' was an admirer, close or distant, and to 'make love' was the
equivalent of courtship. For public examples of this, see Jane Austen, Anthony
Trollope, etc.
If the argument is that public and private expressions would be expected
to be different, it need to be backed up, for instance by investigations
into expression of sexuality in Victorian society (has Asa Briggs
done anything related to this? Victorian People?).
If homoerotic tendencies are to be ascribed to Edge, it should be done
on far firmer grounds than a might-have-been.
One possible area to explore might be Edge's relation to Fiske --
after all, Fiske was the recipient of that letter. Would Edge even make
a hint about homosexuality unless he was writing to someone he knew *very*
well? I have no reason to believe he would, but perhaps it's possible to
argue otherwise.
--
Anders Thulin Anders....@telia.se 040-10 50 63
Telia Prosoft AB, Box 85, S-201 20 Malmö, Sweden
phil
>
> phil wrote:
>
> > in fact mr whyld spoke of 'love' as not a term that would have been
> > significant of sex at that time (late 1900s), and i myself wrote a
> > lineage of it from the 16th century somewhat contradicting him, and
> > which received no reply
>
> It's pretty clear, isn't it, that (a) one counter-example from (b)
> 300 years back does very little to clear up the question how *Edge*
> used the term at the time.
yes - it is unclear (and I should have written 19th century, not 1900s)
> If we can't produce any clear evidence of his personal usage, the next best
> thing is probably to consider how it was used in the society he lived in
> (unless we can argue that Edge was not part of it). In this case, Whyld is
> certainly right about common usage: love was not used to mean sexual love.
this begins to repeat the chesslife discussion
> A 'lover' was an admirer, close or distant, and to 'make love' was the
> equivalent of courtship. For public examples of this, see Jane Austen, Anthony
> Trollope, etc.
but not dh lawrence
i also made this point - if you were educated you would have read more
broadly, and from previous centuries using the language in another way -
this is and was certainly true in england
> If the argument is that public and private expressions would be expected
> to be different, it need to be backed up, for instance by investigations
> into expression of sexuality in Victorian society (has Asa Briggs
> done anything related to this? Victorian People?).
>
> If homoerotic tendencies are to be ascribed to Edge, it should be done
> on far firmer grounds than a might-have-been.
i agree with you - however, what seemed odd about whyld's article is the
*categorical* refutation of the /idea/ of it, without any comment other
than 'not victorian usage'
its also the case that any repressed group will adopt a form of
concealed language to express their sentiments - like friend oscar - or
in about 1880 by rimbaud and verlaine in london, who were certainly
having a homosexual affair
> One possible area to explore might be Edge's relation to Fiske --
> after all, Fiske was the recipient of that letter. Would Edge even make
> a hint about homosexuality unless he was writing to someone he knew *very*
> well? I have no reason to believe he would, but perhaps it's possible to
> argue otherwise.
yes anders - otherwise we are left to speculate on morphy himself. if we
put aside such anecdotes about his admiration for the fairer sex - did
he ever 'know' any of them? and it remains possible that he was
bi-sexual
after all, rimbaud's abysinnian mistress looks very much like a woman,
and rather than call him a bi-sexual, he first had homosexual relations,
then heterosexual ones
the chesscafe material speculated on a few of these items, and rather
than resolve anything based on study, i rather felt as though the
subject brought up some taboo, and there was a disinclination to even
fairly consider if morphy had homosexual affairs, or even homosexual
inclinations
cordially, phil
Anders Thulin
are they still available in some obscure corner of that web site?
phil wrote:
> its also the case that any repressed group will adopt a form of
> concealed language to express their sentiments
Yes, but does that apply here? Do Edge and Fiske belong to such a
group?
I don't see how Fiske can be left out of it -- if he's not 'in'
to at least some extent, it seems rather incredible that Edge would
use any form of such concealed language with him.
Anyone?
Jeremy Spinrad
in the world in the period 1843-1848. Buckle vs. Staunton is, I believe,
reviving an old debate around Simpson's Divan, and I will probably not be
able to be able to say more there. My basic feeling is that we are too biased
by the belief that England was stronger than other countries at this time,
because we prefer sources in English. I feel that the results of international
tournaments starting in 1851 show that England was not dominant, si I would
like to track down more records of non-English matches. I have found evidence
for some, but I believe that many more are available to knowledgeable people
in other countries. Szen was a well known player and traveller; surely
some Hungarians have access to a book about Szen and could provide some of his
matches (I have found matches vs Harrwitz, LaBourdonnais, and some others I did
not know of, but I believe there are many more). Similarly, any record of
Bledow's matches; I only have him beating Szen and Anderssen (4-0-1, but before
Anderssen became really strong), and again I feel there should be many more.
