Howard Staunton
November, 1908
I 
HEN Louis Charles de Labourdonnais died on December 13th, r8ao in his
forty-fourth year. the first period of
nineteenth-century chess may be said to have come to a close. The chief
characteristics of the period had been the concentration of master-play in
London and Paris, a tradition which had been established by Philidor, and the
supremacy of William Lewis and his great pupil, Alexander MacDonnell, in
England. and of Deschapelles and his first pupil, Labourdonnais, in France. The
most interesting events of the period were the somewhat informal reunion of
these two French players with Lewis and John Cochrane in Paris in April. 182r ;
the immortal series of matches between MacDonnell and Labourdonnais, at
Westminster, in 18,34 the correspondence matches London v. Edinburgh, in 1824-8,
and Paris v. Westminster, in 1834-6 ; and the renewed interest in the chess
problem in connection with which I may name Lewis, William Bone, and the Rev. H.
Bolton, of Oby, Norfolk. Of possibly greater importance for the future
development of chess was the revival of German chess, the work of the German
problemist and player, Mendheim (D. 1836), and in a more special measure of that
talented group of seven young Berlin players, the " Pleiades." The results of
this revival were, however, only apparent in the following period.
The new period opened with but little promise. Writing of Labourdonnais in 1841,
George Walker said " In life he was unrivalled as a chess-player ; in death he
leaves no one worthy to fill his place " ; and, indeed, the age of giants seemed
to have passed away. Lewis and Deschapelles, it is true, were still alive, but
both had long withdrawn from the arena. Lewis never showed any desire to reclaim
the sceptre which he laid down of his own free will in 1827-8. Deschapelles, on
the other hand, still from his tent claimed to be the first player of his time,
and played occasionally at the odds of Pawn and two, or at his weird game of
Pawns, while he would from time to time, when the noise of the exploits of the
younger generation penetrated to his retirement, emerge and blow his trumpet
lustily with a challenge to the world to prove that he was still alive, but
which was never intended to be taken seriously. The leading players in full
practice were all on a lower level than MacDonnell and Labourdonnais, and had
received odds from the one or the other. In France the wine merchant, St. Amant,
a descendant of the old nobility, and in chess a pupil of both Deschapelles and
Labourdonnais, stood out as the best player left ; in England, George Walker,
Frederick L. Slous, and H. W. Popert were probably the leading players in active
play. I gave Walker's life in this Magazine in 1906 : Slous (B. i8ox, D. 1892)
was a player of much promise, who, according to Walker, would have proved a
formidable rival to Staunton had not ill-health compelled him to abandon chess :
Popert had played much with MacDonnell, and had a reputation for defensive play.
Mongredien once remarked : " That when the position was critical and required
deep calculation, his opponent had ample time to go away, eat his lunch, and
return before Popert had made up his mind what to do." He must have been an
uncomfortable antagonist, and it would be small consolation to his weary
adversary to know that Popert always made the best move in such circumstances.
But while " The Old Guard " were doing their best for the reputation of English
chess, there was a new player rapidly climbing up to their level who was to
snatch the sceptre from them all. With his advent the second period of
nineteenth-century chess commenced—the period which saw the inception of
international tournaments, the success of the chess magazine, and the
recognition of the weekly chess column as an institution. The culminating point
of the period was the visit of Paul Morphy to Europe, in 1858-9.
It is to this period that Howard Staunton belongs. In the previous period it had
been usual to speak of players in terms of their early instructors in the game.
Thus MacDonnell, Cochrane, and Walker were the " pupils " of Lewis, as Lewis
himself had been the " pupil " of Sarratt. Staunton stood in no such
relationship to his predecessors. He was the product of the Divan and other West
End chess resorts.
