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
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Chess Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 strongest? 2 Please add images 3 Hebrew wikipedia 4 Staunton - Morphy 5 Was Staunton a "grandmaster"? 6 Snippets

[edit] strongest?

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.

http://www.chesscafe.com/Tim/kibb.htm disagrees completely--ZincBelief (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This deserves some discussion. Actually I think some other chess writers agree with Harding that Staunton was actually not that good over-the-board, although some have praised his work as an analyst. Wikipedia doesn't decide who is right, but it would be appropriate to give the opinions of a few chess writers who think Staunton was strongest in that era and the opinions a few writers who disagree. The reader can come to her own judgment. Quale (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Firstly one needs to prove that St Amant was actually the reigning World number 1 player when he lost to Staunton. If you can't prove that the claim of World Champion becomes dubious. Unfortunately, matches were not played against leading German, Italian or Hungarian Chess players of the time. The idea that Paris and London constituted the World is not encyclopedic in my opinion.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A WP article does not have to approach every question from square one; it just has to represent the standard view as presented in respectable sources. In which case, it is quite clear that Staunton was and still is regarded as the strongest player in the period 1843-1850. He beat St Amant soundly, and St A. had been previously regarded as the best. Later Steinitz became 'official' world champion by claiming it! -- and by beating Zukertort. The references at the end of the article are good enough to establish Staunton's claim. Macdonald-ross (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, this is the glowing opinion of Staunton professed in a book written to sell copies based on Staunton's name. It is perhaps not the best of sources, and not demonstrably a standard view, although it is certainly a view. Staunton defeated St Amant, the French number 1, and avoided playing a third match. He did not contest matches against leading German, Hungarian, American or Italian players. By some accounts he actively avoided playing anyone else for fear of losing (his position). It is only clear that Staunton was one of the strongest players, it is not clear that he was the strongest player. I think the wording of the article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to my unsigned comment :) http://www.didymus7.com/nost/na377staunton.htm gives more insight into this period. Staunton was beaten by Von der Lasa, and the claim of St Amant being the best or second best player in the world is still questionable. --ZincBelief (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Hebrew wikipedia

I translated and improved a lot (I hope!) the English article. If anyone has a good English and Hebrew understanding please add my parts to the English version. I did the same to chess articles also.

--YoavD 08:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Staunton - Morphy

"Birmingham 1858 was to be Staunton's last public chess competition. Staunton refused to play Paul Morphy in public during the latter's visit to England in 1858, saying he was too busy working on his Shakespeare annotations. This refusal apparently had a negative impact upon Morphy, out of all proportion to its real significance. Likely, Staunton, who was well past his peak as well as being out of practice, sized up the much younger (Morphy was 27 years younger) American's stunning chess and concluded that he had virtually no chance against him, so why bother playing? Morphy took this as a nasty snub from one gentleman to another."

This text is terribly misleading. Morphy's problem was never with Staunton's refusal to play, but, conversely, with Staunton's promise to play. Staunton accepted a challenge to play Morphy who had but a limited time to spend abroad (he had planned on 5 or 6 months), but each time the proposed time for the match drew near, Staunton postponed the promised match- meanwhile using his chess column to defame Morphy. Finally, after 4 months, he formally withdrew, having set a definite date in the presence of Lord Lyttelton, president of the BCA. Staunton was universally criticized by the chess clubs of England (with the sole exception of Cambridge University Chess Club) and rebuked by Lord Lyttelton himself.--SBC —Preceding comment was added at 23:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Fischer's opinion of Staunton was the same of that of Morphy's. However in the article a misleading slant is given on Fischer's views, then they are in fact the same. Staunton's strongpoint was theory and analysis, not match play.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was Staunton a "grandmaster"?

Over at the talk page for Grandmaster (chess), we're arguing over whether and when it is appropriate to call a player who died before 1950, and thus had no opportunity to be awarded the GM title by FIDE, a "grandmaster." Quale wrote "what would you do with a player like Staunton? (I'd say not GM strength, but the point is very debatable.)" I strongly disagreed with Quale's opinion, pointing out that (1) Arpad Elo created a "crosstable" of leading players' results in games against each other in 1846-62, and that Staunton's winning percentage was second only to Morphy's (albeit a distant second); (2) Fischer considered Staunton one of the 10 greatest players of all time; (3) Morphy had high praise for Staunton in many respects, though he (rightly, I think) considered him unimaginative; and (4) surely Morphy would not have been so upset about Staunton's refusal to play him if Staunton had not been a player of the first rank -- and thus of "grandmaster" strength. Here is an interesting aside: Staunton in 1849 showed a greater understanding of one endgame than Reuben Fine and Pal Benko did a century or so later. Staunton's The Chess-Player's Handbook was originally published in 1849. In the version I have, published in 1893 by George Bell & Sons, Staunton writes at p. 439, "Three minor Pieces are much stronger than a Rook, and in cases where two of them are Bishops will usually win without much difficulty, because the player of the Rook is certain to be compelled to lose him for one of his adversary's Pieces. If, however, there are two Knights and one Bishop opposed to a Rook, the latter may generally be exchanged for the Bishop, and as two Knights are insufficient of themselves to force checkmate, the game will be drawn." Modern-day endgame tablebases confirm what Staunton wrote in 1849: a R normally draws vs. NNB, but loses vs. BBN. Yet Fine wrote of "Rook vs. Three Minor Pieces" on p. 521 of Basic Chess Endings (1941), "Since a rook is approximately equal to a little less than two minor pieces, these endings are theoretically drawn." Benko, in his 2003 revision of BCE, reproduced this erroneous statement verbatim on p. 524. So Staunton in 1849 realized that two bishops and a knight normally beat a rook, while two leading authorities on the ending, both of whom were world-class players at their peaks, failed to realize this in 1941 and 2003. Krakatoa (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is quite interesting about the endgame. Incidentally, a BNN vs. R game of Karpov and Kasparov is discussed at Pawnless chess endings#Rook (without queens, usually with minor pieces) and Fifty move rule#Example.

