< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-03-09|| ||percyblakeney: <Staunton complained mightily about the slowness of Wyvill's play, suggesting that Wyvill managed to win his games principally through outsitting his opponents>|
I think he said that about Elijah Williams but he would probably have said it about Wyvill too if he had lost against him :-) Staunton meant that only his <physical
suffering could explain the result, against a player he could ordinarily defeat at P+2 odds> after Williams allegedly spent hours on some positions.
Williams won a 17-game match against Horwitz, and Staunton commented about the disadvantage Horwitz suffered from when playing <any opponent who seeks to irritate or exhaust him by protracting the games unnecessarily>. According to Horwitz none of the games took more than five hours, and most of them were finished in two.
Spinrad writes in his article on the subject that many sided with Williams in the dispute, and Staunton seems to have been rather slow himself in the 1851 tournament. Anderssen wrote that a game between Staunton and Horwitz took 11½ hours, and Kieseritzky singled out Staunton as playing slow games.
|Aug-03-09|| ||YoungEd: Hi, <percyblakeny>--
You are right; I misremembered the names. Thanks for the correction and info.|
|Aug-03-09|| ||Knight13: Of course, people might've disliked Staunton more than any other player in the tournament and so sided against him.|
Note that Staunton intended to organize the tournament in order to attract the best players from around the world, and create brilliant games so that it will be talked about for centuries to come, but most importantly, he himself walking out as the winner of the tournament.
Guess what? Staunton didn't win the tournament. Most of the games sucked. No, it will not be talked about for centuries for its brilliancy either; most of the games weren't that good.
|Dec-22-11|| ||talisman: <happy birthday Marmaduke!|
|Dec-22-11|| ||Eastfrisian: I guess, he won't answer.|
|Oct-01-12|| ||DrDave: Just being lazy, but could anyone please point me to a game where Wyvill used his famous Wyvill formation? There are none on my database...|
|Oct-01-12|| ||Olavi: <DrDave> A very good question. I have had the suspicion that it's a misnomer, originally by Tarrasch. There is for instance this game Wyvill vs Anderssen, 1851 in which Wyvill has the doubled pawns, but it is supposed that he recognized the weakness of such pawns, not that he endorsed them. Instead, there are some games by Elijah Williams, indeed one against Wyvill if memory serves, which seem to indicate that he deliberately tried to impose such pawns on the opponent. Further research is needed...|
|Oct-01-12|| ||keypusher: <Olavi: <DrDave> A very good question. I have had the suspicion that it's a misnomer, originally by Tarrasch. There is for instance this game Wyvill vs Anderssen, 1851 in which Wyvill has the doubled pawns, but it is supposed that he recognized the weakness of such pawns, not that he endorsed them. Instead, there are some games by Elijah Williams, indeed one against Wyvill if memory serves, which seem to indicate that he deliberately tried to impose such pawns on the opponent. Further research is needed...>|
According to posting on this site, the term "Wyvill formation" was coined by Kmoch. It does seem to be a misnomer. Here's a very early example. Staunton was playing the City of Bristol by mail. One of the leading Bristol players was Elijah Williams, so maybe that is where he got the idea.
Staunton vs Bristol, 1841
|Oct-01-12|| ||Olavi: In "Die Kunst der Bauernführung" Kmoch atributes the term to Tarrasch, but doesn't mention where he used it.|
|Oct-01-12|| ||Olavi: OK it's probably in his book on the 1914 St. Petersburg tournament, in his comments on Rubinstein-Alekhine. He states that Wyvill used the stratagem Sb8-c6-a5, Ba6, Rc8 against the pawns in several games in London 1851. I think that should be Williams.|
|Oct-02-12|| ||keypusher: <Olavi: OK it's probably in his book on the 1914 St. Petersburg tournament, in his comments on Rubinstein-Alekhine. He states that Wyvill used the stratagem Sb8-c6-a5, Ba6, Rc8 against the pawns in several games in London 1851. I think that should be Williams.>|
I have that one, I'll check when I get a chance.