Staunton's early history is somewhat obscure. What I have to tell has been
gleaned from various obituary notices and from the " Dictionary of National
Biography." Howard Staunton was born in 1810, and was reputed to be the natural
son of Frederick Howard, fifth Earl of Carlisle. He was neglected in youth, and
received little or no education, and although he spent some time in Oxford, he
was never a member of the University. When he came of age he received a few
thousand pounds under his father's will, a fortune which he soon squandered. We
know little of his manner of life at this time, but he was passionately fond of
the theatre, and apparently spent some time on the stage. In later life he often
used to tell how he had once played the part of Lorenzo in the Merchant of
Venice to Edmund Kean's Shylock. But from 1836, at least onwards, he was
dependent upon his pen for a livelihood, and eventually he discovered two
profitable subjects for his literary labours in chess and the Shakespearian
drama.
Staunton was nearly twenty years of age before he learnt the rudiments of chess,
and it was not until 1835-6 that he really yielded to the fascination of the
game. In 1836 I find the name of H. Staunton, Esq., among the subscribers to
Greenwood Walker's Selection of Games at Chess, actually played in London, by
the late Alexander M'Donnell, Esq. (London, 1836). This is probably his first
public appearance in connection with chess. In later life he used to say that he
had never actually seen either MacDonnell or Labourdonnais, and that the first
good player he ever encountered was Popert. It is somewhat extraordinary that he
missed Labourdonnais, who was in England after Staunton had taken to chess, and
played in the resorts where Staunton himself visited. In 1836 Staunton was a
mere tyro, and when St. Amant played a short series of games in that year with
George Walker (St. A. 5 ; W. 3 ; one draw), he estimated that either player
could easily have given him a Rook. But he rapidly improved. Regular practice at
the Divan, at Huttmann's, in Covent Garden ; at the " Shades," Old Savile House,
Leicester Square ; and at Goode's, Ludgate Hill, soon told its tale. In 184o he
played a match with Popert at the Old London Chess Club, and won by the odd
game, and chess-players began to recognise him as a player of distinction. In
the course of the next two years he established his position as the first
English player of the day. I recognise three factors as contributing to this
result.
First and foremost I would place the remarkable series of games which he
contested with John Cochrane during 1841-2. Cochrane, a Barrister of the Middle
Temple, had held a legal appointment in India since about 1826, and was home on
eighteen months' furlough. As a young man he had been an enthusiastic player,
with a brilliant style and fertile imagination It has been said of him that he
invented many attacks in various openings, but never a sound one among them.
Their novelty was their success in their author's hands. The Cochrane Gambit is
called after him, though he was not the originator of it. Although he had been
out of serious chess for fifteen years, he returned o it with enthusiasm, and
soon convinced London players that his old reputation had a real basis. For the
last year of his stay he continued to play regularly, and proved himself easily
the superior of every English player that he encountered, with the exception of
Howard Staunton. He played Io games also with St. Amant, in 1841-2, on one of
his annual visits to England, and won 6 games to his opponent's 4. With Staunton
some 120 games are extant on level terms, and Staunton led in the proportion of
two to one. Just before Cochrane's return to India, Staunton began to give him
the odds of Pawn and move, and of seven games at these odds each player won
three, the other game being drawn. The two players used to meet at the "
Shades," and they played for a guinea a game. At the same resort Staunton played
many games with Mr. J. Brown, Q.C., a strong London amateur.
In the second place I place Staunton's success in giving odds to other players
of reputation. At a later date there were players who sneered at this success
and hinted that Staunton had made a special study of the odds of Pawn and move
and Pawn and two, and that he won because his opponents were less familiar with
the game at odds. There never was a more baseless assertion. The game at odds
was probably more played from 1830-5o than at any period in England, and the
very men who failed against Staunton were regularly giving the same odds
themselves to other players.
And, thirdly, Staunton's literary activity kept his name prominently before the
chess public. In 1841 he saw an opening for a chess magazine that should, above
all things, give a plentiful supply of games of recent date, and, after a very
brief career as part of the " British Miscellany," the chess portion of this
magazine was placed upon an independent footing as the Chess Player's Chronicle.
