With all due respect, I have a somewhat different, and very defensible, take on the so-called Staunton/Morphy Controversy.

1st, the controversy was never about Staunton's ability or his availability. It was about his unwillingness to make a firm commitment.

Morphy, as he confided in his letter to Lord Lyttelton, came to England for the sole purpose to play Staunton (contrary to his public intention of playing in the Birmingham Tournament) . Whether, from Staunton's original correspondence such a conclusion was reasonable or not is moot. Once in England, and Morphy brought up the topic immediately upon meeting Staunton, Staunton indicated that he would indeed play a match if.... Morphy satisfied every "if" and only wanted a commitment since his time was limited. Every time Morphy acquiesced, Staunton postponed. Just as Morphy would have had no misgivings not playing Anderssen if Anderssen couldn't have arranged to be in Paris when he was, it seems consistant that Morphy would have been quite satisfied if Stauton has simply said there would be no match. But Staunton didn't do that one simple thing. Quite the contrary, he used his chess column to prevaricate and insinuate. Still, Morphy himself would have let it all just die, but Fredrick Edge, who intensely disliked Staunton, made more of it than necessary. After Lord Lyttelton gently sanctioned Staunton, every chess club in England with the exception of the Cambridge Chess Club, did likewise. George Walker, who had had a great falling out with Staunton years before, was much harsher to Staunton in his own chess column. Years later, Morphy had praise for Staunton as a player and a promoter of chess, but I would think at the time, Morphy was a bit disgusted with Staunton's tactics.

I think the affair has been blown out of proportion to it's worth. To find Staunon blameless seems revisionistic, while denigrating him seems ridiculous.

One might make a case for St. Amant, at least as being the best in France in 1843 (St. Amant beat Staunton in their first and shorter match in 1843 played in England, but lost decisively in their second match that year played in Paris, though what is seldom mentioned is that St. Amant started of poorly due to nervousness even to the point that a certain Baroness [referred to only as "la Baroness de L__"] had to take him aside and convince him to continue. But as the match progressed, St. Amant's game got better to the point that it was almost a turn around, though the match ended before that could happen. St. Amant wanted to play a third match and Staunton [perhaps wisely] refused.) But even that might be debatable because since 1842, le Cercle des Echecs, headed by St. Amant was getting pants beat of them in correspondence games with the Pesth triumvitate of Grimm, Szen and Lowenthal.

Daniel Harrwitz was by no means one of the strongest players in Europe in 1846 when he lost that strange match to Staunton (21 games - 7 at "Pawn and 2" won by Staunton 4-3, 7 at "Pawn and move" won by Harrwitz 6-1 and 7 even won by Staunton 7-0) Harrwitz was fortunate that Staunton even played him at that point in his career. And Staunton's probably lucky he did play him at that point and not some later point, even as early as 1849, because all indicators seem to show Harrwitz would have won easily.

I wrote "He lost the majority to Lasa in 1844" -Oxford Companion

Your'e right about Harrwitz 1848, I must have had Anderssen on my mind.

The Modenese were retro in the respect that they advocated, such as in Ponziani's Il Giuoco Incomparabile degli Scacchi, open games, especially the Italian game, with quick attacks on the castled king - with less than adequate regard for other factors - a la Greco, unlike Philidor's anti-calabrese which advocated a slower game, stressing control of the center with the ultimate idea of building an advantageous postition (sounds kinda modern to me, but I'm just a patzer). The castling is irrelevant since castling variation weren't exclusive to Modena nor was the Modena style of castling the only castling variation of those times.

Odds games had another curious purpose at times, one which Deschapelles employed expertly as well as certain other players. As long as one loses at odds, one hasn't truly been beaten. Plus, in reference to what you correctly state as the "art" and "exact science" of giving odds, is the implication that evokes. By careful manipulation, any player could, and hence probably did, avoid certain competitors by their potential competitor's lack of scientic application of the Odds hierarchy. It was almost a minefield of whom to play and at what odds in order to still qualify to play someone else at certain odds or at even. Some players were better odds manipulators than they were chess players. The third purpose of giving odds, since we're on the subject, was to give chess professionals a way to make a living. If they didn't give odds, who'd play them for money?

what you say about odds giving is excellent-the english player lewis was an expert in such manipulation. incidentally lewis according to research by barry martin was the first player ever to be described in print as a grandmaster.

i also agree with you about chessmetrics-in fact i believe i expressed surprise in my original posting that staunton stayed so high for so long. i wd have said that staunton was definitely no better than number 2 after 1851-his period of dominance ended abruptly with the tournament he organised!