|Oct-18-12|| ||Nosnibor: Did you know that Wyvill beat the great Howard Staunton? It was a game at odds but despite that Wyvill showed that he was a force to be reckoned with.This game was played in 1854 three years after he had finished second in the 1851 London International and two places above Staunton. White:Wyvill Black:Staunton (Remove Black`s KBPawn) 1e4 Nc6 2d4 e5 3Bb5 exd4 4Bxc6 dxc6 5Qh5+ Kd7 6Nf3 Qe8 7Ne5+ Ke7 8Qh4+ Nf6 9Bg5 Be6 100-0 h6 11f4 Rg8 12Bxf6+ gxf6 13f5 Bf7 14Ng4 Rg5 15Nxf6! Kxf6 16Nd2 Bh5 17e5+ Kg7 18e6 Rg4 19Qf2 Bd6 20Rad1 Rd8 21Ne4 Bf4 22h3 Be3 23f6+ Kh8 24Rxe3 dxe3 25Qxe3 Rg6 26f7 Qxe6 27Qc3+ Kh7 28f8=Q(f8=N+ would be showboating!not Wyvill`s style)28...Rxf8 29Rxf8 Rxg2+ 30Kxg2 Qxe4+ 31Kg1 Qg6+ 32Kf1 Black Resigns 1-0|
|Oct-18-12|| ||thomastonk: <Nosnibor> The game you present is part of a series of at least three games at pawn and move between Wyvill and Staunton. Two of them were published in the CPC 1854, p 69-71 (Wyvill's win and a win for Staunton in 21). A third game ended drawn, though Wyvill was ahead rook and pawn with absolutely no compensation. The CPC remarks, that the games "are much below the mark of the two combatants".|
|Nov-06-12|| ||Nosnibor: <thomastonk> Staunton was in the habit of making such statements in the Chess Players Chronicle when his own personal result was not what he had hoped for.Here is another game played by Wyvill shortly after the opening of the new venue at St.James Street of the St. George`s Chess Club.It is a game between the two strongest Members of Parliament at the time and there may not be another instance of this in the DB! Offhand game played February 1854 White:Evelyn Black: Wyvill Sicilian Defence 1e4 c5 2d4 cxd4 3Nf3 Nc6 4Nxd4 f5 5exf5 Nxd4 6Qh5+ g6 7fxg6 Bg7 8gxh7+ Kf8 9hxg8=Q+ Kxg8 10Bc4+ e6 11Qd1 b5 12c3 bxc4 13cxd4 Bb7 14f3 Qh4+ 15Ke2 Bxd4 16Qe1 Qf6 17Nc3 Rf8?(Now Rh3 would have prevented Whites last move and would have probably won)18Qg3+ Kf7 19Bg5 Qf5 20Rhd1 Rfg8 21h4 e5 22Nb5 and White won.|
|Nov-07-12|| ||thomastonk: <Nosnibor> Thank you very much for your message. |
I agree that the statement would match Staunton's habit. But, is it exactly known when he handed over the CPC?
|Nov-20-12|| ||Nosnibor: <thomastonk> Staunton handed over the CPC in 1854 but continued to run a column in the "Illestrated London News".|
|Nov-20-12|| ||thomastonk: <Nosnibor> Thank you again. I know that this year is mentioned in 'The Oxford Companion to Chess' by Hooper & Whyld, and by others like Sunnucks. However, based on Murray's 'A History of Chess', Staunton edited the CPC from 1841 to 1852. So, I think the matter can only be decided by a primary source. Do you know such a source?|
|Nov-20-12|| ||Nosnibor: <thomastonk> I can tell you that H.J.R.Murray`s book is unfortunately full of inaccuracies and that in 1854 Staunton`s friend R.B Brien took over until 1856.I know this for a fact because I personally sighted a copy of the CPC in 1959 at the time of the change of editors.|
|Nov-21-12|| ||thomastonk: <Nosnibor> All volumes of the CPC are available at Google books, and so I could solve the issue easily.|
Staunton issued 13 volumes from 1841 to 1852, a "first series". Then he decided to change the direction of the magazine "to a new and more perfect series" as he wrote under the title "The Chess player's Chronicle - New Series" in the first issue of 1853. This "new series" starts with volume 1 again. So, those authors who named 1852 as the year of change in the editorship probably assumed wrongly that the begin of the new series was due to a change of the editor.
However, this change was reported to the readers in the middle of 1854, exactly on page 225.
So, back to our starting point: the comments in CPC 1854, p69-71 are hence made by Staunton.
|Sep-02-13|| ||offramp: He was known to his dormitory friends as Marmalade Winegum.
His catchphrase, in the evil hours at the cottages of foggy old London Town was, "Teeth in our out?"|
|Dec-22-15|| ||PhilFeeley: I can see a Holiday Present clue using this guy through the cartoon dog.|
|Dec-22-15|| ||Domdaniel: "Uncle Duke? Wyvill you be remembered 200 years after your birth?"|
"Good looks, dear boy. And perhaps the jolly old wood-pushing."
|Dec-22-18|| ||Castleinthesky: What do you get when you combine nobility with marmalade? A marmaduke!|
|Dec-22-18|| ||Check It Out: Marmaduke Wyvil was the son of Marmaduke Wyvil, mp of York. I guess that makes him the lesser of two Wyvils.|
|Dec-22-18|| ||JimNorCal: Someone point <Check It Out> towards the Submit A Pun page.|
That one's a sure winner!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·