Staunton was both owner and editor of this magazine from 1841-52. In its pages
he published week by week his best games. thinly disguising the names of each
antagonist under initials sir describing him as " one of the strongest
Metropolitan amateurs of the day." By means of these games, and others which L,
he published between other leading players of the day, it was possible 4' for
country chess-players to draw a line between players and infer Staunton's
superiority. But in the magazine I regret to find also the beginnings of those
petty personalities, likes and dislikes, that were to accompany Staunton
throughout his whole chess career. I would fain ignore them if I could, but they
are far too prominent. The odium scaccicum is a very real thing, and
chess-players seem particularly prone to petty jealousies. The dispossessed
magnates of chess were angry at the success of an interloper, and whispered
imputations on Staunton's private character. It is possible that his irregular
birth made Staunton specially sensitive to such things, but, instead of ignoring
the gossip, he hit out at his enemies, real or supposed, under the cover of
answers to correspondents. There were people who refused t0 credit the existence
of these correspondents. On the other hand, Staunton was very vain of his chess
successes, and gave offence by his patronising airs in the magazine. And so
English players were soon divided into two camps, the pro-Staunton party, who
lauded their hero to the skies and the anti-Staunton party, whose one desire was
to see him humiliated, and who did not care even if it should prove to he a
foreigner who unseated the English champion. It must be admitted once for all
that Staunton did not always fight fairly. He misused his editorial position
again and again, and in this way gave his enemies openings of which they were
not slow to avail themselves.
No man was ever worse served by his friends or suffered more as a result of his
own indiscretions.
In the spring of 1843, Staunton, who had recently been elected a member of the
St. George's Club, played a few games there with St. Amant, then in England on
his annual business visit. Six games in all were played for a nominal stake of a
guinea, and the result was :St.
Amant, 3 ; Staunton, 2 ; drawn, I. There was no talk of a match, but St. Anima
was naturally elated, and took care to let French players know of his success
through the Palamède, of which he had become editor. Staunton, who had been in
poor health at the time did not consider that he had done himself justice in
these games, and so he issued a challenge to St. Amant for a match of 21 or 41
games for either 50 or 100 guineas a-side. There was some difficulty over the
preliminary negotiations, but they were all surmounted, owing to Staunton's
eagerness to play, and the match of twenty-one games was finally commenced in
Paris on November 1843 for 100 a-side. Four games were played each week,
generally on Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, and the match ended on
December 20th with the complete triumph of the English player, who secured 12
games to his opponents 6, 4 being drawn. At one time a far more run-away
victory appeared likely, for at the end of the tenth game Staunton was leading
by 8 to 1. There was no time limit in those days, and play ruled decidedly slow,
St. Amant being the worst offender in this respect. Throughout the whole of the
match both players kept to close openings. Three times only did St. Amant, and
twice only did Staunton, venture upon P—K 4, in every instance to be
promptly met by the second player with the Sicilian Defence. Otherwise St. Amant
stuck to the Queen's Pawn game (1. P —Q 4), and Staunton played 1. P —Q 4 twice
and 1. P—Q B4 six times : the last opening taking as a
result the name of the English Opening. The games naturally challenge comparison
with the Labourdounais — MacDonnell match games, and very diverse opinions have
been expressed about the relative excellence of the two sets. On the
whole, I think the Staunton—St. .Arnant games are the less interesting to the
ordinary player. They are, however, regarded as chess classics.