A true repository of match results on the web would be a great resource; there
are a few scattered about, but are not at all complete.
Any help tracking these down would be appreciated!
Jerry Spinrad
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
pjd...@aol.com (PJDBAD) writes:
>>Good grief
>
> It was a dark and stormy night and hypermodernism was edging out of it's crypt
> in the deepest cellar of the castle, slouching towards London to be born.
>
> Seriously, though, hypermodernism was a term that was not only applied to chess
> but to literature, art and music.
I didn't know that. What would be an example of a
"hypermodern" composer?
I always thought Tartakower coined the word. Did
he borrow it from others, or they from him?
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
sp...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Jeremy Spinrad) writes:
> I am trying to find more information to decide whether Staunton was truly best
> by the belief that England was stronger than other countries at this time,
> because we prefer sources in English. I feel that the results of
international
> tournaments starting in 1851 show that England was not dominant,
I agree that we are possibly underestimating
German and other central/east European players because
they didn't play much in France or England. After all,
if Wyvill had been a politician in Berlin instead of
London we'd probably have no idea how strong he was.
On the other hand note that Jaenisch, one of the few
Russian players known to the west, was far inferior to
Staunton, even when the latter was past his prime.
And 1851 did show the English school to have more
depth than expected - who would have predicted that
Williams and Wyvill would do so well?
The fact that strong foreign players (LaBourdonnais,
Horwitz, Haarwitz, Lowenthal) lived in London probably
made it easier for local talent like Williams to develop.
Blackburne, for example, learned much from Horwitz, while
Bird in his youth played Horwitz and Lowenthal.
> A true repository of match results on the web would be a great resource;
> Any help tracking these down would be appreciated!
There's not much I can do from here, but good luck!
Louis Blair
> Horowitz claimed that Staunton's literary work
> was worthless, today only cited when someone
> says in a footnote "Staunton wrongly assumes".
> ... This fabrication, or lie if you like, is typical. ...
> Unfortunately Horowitz died before Stauntons's
> Shakespeare edition was reprinted in the 1970s
> - not bad for a worthless book written a century
> earlier.
I wrote:
> I believe that William Hyde has the wrong author.
> This seems to be the quote that he is thinking of:
> "Staunton ... believed that his chief life-work and
> claim to subsequent fame lay in his edition of
> Shakespeare. But if there is a reference to it
> nowadays it's only in a variorum footnote which
> starts off something like 'Staunton wrongly
> surmises', and so on. ..." Harry Golombek made
> these remarks on a radio program that was
> broadcast around 1960. Later on, they
> appeared in a collection of essays by Chernev.
William Hyde wrote:
> I am rather sure Horowitz did say the above.
> ... I did read this in one of his books.
I wrote:
> I am rather skeptical since William Hyde does
> not provide any additional details.
William Hyde now writes:
> I know I did not read the above in a book of
> Golombek's.
William Hyde is not giving a very impressive
demonstration of his memory at this point. The
suggestion was (see above) that Hyde had seen
the Staunton Shakespeare criticism in a collection
of essays compiled by Chernev, not in a book by
Golombek.
I wrote:
> I have to agree that, taken literally, what
> was said was wrong. ... Nevertheless, I do not
> think that words like "fabrication" and "lie" are
> appropriate. Most likely, what we are seeing is
> due to carelessness.
William Hyde wrote:
> To say that Croll only is found in a few footnotes
> today would not be denigration. To characterize
> those footnotes as mainly saying "Croll wrongly
> surmises" would be. And ... it would be a
> fabrication.
I wrote:
> Well Golombek did not write about Croll. He
> wrote about Staunton ... It is quite possible
> that Golombek asked some Shakespeare scholar
> for an assessment of Staunton, and the scholar
> (perhaps not even really remembering who
> Staunton was) made the remarks that Golombek
> copied down and believed without checking for
> himself. Another possibility is that perhaps
> somewhere there is a cluster of footnotes that
> mostly criticize Staunton and Golombek, through
> sheer bad luck, came across them first in his
> research and assumed that they were
> representative. This is less likely than my
> previous idea, but either is far more likely than
> the wild notion that Golombek committed a
> "fabrication". ... I have to note that William
> Hyde can not bring himself to explicitly say
> that he is advocating the ideas that Golombek
> committed a fabrication or was systematically
> biased against Staunton. People would laugh.
William Hyde now writes:
> If a number of authors are "careless" with their
> statements about one player, but are fair to
> others, it is a case of systematic bias. It
> need not be bias on the part of one writer.
The question is whether or not William Hyde is
trying to claim that Golombek specifically was
systematically biased against Staunton. William
Hyde chooses not to tell us. Does William Hyde
claim that Golombek committed a fabrication?
