|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-19-05 | | SBC: . When Charles Henry Stanley defeated Eugène Rousseau in 1845, he was publicly acclaimed to be the US Champion. Part of this was due to the fact that both he and Rousseau had beaten John William Schulten who was, until then, considered the strongest American player and part was due to the immense purse of $1000. In 1850, Stanley was challenged by J. H. Turner, a Kentucky plantation owner who was willing to also put up $1000 in stake money, to a match werein whoever first scored 11 wins would be the victor. Turner thought he had chess partially solved and was convinced that 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 was a forced win for white. He slightly miscalculated the power of the opening and lost his first Bishops Opening game and lost the match (and his $1000) as well in just four days - during which time 17 games were played. Back then you had to work hard for your money.
. |
|
| May-02-05 | | Dick Brain: <SBC> That is strange. It was Stanley who played 2. Bc4 in each game here and Turner played it none of the 3 times. |
|
| Aug-10-06 | | edo.chess: SBC - I presume this means that J.H. Turner, the Kentucky plantation owner, was distinct from John Spencer Turner "of Chicago", listed in Gaige's Chess Personalia as born in 1829 or 1830. ChessBase Online lists games from 1850 as Stanley - John Spencer Turner, but that could be wrong? |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | SBC: <edo.chess>
<ChessBase Online lists games from 1850 as Stanley - John Spencer Turner, but that could be wrong?> I think CB Online is wrong. Stanly played his 1850 match against JH Turner from Mt. Sterling, Kentucky. The only reference I could find concerning Johh Spencer Turner was that he was on the subscriber list to the Book of the First American Chess Congress. |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | edo.chess: <SBC> Feenstra Kuiper gives J.S. Turner against Stanley in 1850 (in Hundert Jahre Schachzweikampfe) but he is often inaccurate. Jeremy Spinrad in his list of results at http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~spi... has some other references for Turner matches, to which I don't have access, such as Teplitz-Schonau, '1st Amer Congress 391-392' and 'Albion Mar 9, 1850'. Spinrad only gives the surname 'Turner'. But under 1846, he lists Turner at a Kentucky tournament, so I suspect you are right and all of these belong to the Kentucky Turner.
May I ask what your source was for the 'J.H.'? And do you have any of Spinrad's material? Thanks!
|
|
| Aug-11-06 | | Calli: Soltis in US Chess Championships also gives J.H. Turner: "a gentlemen farmer from Mt.Sterling, Kentucky, whom Löwenthal, a visiting Hungarian master, described as an amateur 'of great natural talent and strong imagination, but somewhat too liable to be carried away by a brilliant combination or a dashing coup" . The match took place Feb 11-14, 1850 in Wash, DC. A $1000 to go to the first player to win 11 games. Obviously, even without clocks, the players moved quickly and played multiple games per day. Stanley won 11 to 5 and 1 draw. source: Soltis page 8-9
|
|
| Aug-11-06 | | SBC: <edo.chess>
Mr. Edwards, I used Soltis' book, the same source as named by <Calli>. Löwenthal's account of his visit to America can be read here: http://batgirl.atspace.com/Lowentha... Oddly, Graeme Cree's wedpage on US Championships (http://members.aol.com/graemecree/c...) gives JH Turner in the text, but John Spencer Turner in the provided pgns. I looked through the Congress Book and, although Stanley's match with Turner is mentioned, Turner is referred to simply as Mr. Turner. Yes, I think I have most of Mr. Spinrad's writings.