The victory was the climax of Staunton's chess career. The public had at once
seized upon the international significance of the match, and were looking for
the reversal of the verdict id the Labourdonnais— -MacDonnell match. The
Englishman's victor.- was received with great enthusiasm. and Staunton was feted
on his return to England. It was before the days of chess championships, or
Staunton would have been acclaimed as the champion of the world. As a matter of
fact, he was at the time regarded very much in this light ; while modern
writers, attempting to trace back the line of champions from the time of the
first claimant to the title—William Steinitz—regard this match as a contest for
the championship, and date Staunton's tenure from this year,
One would have thought that Staunton's victory was sufficiently decisive, but
St. .Amant refused to accept the verdict. He recalled the six informal games in
London, of which he had won the bare majority, and magnified them into a chess
match, which he placed upon an equality with the formal contest in Paris. His
defeat at Paris had been a mere accident : " je ne reconnais votre
supériorité que comme fait accidental." he wrote in a later letter to
Staunton. He professed to be anxious for a new match, but he posed as
still the champion, and insisted in regarding Staunton as the challenger. His
vanity was immense, and rendered all negotiations very difficult. Correspondence
over the terms of the new match went on all through 1844. Staunton wished to
treat the negotiations as private, but St. Amant published everything that
suited his purpose, grandiloquently claiming that they were making chess
history, and that the letters were historical documents Very sorry reading is it
all. and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that St. Amant was
endeavouring to force Staunton to break off the negotiations. But Staunton
resolutely refused to take offence ; he ignored the almost insolent tone of the
letters, and crossed to Paris in October. 1844, with his seconds, hoping to
commence play on October 15th. Unhappily the fates ruled otherwise. Staunton
caught cold on the journey, and pneumonia supervened. Want of care in the early
stages of convalescence resulted in a bad relapse, and for some days his life
was in danger. It was a very serious illness, and it left behind it a permanent
weakness of the heart, which really unfitted Staunton thenceforward for the hard
work entailed in playing important matches. Finally, after three months in
Paris, Staunton was compelled to return to London, and all idea of a return
match was abandoned. The acrimonious correspondence continued for six months
more, but public sympathy was strongly on Staunton's side, and St. Amant's final
letters did himself no good. H. J.
R. M.
Howard Staunton
December, 1908
II IN
1843 Staunton took charge of the recently established chess column in the
Illustrated London News, a column which he
conducted for the remainder of his life. For a long time it exercised an
important influence on English chess and enjoyed a European reputation ; in it
was announced the discovery of the Florence MSS. of mediaeval chess, and in it
appeared Professor Duncan Forbes' series of articles that later were amplified
into the History of Chess (London, /864 Unfortunately, Staunton was not
sufficiently impartially minded to conduct a chess column without giving
offence. In annotating games he never forgot the personalities of the players,
and his praise or blame was coloured accordingly. Moreover, his heart trouble
showed itself in a great irritability of temper, and other chess-players found
it difficult to get on with him. His most faithful friends were those who rarely
met him in the flesh. Personal intercourse inevitably ended before long in a
breach.
One of the earliest results of the growing unpopularity of Staunton in English
chess circles was the matches in r846 at the London Chess Club with the foreign
players—Bernard Horwitz, one of the Pleiades, who had taken up his residence in
London ; and Daniel Hurwitz, of Breslau, who were put up to play the English
champion in the hope that one or other might prove too much for him. But
Staunton won the Horwitz match of at games on level terms by 14 to 7 and 3 draws
; and the Harrwitz match by 12 to 9 and 1 draw. The conditions of this last
match were remarkable. Staunton gave Pawn and move in seven games, Pawn and two
in seven more, and seven games were to be played even, draws not counting. The
three matches went on simultaneously, the games following one another in this
order : Pawn and move, level, Pawn and two. Staunton won the whole of the even
games, won 1 to 6 of those at Pawn and move, and 4 to 3 of those at Pawn and
two. One game at Pawn and move was drawn.
Horwitz was not in good health at the time of his match, but subsequent play
would show that the result was really a fair statement of the relative skill of
the two players. Horwitz was not a good match player, and his forte was
end-game analysis. The match is interesting as containing one of the very few
instances on record of Staunton adopting the Ruy Lopez. He justified the
choice on the ground that since the St. Amant match he had given odds in every
game that he had played ; that he knew his opponent was well posted in the
regular openings, and that it was accordingly necessary to take him " out of the
books " : a statement that shows how far we have moved since that period.*
* In the games, however, which
Staunton played with v.d. Lasa in 1853, he adopted the Ruy Lopez no less than
five times.
The curious thing about the Harrwitz match
is the fact that Harrwitz did so much better at Pawn and move than at Pawn and
two. Many attempts have been made to explain this ; probably the correct
explanation is to be found in Staunton's greater familiarity with the longer
odds, which again tempted his young opponent (who had a free attacking style of
play) into premature attacks that recoiled upon his own head. The play in these
games at odds used to be much admired.
