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

<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?

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".">

(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)

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.

<I still lean toward that being a different J Turner>

Whom Gaige somehow overlooked?

That's a good buy for a handy book.

<What I was trying to say is that there is no second edition>

oh.

Thanks for the information from the Albion!

<Calli> <There is another J. Turner who was British>

C. Stanley .. 11
J.H. Turner .. 5
Drawn .. .. .. 1

<<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. >

When I read Soltis' book on US champions, it struck me at the time that the information he was giving concerning the 19th century players came straight from the congress books - and not other sources. I never tried to comfirm this since it was just an impression I had. Anyway, this business with JH Turner had me puzzled because I figured for sure it would be in the Book of the First American Chess Congress, but when I couldn't find but a passing reference to Turner, I figured my initial impression was wrong and didn't think anymore about it. Today, while perusing the book for some references to Hiram Kennicitt, I came across the exact passage that Soltis lifted almost verbatim from the book under the section entitled "Miscellanea and Addenda" -page 534.

Fiske confirms that Stanley played J.H.Turner.

1) There are three Turners and it was JH played the 1850 match

2) The OXFORD made an inexplicable error assigning the match to the wrong Turner when Staunton had it right. No wonder there was no second volume. (Ok, a cheap shot)

3) Soltis erred when giving the 6th game as "Final" and even the other games he appears to have the wrong round assigned according to the Albion. Perhaps he was quoting someone else at that point.

4) What was the question? :-)

For my part, I looked up Spinrads ref in ACB 1905, p300 and there is one line:

"The death, about the same time, is reported of J. Spencer Turner, of Brooklyn, president of the Sixth American Chess Congrees, of which Steinitz was secretary."

"About the same time" as what, you might well ask. Well, coincidentally, the item above reported the death of Jules Arnous de Riviere on Sept 11, 1905 at the age of 75. J Spenser Turner is also mentioned in the 5th Congress Book as President of the Brooklyn CC.

<1) There are three Turners and it was JH played the 1850 match>

Well, there's also Tina Turner. She might have recorded for Chess records.

<No wonder there was no second volume. (Ok, a cheap shot)>

Not really. The quality of that volume is extremely disappointing (to me, at any rate), considering the stature of it's authors and it's common acceptance as a standard reference tool.