I've heard some people say that Staunton may have been only 2000-2100 strength, or something like that. I don't agree with that - I think he was certainly one of the best in the world at the time. I agree with your points. But I've had enough of the "who is a grandmaster" arguement for tonight. Bubba73 (talk), 06:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And in the draw, the rook was exchanged for a bishop, but the player couldn't win with B+N. His rating wasn't given, but the defender was 2555. Bubba73 (talk), 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In defense if Fine, it seems to me that the 50 move comes into play. Staunton didn't have the rule; Fine did. BBN vs. R takes up to 86 moves to win, so it seems to me that he may have taken this into account, i.e. if it can't be won in 50 moves in the general case, it is a draw. There are other long wins that were considered to be draws before computer analysis, but they take over 50 moves, and computer analysis doesn't take that into account. Bubba73 (talk), 13:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not clear if the fifty move rule was used in Staunton's time or not. Does me say anything aboug it in his books? Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Staunton does indeed mention a 50-move rule, less extensive than the current one, but which would apply: the 50-move rule applies to all endgames of "pieces only," i.e. where neither player has any pawns. The Chess-Player's Handbook, p. 39. So the 50-move rule applied to this endgame when both Staunton and Fine wrote their books. Also, Fine can't have taken into account that the endgame takes 86 moves to win, since (a) that fact was discovered by computers long after he wrote in 1941; (b) even though the maximum number of moves is 86, the position you start with may be one that can be won within 50 moves; and (c) whatever the position, it is almost certain that your opponent will not defend perfectly. Krakatoa (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine could have realized that it can't be done in 50 moves in general (i.e. the worst case), even though he did not know how many moves are actually required. But your point is well-taken. Bubba73 (talk), 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Although there isn't much data for that time period, Chessmetrics.com rates Staunton #1 in the world from 1843-1849. Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Krakatoa says, although Bubba73 is right that Fine may have known that more than 50 moves were required without knowing the precise number. (I don't think there's any particular reason to believe he did, though.) Perfect defense is unlikely, but if perfect offense is required to win in fewer than 50 moves then the question is how easy it is to avoid the fifty move draw rule. Fine played blitz with Capablanca, so this isn't a theoretical question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer and I'm not a strong enough player to make that sort of evaluation myself. Staunton's fame rests primarily on his match with Saint Amant and on his chess writing. His decisive victory over Saint Amant in Paris, Saint Amant's "home field", was impressive. Saint Amant didn't play particularly well, but the evaluation of Staunton's achievement depends greatly on how Saint Amant is rated. I'm not an expert in this field but I think that some consider it questionable whether Saint Amant was as good as La Bourdonnais, the best French player of the previous generation. If Saint Amant wasn't a "grandmaster" himself, then Staunton's victory over him doesn't prove GM status in the sense that the term is understood today. Staunton did beat two of the Berlin Pleiades (Horwitz and Harrwitz) decisively in 1846 matches, but lost narrowly to Von der Lasa in 1853. Aside from these, Staunton apparently lost a very early match with Aaron Alexandre, but this was well before Staunton achieved his full strength. He won all his other matches played without odds which were against Popert in 1840 (don't even know who this is), Cochrane in 1843, and Elijah Williams in 1851—hardly a murderers row. I'm not sure whether Staunton ever played Henry Buckle without odds. They seem to have met only in a single match which Buckle won with Staunton conceding pawn and move odds. Buckle did not like match play as it was too slow in this era before clocks. According to Hooper & Whyld, Steinitz considered Buckle superior to Staunton. Other English players may have considered Buckle better as well, but very quietly, as Staunton was rather vindictive in the press. If Buckle was a better chess player than Staunton then in a sense he had Staunton surrounded—Buckle is held in higher regard in his profession (history) than Staunton in his (Shakespeare scholarship). Staunton didn't perform well at London 1851, although the stress of organizing the tournament as well as playing in it was a significant handicap. I don't know of any tournaments Staunton won, and he wisely retired from chess rather than facing what I suspect would have been an embarrassing debacle at the hands of Morphy. Morphy's desire to play Staunton doesn't prove to me that Staunton was GM strength, just that he was considered the best English player at the time. (This reputation may have been due in part to Staunton's self promotion.) If someone had played the best English player from 1930 to 1970 he wouldn't have faced a GM opponent either (although Penrose later was awarded a GME). Although the French had no one to rival Staunton at the time and Staunton beat several of the top German players (a little before their prime, however), Tim Harding has written that he thinks the Hungarian Josef Szen may have been better, and possibly the Russians Petroff and Shumov as well. International play was rather uncommon at the time, so this was never put to the test and is essentially impossible to resolve today. Staunton's chess writing was and is highly regarded, and his role in formulating and gaining international (i.e., European) acceptance for a uniform set of Laws of Chess was very important. His analysis of the King's Gambit in the Chess-Player's Handbook has held up well. (The KG occupies the bulk of the opening analysis in that book. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I think he devotes more than 70 pages to it.) Anyway, this is isn't really important to wikipedia unless it has an effect on what we write in the article. Normally web forum discussions that aren't really relevant to writing the articles are discouraged here, but this is a fun topic and I thought I could spend a little time on it. All this said, I certainly admit that anything I think about this is completely unimportant compared to Fischer's opinion, and he thought quite highly of Staunton. Quale (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth (if anything), Chessmetrics puts John Cochrane as #1 in the world for a short time - in fact in 1843 until Staunton beat him. Bubba73 (talk), 04:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to a comment about Fine, he may have realized that it can't be done in 50 moves in general, so it is a draw, without realizing that it is a win in 86 moves. That is, that in practice it doesn't matter if it can be won in 86 moves because it is a draw in practice anyway. Of course, I'm guessing at this. Bubba73 (talk), 05:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The entirety of what Fine wrote about "ROOK VS. THREE MINOR PIECES" (and Benko copied verbatim) is, "Since a Rook is approximately equivalent to a little less than two minor pieces such endgames are theoretically drawn. Nevertheless, it stands to reason that White disposes of a large number of tactical possibilities, so that there will not be any smooth sailing for the defender." BCE (1941), p. 521 (emphasis added); BCE (2003), p. 524 (same). Fine (and Benko after him) did not recognize that R v. BBN was different from R v. NNB, and certainly did not say, "R v. BBN is a theoretical win, but sometimes takes more than 50 moves to achieve." There is zero reason to think that either Fine or Benko understood that to be the case. Staunton, writing 92 years before Fine and 154 years before Benko, recognized, unlike both of them, that R v. BBN and R v. NNB are different, and that the former is a theoretical win. Since there were no computers back in those days, he of course could not know that, in the worst case scenario, it takes 86 moves to win the ending. Krakatoa (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It was in Fundamental Chess Endings, which came out 2 years before Benko's revison (and must have been known earlier than that), so Benko should have known. Fine probably didn't spend much time on it. I put in a BBN vs. R into Shreader yesterday, and although it evaluated the pieces at more than 7 point advantage (compared to the material advantage of 4 points), it (armed with the 5-piece tablebase but not the complete 6-piece tablebase) could not see a win. I let it play for several moves and it didn't seem to have any method or plan. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also in the second edition of Secrets of pawnless chess endings, which came out a year before Benko's revision. But it is 68 moves, not 86, I must have transposed digits. Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Staunton give a proceedure for BBN to beat R, or just state that it was a win? Bubba73 (talk), 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He did, though starting from a bad position for the defending side:

Staunton on p. 439 analyzes 1.Ra3+ Be3 2.Ra2 Kg3 3.Rh2 Bf4 4.Ra2 Bh3 5.Ra3+ Be3 6.Ra2 Nf2+ 7.Kg1 Bg2 8. Re2 Nh3#. It's remarkable that he spent almost a page analyzing a position that few, if any, of his readers would ever get in their lives. (I recall that someone did a search for R v. NNB and Karpov-Kasparov was the only game found in a multi-million game database.) Krakatoa (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

They are rare endings. The dtabase has only two with BBN vs. R, one win, one draw. David Hooper in Pocket Guide to Chess Endings, 1970, page 4, has BBN vs. R as a win (but not BNN). Bubba73 (talk), 21:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite as rare as I thought. I just ran a search in the Mega 2007 database (3.5 million games) for R v. three minor pieces (didn't look for BBB or NNN). There were four R v. BBN: Eingorn-Veingold, USSR ch. Tallinn 1980 (win); Haub-Sazanov, Muensterland Open 2006 (very cool win); Mueller (1487)-Metzger (1115), German U20 Girls' Championship 2002 (White hung a piece, draw); Vazquez-Akopian (2555), Santiago Esucomex Open 1991 (R v. BBN; Akopian played RxB, and Vazquez couldn't win B+N v. K!, draw). There were three R v. NNB: the aforementioned Karpov-Kasparov, draw; Valenta-Szollosi, Zalakaros Open 2003 (draw); Lehtinen-Jarvela, Turku Open 1998 (R v. NNB, 1-0 for some reason -- probably the side with the R flagged?). This suggests that each ending occurs about once in a million games. Krakatoa (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that one too - flag must have fallen. Bubba73 (talk), 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snippets

Collected while looking for refs for other articles:

• The Openings at New York 1924 S recommends the Sicilian.

Philcha (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)