William Hyde chooses not to tell us.
I presented a quote that noted that the virtues of
Staunton's Shakespeare edition are now:
> rendered irrelevant by the advance of
> scholarship
William Hyde now writes:
> As are Croll's articles. Which was the point of my
> Croll anecdote.
If the point of the Croll anecdote was only to tell
us that Croll's advances have been rendered
irrelevant by the advance of scholarship, then we
have to wonder why the word "fabrication"
appeared in that anecdote. Again, does William
Hyde claim that Golombek committed a
fabrication?
William Hyde writes:
> the "dictionary of national biography" is a source
> Golombek ... could and should have consulted.
Again, what is William Hyde trying to prove about
Golombek? I agreed long ago that he was
careless. Is William Hyde trying to prove more
about Golombek? If so, what? When is he
going to tell us his conclusion about Golombek?
I wrote:
> Golombek's intended point was that the
> Shakespeare edition is now largely
> forgotten, and this, at least, seems to be
> true. ... It might be a mistake to attach too
> much significance to the 1970s reprint. For a
> publisher, it offered several advantages:
> It is big, there are lots of footnotes and
> illustrations, and it is in the public domain.
William Hyde wrote:
> Quite a few editions are in the public domain,
> but whose was published?
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that this was an attempt
to dispute the statement that the Shakespeare edition
is now largely forgotten and replied:
> consider this quote from a recent issue of
> CHESS: "Staunton's Shakespeare ... is a
> beached whale of an edition, its virtues
> rendered irrelevant by the advance of
> scholarship, its pages now scarcely turned. If
> the work survives at all ... it is for the
> thousand-or-so illustrations by Sir John
> Gilbert ... rather than for Staunton's text or
> commentary." I saw no objection in subsequent
> issues of the English magazine.
William Hyde now writes:
> It is clear that it was a good, thorough, and
> scholarly work in its day, and undeserving of
> the sneers it has received.
>
> I can't see what your quote is intended to show.
That the Shakespeare edition is now largely
forgotten. If William Hyde does not dispute
this, then his earlier question ("... whose was
published?") was a waste of time for him to ask
and for me to try to respond to. I agreed long
ago that Golombek was wrong.
William Hyde writes:
> am I to take it also that the Oxford Companion's
> comment that Morphy broke a promise to play
> Kolisch is also unsupported?
In 1861, Kolisch had had a number of match
successes and there were those who thought
that he was the new great player and wanted
to see a match between him and Morphy.
Morphy had indicated that he did not want to
play matches any more, but, since there was
so much popular excitement about Kolisch, he
said that he would be willing to play Kolisch
on his next visit to Europe. Two years passed,
during which Morphy's aversion to chess
grew. He wrote to his friend Fiske, "I am
more strongly confirmed than ever in the
belief that the time devoted to chess is literally
frittered away. ... it is not to be wondered
at that such as have been passionately addicted
to the charming pastime, should one day ask
themselves whether sober reason does not
advise its utter dereliction." Morphy was in
Paris in 1863 and, without warning, Kolisch
turned up there and announced that he had come to
claim his right to a match with Morphy. Morphy
probably felt that his casual letter did not amount
to a contractual commitment and that Kolisch
should have written to Morphy before traveling
to Paris on the basis of a two-year-old letter.
Morphy pointed out that since Kolisch had
been unsuccessful in matches against Paulsen
and Anderssen, a Morphy-Kolisch match was
no longer of much interest to the public. Morphy
also noted that, under the circumstances, if
Morphy played Kolisch a number of other
players with comparable records would feel
that they had a right to play Morphy, too. No
match was played.
Perhaps Morphy's behavior was not the best
in this affair, but it is in no way comparable to
the behavior of Staunton. Again, we criticize
Louis Blair
> Is it not Whyld who claims to have seen the text of Alekhine's
> nazi broadcasts in Alekhine's own hand?
I do not have the time to find the details,
but this is how I remember the matter.
Person A claimed that person B had seen
the original Alekhine manuscripts. Many
people believed person A. Person B then
denied having seen the manuscripts. To
the best of my recollection Whyld had no
role in this except perhaps that he may have
been one of those who believed person A.
Somewhere or other, Edward Winter has
written an extensive discussion of the
Alekhine Nazi business. I think that he
located other evidence that suggested
that Alekhine really had written the
articles, but I can not remember details.
PJDBAD
>than 'not victorian usage'
>
>in about 1880 by rimbaud and verlaine in london, who were certainly
>having a homosexual affair
>
>> One possible area to explore might be Edge's relation to Fiske --
>> after all, Fiske was the recipient of that letter. Would Edge even make
>> a hint about homosexuality unless he was writing to someone he knew *very*
>> well? I have no reason to believe he would, but perhaps it's possible to
>> argue otherwise.