The following year (1847) Staunton published The Chess-Player's Handbook
in Bohn's Scientific Library. Based ultimately upon the German Handbuch,
it was enriched with many variations and analyses of Staunton's own, and the
work added greatly to his reputation. The cheapness, the convenience of the
arrangement, the position of the author, all combined to make it an instant
success. Even to-day it is still the door through which many English players
approach the study of the openings. Staunton, however, did not profit by the
unexpected success of the book ; he parted with his interest in the copyright to
the publishers, and the hard things that have been said about the morality of
reprinting without change a book that was first written sixty years ago must not
be applied to Staunton. The publishers, I suppose, have never realised that
there is no finality in chess analysis.
During the winter of 1847-8 Staunton engaged in a short match of seven games at
the odds of Pawn and two with Lowe, a German professional player, who had taken
up his residence in London. The match was intended to commemorate a recent
enlargement of the Divan. Lowe won handsomely, with a score of 4 to I and 2
draws. Staunton's subsequent conduct with regard to this match was inexpressibly
silly. He had announced it with a great flourish in the Chess Player's
Magazine, and published the first five games. In
subsequent issues he made no reference whatever to the result of the match, and
he never published the concluding games. Finally, in the correspondence in the
chess column of the Illustrated London News, he made a spiteful critique
on his opponent's skill, and described him as " unquestionably inferior to the
great body of English players to whom Mr. Staunton gives the odds of Pawn and
two." No wonder that Staunton's enemies hugged themselves with delight at this
colossal blunder in good taste, and that Thomas Beeby in his Account of the late
celebrated match between Mr. Howard Staunton and Mr. Lowe (London, 1848) lashed
Staunton with scorpions.
In 1849 Staunton contributed another volume to Bohn's Library, with the title
The Chess-Player's Companion. This is a collection of his own games and a
valuable treatise upon the games at odds. In the former part of the book he did
full justice to his chess career by publishing the games of his three great
matches. " This still remains," quotes the ' Dictionary of National Biography,'
" a noble monument for any chess-player to have raised for himself. The notes
are in general as much distinguished by their good taste as by their literary
talent and critical value." Later in the same year he designed a new type of
chessmen, which were registered as the "Staunton Chessmen," and were at
once recognised as an improvement on all existing types of piece. With the
chessmen was issued The Chess-Player's Text Book, a small work intended
for the instruction of. beginners.
The year 1851 is memorable as the year in which the first international
tournament was held. In the arrangements for this Staunton played a very
prominent part. It was he who made the first public suggestions that the Great
Exhibition offered an appropriate opportunity for the holding of a chess
congress. He secured a strong committee, enlisted the active interest of the St.
George's Club, and did the preliminary work that was necessary to make the
tournament a success. Unfortunately, petty jealousies were aroused, and the
London Chess Club resented the prominent part allotted to the St. George's Club,
but their action did not affect the success of the official tournament. Sixteen
players took part, but at the last moment the places reserved for Jaenisch and
Schumoff had to be filled by English players of second-rate skill. The players
were paired, and the unsuccessful players in the first round were thrown out,
the remainder being re-paired for a second round. This unsatisfactory principle
of play was only abandoned finally in 1862 for the modern method by which every
competitor plays every other one. The result of the tournament is well known.
Anderssen, of Breslau, obtained the first prize ; Wyvill was second, Williams
third, Staunton fourth, Szen fifth, Captain Kennedy sixth, Horwitz seventh, and
Mucklow eighth.
Bird, Mayet, Lowenthal, and Kieseritzky were among the eight players thrown out
in the first round. Andersson's victory was the first convincing proof of the
revival of Germany. In this tournament Staunton undoubtedly overtaxed his
strength by attempting to combine the roles of secretary and competitor, and
probably never realised how great a strain either function would put upon a man.
