< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·
|Nov-22-12|| ||Conrad93: Morphy relied on luck. Staunton relied on skill.
Staunton would never make a move simply to be flashy, unless it absolutely worked.
|Nov-22-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: "Reviewing the history of chess from La Bourdonnais to the masters of our day right up to Lasker, we discover that the greatest stylist was Morphy. He did not look for complicated combinations, but he also did not avoid them, which really is the correct way of playing...His main strength lay not in his combinative gift, but in his positional play and general style. Morphy gained most of his wins by playing directly and simply, and it is this simple and logical method that constitutes the true brilliance of his play, if it is considered from the viewpoint of the great masters."
-- Jose Raul Capablanca|
|Nov-22-12|| ||Conrad93: No, to say that Morphy played simply is an outright lie.|
In most positions he favored the flashier and more complex position over a move that was far and away better.
I find Phillidor more impressive.
|Nov-22-12|| ||Conrad93: Amateurs also make flashy moves. Where is their fame?|
Morphy is only famous for dominating chess when attack was the only understood concept.
Put him against any decent "defensive" player and he doesn't stand a chance.
|Nov-26-12|| ||Dionysius1: Who would have won a match between Staunton and Morphy? I can feel a bit of research coming on - something to keep my interest in chess active in 2013!
What's sparked my attention is Ray Keene's article in today's (London) Times where he annotates a consultation game between Staunton and Owen (W) and Barnes and Morphy. He says it "indicates Morphy would have been the victor in such a contest".
It would be good to get the game up on the chessgames site - anyone know how to do that?|
|Nov-26-12|| ||thomastonk: <Dionysius1> What about the Philidor's Defence here: Staunton / Owen ?|
|Jan-04-13|| ||IndigoViolet: All three volumes of Staunton's editions of Shakespeare are now online, courtesy of Google Books.|
Cambridge University Press reprinted <The Staunton Shakespeare 3 Volume Set> in 2009.
<First published between 1858 and 1860, this three-volume annotated edition of Shakespeare's works by Howard Staunton is based on the folio and quarto editions collated with the texts of later editors from Rowe to Dyce. Staunton, a chess genius as well as a highly regarded Shakespeare scholar, was known for his minimal yet sensible textual improvements and his familiarity with Elizabethan literature and language. His edition combines common sense with meticulous research, and it was regarded as a definitive resource in its day. Each play is accompanied by an introduction giving details of its original production and publication and the sources of its plot, critical commentary, and footnotes explaining terms and expressions. The books are generously illustrated with black-and-white illustrations by the prolific artist John Gilbert.>
Staunton's first-volume preface reveals that he played a small role in the dramatic uncovering of the diabolical forgeries of John Payne Collier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P...
|Jan-04-13|| ||northernfox: <IndigoViolet> Thanks for this information. I was previously unaware of Staunton's scholarly work on Shakespeare.|
|Feb-12-13|| ||Nightsurfer: <Howard Staunton> - the only Englishman who has become (unofficial) World Champion of Chess between 1843 and 1851 - has got a colleague nowadays ... and that is Francis Bowers who is actually the 7 times (!!) World Champion of <Circular> Chess.|
|Feb-12-13|| ||Marmot PFL: Staunton was the best player in the 1840s. By the time Morphy came to Europe (about 1860), Staunton was over 50, and still strong but about 10-15 years past his peak. Anderssen was the best in Europe at that time and since Morphy beat him fairly easily there is no doubt who was the world's best at that time. |
A great match would be Morphy vs Steinitz in the 1860s but unfortunately for chess Morphy was no longer competing.
|Feb-13-13|| ||mrbasso: Staunton was just a Patzer. Anderssen a
a strong chess player with bad openings. Due to his bad opening treatment he had no chance against Morphy. Of course Morphy would have crushed Staunton.
|Feb-13-13|| ||Poulsen: Actually Staunton was a very strong player at his best - maybe the strongest in world (but not uncontested). |
Morphy would have had a hard time beating him, when he was at his best (roughly 15 years before Morphy came to Europe).
Morphy was arguable the best in world at his time, but none the less he is the most overrated player of all time.
|Mar-16-13|| ||perfidious: <mrbasso: Staunton was just a Patzer....>|
Not a mere patzer, but a Patzer-guess that represents a step up, or some such rot.
Your disrespect for greats both past and present is beyond the pale. Give lessons, do you?
|Mar-16-13|| ||ray keene: interestingly at the official opening of the world championship candidates tournament in london on thursday march 14 , the president of fide in a carefully scripted speech referred to staunton as "a world champion." as john saunders has pointed out, when the fide president speaks ex-cathedra he is the infallible Pope of chess. Many years ago I compared ( in an article for the Spectator I recall) the fide president to a mediaeval Pope and the world champion to the Holy Roman emperor. A good parallel wd be Pope Gregory VII and the Holy Roman emperor Henry IV.|
|Mar-16-13|| ||ray keene: during the 1840's staunton crushed st amant, horwitz and harrwitz in matches which foreshadowed in length and format the world title contests of the 1950's - 2000 or so.staunton was evidently the dominating force in the chess world at that time and until 1851 by which time anderssen had clearly overtaken him. still, staunton cd certainly be considered the champion from 1843 to 1851, which puts him on a par with capablanca, petrosian and kramnik in terms of tenure at the top!|
|Apr-14-13|| ||IndigoViolet: <How the [Staunton] Chess Set Got Its Look and Feel>|
|Apr-17-13|| ||Dragi: With all respect to great master Staunton , he knew verywell why he avoided Morphy ...Just like Anderssen at his prime , he would be overrun by divine Paulie like some of the patzers from the local pub ...|
|Apr-20-13|| ||Conrad93: Staunton, like Fischer, was a great chess player, but a terrible man.|
|Apr-20-13|| ||talisman: when it came to Morphy, he sure knew how to duck.|
|Apr-20-13|| ||Conrad93: He was busy at the time. Staunton considered everyone else inferior. That would include Morphy, so he probably assumed that it would be a waste of time to crush a weakling.|
|Apr-21-13|| ||Conrad93: Also, Staunton was busy with a Shakespearean project at the time. He could not be bothered with a match.|
|Apr-21-13|| ||Shams: <talisman> Howard the duck?|
|May-18-13|| ||Caissanist: G.H. Diggle, in his fine account of Staunton's 1843 match with St. Amant, attributes Staunton's spotty later results to a near-fatal bout of pneumonia in October 1844, which left him with a heart condition that seems to have worsened over the years. By 1853 he was begging off even casual games with his friend Von der Lasa, because of worry about heart problems. Diggle also believes his irascible behavior in his later years was in part due to health issues.|
|Oct-01-13|| ||offramp: His frequent opponent John Cochrane has 766 games in the database to Staunton's 326.|
|Dec-07-13|| ||scheidt: The English Opening could be called the Staunton Opening as easily as the Petrov, Pirc and the Reti is called after those masters.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·