however you are wrong about staunton playing von der lasa in berlin in 1844. i know its in the oxford companion so its not your fault at all-but this reference was a blunder by whyld which he later admitted in person to prof nathan divinsky to have been completely wrong! staunton did not go to berlin in 1844 and he played no games in that year against von der lasa. if someone ever produces a new edition of the oxford companion this will have to be corrected.

next-you say that you meant to write "anderssen" in 1848-however i dont think staunton played anderssen in 1848 either!if you meant that harrwitz played anderssen in 1848 then you are right-5 wins each.

next castling-i am afraid i must contradict you again. as a tournament practitioner of many years standing i can assure you that if your prevailing chess culture opts for a version of castling that gets -for example-your kings rook to e1 in one move rather than to f1-this more rapid deployment is going to make life very difficult for defences such as the sicilian. theorists will then build up a body of knowledge relevant to this more speedy deployment. if the world then passes them by and goes for castling with rf1 then sadly they get relegated to a footnote in history. i think it doubtful whether one can really refer to a world champion tho-until the leading players agree on the rules.

the argument i make in my book the evolution of chess opening theory is essentially this

1 the italians were completely different in their approach to philidor

2 the italian ideas were still valid and in many ways just as forward looking as philidor

3 however because their mode of castling did not become generally accepted they became a backwater.it was not-tho- their thoughts on piece play development and the initiative which phased them out or marked them as old fashioned-it was their views on castling.was morphy closer in his openings play to philidor or to the italians? obviously to the italian school and i think that answers the point. in morphy's day it was the slow philidorian-stauntonian openings build up that began to be distrusted and regarded as out moded-even tho when it was rediscovered in the 1920's it was called hypermodern!

4 nevertheless their very existence combined with the failure of the french and italian schools to meet over the board under mutually accepted rules makes it difficult to regard philidor as a world champion.

my best guess for first world champion wd be labourdonnais-he might not have claimed the title but he sure as hell deserved it.

I didn't know about that particular error in the Oxford Companion. I can accept that.

Yes, I must have been thinking of Anderssen playing Harrwitz in 1848, not Staunon-Harrwitz - which is a peculiar blunder on my part since I'm pretty familiar with the Anderssen-Harrwitz encounter.

By "irrelevant", I didn't mean that castling rules make no difference in a game, or in the development of theory for that game, but rather as a reason for singling out the Modenese school of chess as something unique, or if they were unique because of their preferred castling options, then they were just one of many unique places, only famous thanks to del Rio, Lolli and Ponziani, all of whom were critical of Philidor's ideas. In playing over what is considered games by Ruy Lopez, il Puttino and Boi, I notice that they used various castling methods, probably playing according to the local rules. They seem to do this with ease.

Point #2, "the italian ideas were still valid and in many ways just as forward looking as philidor"

I can accept that their ideas are valid, but I can't see anything about them that's really forward-looking. I would say Morphy, who favored the Italian game, was probably the culmination of the Modenese ideas while Bourdonnais was more like Philidor in his approach. But, as I think Lasker pointed out, since Morphy very little has been added to that style of play which is why I see it as valid yet limited. I can kind of agree with the other points in general... though I wonder about Deschappelles' place. He was possibly one of the greatest game players in the world, but since he pretty much refused to play even, he made any kind of evaluation quite difficult. As <Honza Cervenka> pointed out, Deschappelles beat St. Amant in 1842, but what he didn't say was that Deschappelles was old and hadn't played chess for 20 years (he was busy making a fortune playing whist).

its a basic chess debate

capa nimzo karpov staunton reti petrosian botvinnik are on the philidor side

morphy alekhine fischer kasparov tal on the italian
steinitz switched in mid career
lasker was on nobodys side but his own-as the ent says in the two towers

me-i am a philidorian

if openings are primitive castling rules have litle impact

but try playing a sicilian if white can get his kr to e1 in one go!!

By the way, I enjoyed your vigorous 1983 Sicilian against Erling Mortensen quite a lot:

E Mortensen vs Keene, 1983

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/

The particular excellence of this site is how beautifully hyperlinked it is. Almost all the words or letters in red are clickable. If you look down in the lower left portion of the page, you'll see an alphabetical guide which is a great place to start browsing.

<mack> It's funny: I had the exact opposite experience with Tolkien! When I read "The Hobbit", I was totally underwhelmed. But somehow, I did connect quite strongly with "Lord of the Rings"

"de gustibus non est disputandum": There is no disputing about tastes!