He defeated Brodie (one of the emergency entrants) in the first round, Horwitz
in the second j hut succumbed to Anderssen in the semi-final, and lost his match
with Williams for the third prize. Williams was a player to whom he was giving
odds just before the tournament.*
* Staunton lost a match with
Williams later in the same year by 7 to 6, with three draws. In this match he
gave Williams three games, and they played level.
At the conclusion of the tournament
Staunton challenged Anderssen to a match of 21 games, for £100, a challenge
which Anderssen accepted ; but it never came off. Staunton was physically unfit
for the strain of play, and Anderssen's holiday was all but up. Once again
Staunton's irritability of temper at his poor success was the cause of some
references to the standard of play at the tournament in his column in the
Illustrated London News that were unworthy of his position, and that did him
no good. In 1852 he published the official account of the tournament in The
Chess Tournament (Bohn's Library). Here, again, there is much written that
one could now wish unwritten.
In September, 1853, Staunton was in Brussels, and there he met Von der Lasa,
with whom he had long carried on correspondence. V.d. Lasa and he played 13
games, with the result v.d. Lasa 5, Staunton_ 4, drawn 3, unfinished 1. The
games were very highly spoken of in the Schachzeitung, and are among the
most interesting of Staunton's games. He was still thinking of the Anderssen
match, but had been in ill-health ever since the tournament, and even these
friendly games with v.d. Lasa were too much for him. The latter master, who
always wrote in a most kindly way of Staunton, recognised that Staunton's match
days were over, and it was no surprise to him when the proposed. match was
abandoned.†
† It is
interesting to note that v.d. Lasa, who played with both Staunton and Buckle,
was strongly of opinion that Staunton was the superior player. Some modern
writers have tried to represent them as being of equal strength
This was the real end of Staunton's career
as a player. Other interests were already pressing upon him, and in 1854 he sold
the Chess-Player's Chronicle. Henceforward the Illustrated London News
was to be his main connection with chess, but literary work in connection with
the Shakespearian drama occupied all his energies. About this time he entered
into an arrangement with Messrs. Routledge to edit the text of Shakespeare for a
new edition which they were planning, for which Sir John Gilbert was to do the
illustrations. This edition appeared in parts from 1857 to 1860, and Staunton's
work has received appreciative praise from competent scholars. His emendations
of the text are sensible, and confined within due limits ; his notes are
distinguished by common-sense and exhaustive research.
It was just when busiest with the preparation of this work that Staunton
received a most courteous and flattering letter from the New Orleans Chess Club,
in which he was invited to that city to meet Paul Morphy, who had commenced his
meteoric career by winning the first prize in the recent New York Congress. It
was obviously impossible and unreasonable to expect Staunton or any European
player to cross the Atlantic, and Staunton, in a dignified reply, pointed out
this. He also stated that he himself had "been compelled, by laborious literary
occupation, to abandon the practice of chess, beyond the indulgence of an
occasional game," and concluded : " If Mr. Morphy—for whose skill we entertain
the liveliest admiration—be desirous to win his spurs among the chess chivalry
of Europe, he must take advantage of his purposed visit next year ; he will then
meet in this country, in France, in Germany, and in Russia, many champions whose
names must be as household words to him, ready to test and do honour to his
prowess." This reads to me like a courteous refusal to undertake the match ; but
Morphy understood it differently, and one of the main reasons for his visit to
Europe in 1858 was the hope of playing a match with Staunton.
Morphy accordingly took an early opportunity of challenging Staunton to a match,
and the latter gave a conditional acceptance. He was deeply pledged to his
publishers, and entirely out of practice for chess. If he could postpone the
commencement of the match until he had had time to get into better practice and
surmount the business difficulties, he was ready to play. A postponement for a
month was first agreed upon ; then one until after the Birmingham meeting ; then
for two months more ; but before the expiration of this time Staunton wrote to
say that he was unable to play, giving the same reasons which he had named
throughout the negotiations—viz., his responsible engagements to his publishers
and the impossibility of obtaining time to get into adequate practice. He also
alludes to his health, which had been sorely tried by his attempts to save time
for the match. In all this there is but little in which we can reproach
Staunton, beyond the fact that he kept open the possibility of a match for so
long, and even here there is a good deal that could be urged in justification of
the course followed by Staunton. Unhappily, a bitter controversy broke out, into
which it is not necessary to enter. Neither side comes well out of it, though,
on the whole, Morphy was the better served. As in the St. Amant letters, "
tactics " are too obvious, and the rancour of the partisans did more harm than
good to the side they favoured.
