Talk:Howard Staunton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Wasn't Howard Staunton the strongest player in 1843 as neither Anderssen or Morphy had reached their peaks at that time ? --Imran 21:18, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Please add images

If Staunton is best remembered for the style of pieces that he introduced, then this article should definitely feature images of the Staunton style of pieces. --Jcarroll 16:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)