|
|
| Aug-11-06 | | Calli: <SBC> The source of the error appears to be our old friend Howard Staunton. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chessgames gives the same six games as CG and presents them as a six game match, J.S. Turner vs C.H. Stanley. Oxford gives as a source Staunton's London Illustrated column. If six games were sent to Staunton, one would think that others are available. All of the Rousseau-Stanley match games were preserved, so I'll bet no one has researched the newspapers of the time for the rest of this match. |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | SBC: <Calli>
Well, that assuming the OCC copied Staunton correctly. It sure wouldn't be it's first, or worst, error. One would really need to check Staunton's actual columns. I would think Stanley himself would have published the match in the Albion which he operated from, I believe, 1848-1856. Somewhere, they should be available. |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | Calli: There is another J. Turner who was British. Oxford, in fact, gives four games Staunton vs J Turner in 1845. I recall his mention in regards to being a second to Staunton in the Paris 1843 match vs St Amant. So there you have the setup for a publishing error. Staunton or OEC needed to distinguish between the British and American J Turners. Apparently, J S Turner was more well known, even making an entry into Gaige, and so someone decided he must be Stanley's opponent. |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | SBC: <Calli>
hmmm....
I remember Capt. Evans was Staunton's original second for the 1843 match in Paris, but, when he couldn't make the trip, was was replaced by Harry Wilson and J Worrall. I don't recall J Turner. Why do you believe that JS Turner was more well known? And why couldn't JS Turner be the J Turner you mentioned as being British, whereas he could have been the Chicago Turner visiting London? |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | Calli: <SBC> You are right! It was J Worrall, not J Turner. Memory is the second thing to go and I don't remember the first. Well, if JST visited London and played HS then all the more likely for someone to error and assume that he was the American chess playing Turner. Hey, thought I already gave the reason for him being more well known - Gaige. Not a foolproof method I admit, but a good, uh, gauge. :-) |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | Calli: A clarification: Of the earlier J Turner v Staunton games, 3 were in 1845 and sourced as the Chess Player's Chronicle. One is from 1848 and from the London Illustrated. Also interesting is that all four games given as played in Brighton. |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | edo.chess: <Calli> So we have at least 2 and possibly 3 J Turners (JH of Kentucky who played Stanley in 1850, John Spencer of Chicago, and J who was in England in 1845 and 1848 and might possibly have been one of the American Turner's on a visit, JS more likely than JH). To verify further, one would need to check the other primary references:
Albion Mar.9, 1850 (cited by Spinrad);
London Illustrated (cited in OEC);
Chess Player's Chronicle (cited in OEC).
Did Soltis (and Graeme Cree) get their information from the Albion?Two more references for John Spencer Turner are given by Gaige:
American Chess Bulletin, 1905, p.300;
New York Times, Sept. 20, 1905, p.9, c.6
|
|
| Aug-12-06 | | SBC: <Dick Brain>
<That is strange. It was Stanley who played 2. Bc4 in each game here and Turner played it none of the 3 times.> Thanks.
You made me scratch my head, but I wanted to look into your observation before I replied to it. The information came directly from Andy Soltis' book on US Championships. But in re-reading the text, I feel I may have read more into it that it actually said. Soltis stated that Turner possessed what he considered an invincible system in the King's Gambit. The next sentence compares Turner to Weaver Adams who also felt he had a winning system in the Bishop's Opening. I took this to mean that both played something off-beat like the Greco Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.f4) combining the Bishops Opening with the King's Gambit. As you noted, the games presented here don't show Turner playing the Bishops Opening. But on reconsideration, Soltis seems to be saying that Turner had an invincible system in the KG, while Adams had one in the Bishops Opening. So, I would scratch the "1. e4 e5 2. Bc4" part of my posting. I'm not sure what Turner's invincible KG variation was. In the March 9, 1850 issue of the Albion, Stanley says in the sixth game Turner's KG was refuted so badly he never used it again in the match. Possibly game 5 above, J Turner vs C Stanley, 1850, was the sixth game Stanley refers to? The