In his endeavour to get into practice Staunton had taken part in the tournament
at the Birmingham meeting. It was arranged on the older system of successive
rounds, and Staunton got through the first round by defeating Hughes. In the
second round he was drawn against Löwenthal, and was thrown out. Morphy took no
official part in the tournament, and the only games in which Staunton and Morphy
met remain the two consultation games in London, in which Staunton and Owen
played Morphy and Barnes. The latter pair won both games.
With the Birmingham games Staunton took his leave of serious chess. His
reputation as a Shakespearian scholar was growing, and for the remainder of his
life he found plenty to occupy himself with in literary work. I ought, however,
to mention that in 1860 he published Chess Praxis, again in Bohn's Library,
which was intended to serve as a supplement to the Chess Player's Handbook. In
this he gives many of Morphy's games, and recognises in the notes the masterly
play of the talented American. His previous annotations in the Illustrated
London News had too often been coloured by personal feelings. In 1864 Staunton
brought out a photo-lithographic reproduction of the 1600 Quarto of Much Ado
about Nothing, to be followed, in 1866, by a similar reproduction of the
First Folio of Shakespeare. In 1865 he did a careful work on the Great
Schools of England. From 1872 until his death he contributed an able series
of papers to the Athenæum on "Unsuspected Corruptions of Shakespeare's
Text." He died suddenly, of heart disease, June 22nd, 1874 (Morphy's
birthday), while seated at his desk and writing one of these papers.
Staunton was in later years somewhat of a recluse, but
in congenial society he proved himself "a brilliant talker, prolific in
anecdote, and in apt quotation from Shakespeare." It is unfortunate that
the charmingness of his character which he exhibited to his friends did not
exert a greater influence upon his references in print to other players. Right
down to the end he indulged in ill-natured statements in the columns of the
Illustrated London News, and one reason for the appearance of the
Westminster Papers was to reply to his strictures. But this did not prevent
this chess magazine from doing ample justice in its obituary notice on Staunton
to the great services rendered by the latter to English chess.
Staunton married, about 1854, Frances, widow of W. N.
Nethersole, a solicitor. She survived him for nearly eight years.
I conclude this article with a brief selection from
Staunton's games; many more will be found in his own books, and specially in the
Chess-Player's Companion, in Walker's Chess Studies, and in
magazines and columns issued during his life-time. They show him to have been a
straightforward, practical player with a complete knowledge of the theory of the
game, as known in his day and a sound judgment of position, who bore down his
opponents by the solidity and accuracy of his play rather than its brilliance.
His genius was that of common sense and, as Morphy is said to have remarked, he
was deficient in the imaginative and creative power which conceives positions
and brings them about. That is to say, he knew where his own strength lay
and was content to keep to the well-trodden paths. We find none of the
imagination in his play that characterized the highest efforts of Labourdonnais,
MacDonnell and Anderssen, and if it had been possible for him to have
encountered any of these masters, he would not have fought successfully against
them. He would have stood no chance against Morphy in 1857, even if he had
retained his chess strength of 1843. He would have had more chance against a
player of the modern school.
The historian will rank him higher as an analyst.
Powers of analysis are a special gift, and Staunton possessed them in a very
high degree. He made many important contributions to our knowledge of the
openings, and, in England at least, he was the pioneer in the scientific
arrangement of that knowledge.
Our portrait [at the top of the page] is taken from a
woodcut in F. M. Edge's "Paul Morphy" (London, 1859), a work which deals with
the Staunton-Morphy episode in a strongly anti-Staunton manner. An excellent
reproduction of Marlet's painting of the Staunton-St. Amant match was given in
this Magazine in February, 1899. H.
J. R. Murray
|