>
>yes anders - otherwise we are left to speculate on morphy himself. if we
>put aside such anecdotes about his admiration for the fairer sex - did
>he ever 'know' any of them? and it remains possible that he was
>bi-sexual
>
>after all, rimbaud's abysinnian mistress looks very much like a woman,
>and rather than call him a bi-sexual, he first had homosexual relations,
>then heterosexual ones
>
>the chesscafe material speculated on a few of these items, and rather
>than resolve anything based on study, i rather felt as though the
>subject brought up some taboo, and there was a disinclination to even
>fairly consider if morphy had homosexual affairs, or even homosexual
>inclinations
>
>cordially, phil
>
>> Anders Thulin Anders....@telia.se 040-10 50 63
>> Telia Prosoft AB, Box 85, S-201 20 Malmö, Sweden
>
Shakespear wrote in Hamitup, "Get thee to the Oxford English English
Dictionary" and settle the matter once and for all. Or as President Clinton put
it even more recently, "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Sexual congress isn't always about politics. How social is social intercourse?
Meanings of and use of words do change. And Adam knew Eve and so it goes.
PJDBAD
> I didn't know that. What would be an example of a
> "hypermodern" composer?
>
> I always thought Tartakower coined the word. Did
> he borrow it from others, or they from him?
>
Of course before hypermodern, there was just plain modern (as in latest and
most up todate)and ultramodern as reactions in art and literature to Nineteenth
Century Romanticism (a term also applied to a chess style) and Naturalism. One
way of looking at this is a way of introducing relativity (scientific thinking)
to the arts often with a distortion of viewpoint or rethinking entrenched
ideas. Some kinds of Jazz composers and musician did this by bring jazz and
folk motifs in to conventional musical forms by composers such as Gershwin
and Copland. Atonal music would be an other example of this movement.
I don't know it the above composers per se are commonly considered hypermodern
by music critics; all I'm maintaining is that hypermodernism is a broad
critical term that has a more specific meaning in chess than in some other
areas to which it also applys.
As G. Steine wrote, "a pawn is a pawn is a pawn is a pawn is a pawn."
Anders Thulin
> like to track down more records of non-English matches. I have found evidence
> for some, but I believe that many more are available to knowledgeable people
> in other countries.
Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games should probably be your first stop. It covers,
if I recall, all known games up to 1800, and all games by important players
up to 1866. That includes match games.
Feenstra Kuiper's book on chess matches does not cover the time before 1851.
Elo's Rating of Chess players contain some match results, but it should be
checked against other sources.
Edward Winter complained about the lack of match documentation in a Chess Cafe
column a year or so ago. I don't know if it started any activity in the area.
Charles Blair
>Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
>> like to track down more records of non-English matches. I have found evidence
>> for some, but I believe that many more are available to knowledgeable people
>> in other countries.
> Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games should probably be your first stop. It covers,
>if I recall, all known games up to 1800, and all games by important players
>up to 1866. That includes match games.
I don't know of any alternative to Oxford Encyclopedia, but let me
mention one problem I know about with it. The Birmingham 1858 tournament
was won by Lowenthal after defeating, among others, Staunton and Falkbeer.
The games given as played between Lowenthal and Falkbeer are inconsistent
with the reported results (too many Falkbeer wins). My guess is the
results of some games may have been reported incorrectly because, at
that time, the black pieces sometimes moved first. Perhaps someone with
access to Lowenthal's books could resolve this specific problem.
Tony T. Warnock
Anders Thulin
Anders Thulin wrote:
> Feenstra Kuiper's book on chess matches does not cover the time before 1851.
Well, ... that's what the title says, and the index confirms it ... but it *does*
list a number of matches prior to 1851, including a number (it seems) that didn't
make it into the OECG.
--
Anders Thulin a...@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
ezoto
Louis Blair wrote:
> Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
> > it is my belief that Staunton was never
> > the best player in the world, or even in England.
> >
> > When do his supporters claim that Staunton
> > deserved the title of best in the world, and I will
> > marshall facts for another candidate.
>
> I wrote:
> >You want to focus your attention on 1843. That
> >is the year when he won the match in France that
> >caused people to think of him as best in the world
> >at that time.
>
> Matt Nemmers wrote:
>
> > Bah.....that Staunton was a good player there is no doubt, but he was never
> > world champ. He made himself sound like he was in the weekly editorial that he
> > wrote for some newsletter in England, but he did this to save face for ducking
> > Paul Morphy for so long.
>
> In 1843, Morphy was only about six years old.
Morphy probably would have still beaten him.