other cause for pause was that there are only a few games listed here. These very few may have been the only ones considered worth of publishing as the match was noted for it's flawed games and in those days, gentlemen tended to refrain from publicly embarrassing their peers unnecessarily. Since Turner played white in games 2, 4 and 6, most likely using his invincible sytem and never using it again, the idea that it wasn't listed here didn't originally bother me, but I think your observation helped set this all on the right path. |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | Calli: <SBC> As you know, Soltis gives only two games from the match. Game No.2 in the CG listing, C Stanley vs J Turner, 1850 is not labeled in the book but Soltis says "Stanley led 2-1 after that game...", so it apparently is the 3rd game in the match. He mentions that the fourth game was drawn. The other game gven in the book, C Stanley vs J Turner, 1850, has very odd labeling. Soltis says "Here is the final game.", but in the game header it says "Sixth Game". Don't they have proofreaders anymore? |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | Calli: <edo.chess> I think it is 99% sure that the player in this match is JH Turner because Soltis and McCormick (I have failed to credit the co-author previously.) are clearly reading from a contemporary source with all the details they give. Unfortunately, they do not give their sources or a bibliography. I might be able to access ACB 1905, but fear that it might not yield much. |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | SBC: <Calli>
I don't have the book itself, just my notes from reading it - and the hope that my notes are accurate. <"Soltis says "Here is the final game.", but in the game header it says "Sixth Game"."> Could Solis be referring to the last game in which Turner tried the KG rather than the last game of the match? |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | Calli: <SBC> The paragraph is curious. (right after the score of the 3rd game)
"Stanley led 2-1 after that game and was lucky to draw, a knight down, in the fourth game in 55 moves. But he ended the struggle with two crushing defeats. Here is the final game." C38 King's Gambit
"The Great Match", Sixth Game
......
(followed by the score)
Makes it look like a six game match! Weird considering the match score given previously. I believe it was a 17 game match and have no explanation for the Soltis' confusion. |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | SBC: <Calli>
It does sound like Soltis & Co. dropped the ball on this. Here's some paraphernalia from Jeremy Spinrad's closet: from the Albion
Feb 23, 1850: Stanley's report on match with Turner, includes seconds initials, score Stanley - Turner 11-5-1.
Game 1 Stanley-Turner - Bishop Opening
Mar 2, 1850:
Game 2 Turner-Stanley - KGA drawn
Mar 9, 1850:
Game 6 Turner-Stanley - KGA
notes say shook Turner's faith in KG and did not play it again in match. Turner in NY, on his way to taking Loewenthal out west.
NY Match results:
Loewenthal-Turner 11-4-8/3;
Turner-Thompson 6-2.
Mar 16, 1850: Game 7 Turner- Stanley - Vienna (from Bishop Opening) Apr 13, 1850: "Great Match" at Lexington Ky - 1st to 11 so far Loewentahl ahead of Dudley 7-5-4. <how many "Great Matches" are there??> from the Ogden Standard Examiner:
July 22, 1888: Amer Chess Cong elected J Spencer Turner pres. <Is that the same John Spencer Turner still very active in 1888?> |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | Calli: <SBC> Thanks! Yep, its pretty clear that Soltis/McCormick failed to nail this one down. Also the account they used was not from the Albion, but some other newspaper. JS Turner could easily been active that long. According to the dates from Gaige given earlier in the thread, 1830-1905, he would have been in his late 50s in 1888. The dates also argue against him meeting Staunton in 1845 at age 15 in Brighton. I still lean toward that being a different J Turner. |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | SBC: <Calli>
<I still lean toward that being a different J Turner> Whom Gaige somehow overlooked?
|
|
| Aug-12-06 | | Calli: Only JS is in Gaige. JH is not in there and he played a recognized match. An unknown "J Turner" who played in no events, only three odds games with Staunton probably would not make it in unless he did something else in chess. |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | SBC: <Calli>
is that the new edition??
|
|
| Aug-13-06 | | Calli: <SBC> the paperback edition. Its a reprint of the original 1987 book, not an update. Got it a little while back for $20. Its a bit used and the outside is a little messed up, but I jumped on it when it showed up in an internet search. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
