http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

<Gejewe: <keypusher> After the initial moves I prefer the active 5.Nc3 Qb6!? for example 1) 6.Na4 Qa5+ 7.c3 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 Nf6 ( two bishops but Na4 is clumsy ) 2) 6.Be3 Nc6 and the pawn sacrifice 7.Ndb5 Bxe3 leads to an unclear position but control of e5 should help black. I remember a matchgame Harstston-Basman, England 1974 as a good example how black should play. Staunton was a bit passive, 6..Qc7 was suggested in contemporary sources and Staunton was very critical on his play in this particular game in general.>

I think this is the Hartston-Basman game he refers to:

This game is annotated here.

11...d5 12.Nf3 Nc6 13.Bxa7 Rxa7 14.a3

12.Nf3 Nc6 13.Bx7 Rxa7 14.Ne4 Qd8

16.Kh1 b4 17.a3 bxa3 18.bxa3 Rab8

16...Bxe3+ 17.Rxe6 Qb6 18.Qh3 Rad8 19.Bd3

19...Qb4 20.Bb7 Qc4 21.Rg1 Rd7 22.Bc6

if 9 Qg4 ... 0-0
and if 10 Bh6?? ... Ng6 (the hanging bishop, knight, and threat of e5 seem difficult to meet) 11 Bg5 ... Qb6 (11 Be3 .. e5)

Anderssen vs Staunton, 1851.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF ANDERSSEN.
Your score: 63 (par = 56)

18. f5 is +2.67 (Stockfish 6, 37 ply). PV is like 18. f5 ♕xe5 19. ♗g2 ♕xb2 20. Bg5 ♖d7 21. fxg6 hxg6 22. ♕h4. This means 17... c5 was a serious error - better 17 ... ♗xe3.

Then it seems the final error is 19... ♕a4 instead of 19... ♕b4.

"Let the reader compare this game, which would be discreditable to two third-rate players of a coffee-house, with any of the match game in which Black has taken part heretofore, and say how far the result of this mere mockery of Chess is a proof of the absolute powers of two men who are called proficients."

I've copied it word for word. I think he is saying in his own sweet way that Black [Staunton] played an awful game of chess.

(adding to the confusion this note actually appears in the middle of the next game but it's marker '*' refers the reader back to the last move of the previous game. - this game.)

page 111 here:

But, I think Staunton is also putting a knock on Anderssen as well as himself, when he uses phraseology like:

<discreditable to two third-rate players of a coffee-house ... mockery ... of two men who are called proficients.>

in reference to the game, and not just Black's play.

in reference to the game, and not just Black's play.>

<zanzibar> Of course that is what Staunton is doing.

I've had the London 1851 tournament book for a long time. Staunton's evaluation heuristic is simple: If he wins, it's a good, probably even great game. If he loses, it's a terrible game.