Playing strength and style

There is a famous story that Paul Morphy described Staunton as the author of "some devilish bad games". Chess historian Edward Winter traced this back to a book published in 1902, whose author said he had seen a copy of Staunton's The Chess Tournament in which Morphy had written "some devilish bad games" on the title page; Winter was unable to trace the copy. Around the time of Staunton's death Morphy is said to have commented that Staunton may have been the strongest player of his time, had great analytical ability and judgement of positions but lacked the imagination required to deliberately create opportunities for combinations.
Twentieth-century opinions of Staunton's play varied enormously. Reinfeld, Horowitz and Fine all condemned it. On the other hand Kasparov considered Staunton "by the early 1840s ... superior to all his rivals"and Bobby Fischer wrote, "Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day... In addition, he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players hold dear, and thus - with Steinitz - must be considered the first modern player."
The website Chessmetrics ranks Staunton as world number one from May 1843 to August 1849, in the top ten from July 1851 to May 1853, and in the top five from June 1853 to January 1856.
From the early 1840s to 1851 Staunton could successfully give odds to almost any UK-based player, including eventually Cochrane; the exceptions were Buckle, to whom Staunton gave pawn and move in 1843 and lost their match (six losses, no draws, one win), and Elijah Williams in 1851, against whom Staunton won more games but lost the match because he had given Williams a three-game start. According to match records collected by Jeremy P. Spinrad, the only players who were successful against Staunton without receiving odds from 1840 to 1852 were: Saint-Amant, who won their first match in London in 1843 and lost their second, longer match in Paris the same year; Anderssen, who eliminated Staunton from the 1851 London International tournament; and Williams, who beat Staunton in the play-off for third place in the same tournament. Before 1840 Staunton was still a relative beginner, and after 1851 his health was too fragile for serious competition. In the late 1840s some UK commentators wrote that Buckle was stronger, and von der Lasa was regarded by some as the world's best. Staunton did not play von der Lasa until 1853, and was forced by ill-health to abandon the match.
In his own time Staunton was regarded as belonging to the "closed" category of chess players (along with for example Philidor and József Szén) rather than to the "heroic" category (which included La Bourdonnais, Morphy and Anderssen) - instead of seeking immediate combat, Staunton deferred it until he was ready. The closed English Opening got its name from Staunton's frequent use of it, especially against Saint-Amant in 1843. However he was noted for the accuracy and incisiveness of his combinations.

The Staunton-Morphy controversy

Chess historians Edward Winter and G.D.H. Diggle trace much of the 20th-century animosity against Staunton to books by Philip W. Sergeant (1872-1952) about Paul Morphy. Sergeant in turn made use of a book by Frederick Edge, who accompanied Morphy to Europe in 1858 as his secretary and personal assistant, but returned to the USA in January 1859, a few months before Morphy. Opinions of Edge's value as a historical source vary widely: · A review of his book in the USA commented, "Mr. Morphy expressly disclaims any connection with it in any way or manner. ... will afford the reader a half-hour's entertainment"Chess historians H.J.R. Murray, David Hooper and Ken Whyld described Edge as unreliable and having an extreme bias against Staunton. · Sergeant's books and David Lawson's Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess (New York, 1976) make extensive use of Edge's book, but note Edge's strong anti-Staunton bias. Lawson also suggests that Morphy had seen the manuscript of Edge's book, disliked its treatment of the Staunton affair so much that he disavowed it, and objected to Edge's treatment of other matters. Edge's letters to American chess journalist Daniel Fiske show that Edge regarded Morphy as lazy and rather helpless, and himself as the one who would make Morphy's name immortal, and that Morphy wanted to keep the negotiations with Staunton discreet while Edge insisted on making them as public as possible. H.J.R. Murray wrote that Staunton's response to Morphy's initial challenge and his article about the same in the Illustrated London News should have been interpreted as a courteous refusal of the offer, but that Morphy interpreted them differently, and one of the main reasons for his visit to Europe in 1858 was the hope of playing a match with Staunton. Murray also commented on the whole affair, "In all this there is but little in which we can reproach Staunton, beyond the fact that he kept open the possibility of a match for so long, and even here there is a good deal that could be urged in justification of the course followed by Staunton" but also noted that both sides were playing tactical games with each other in front of the public, and that comments made by both players or their respective supporters were acrimonious. In response to Morphy's complaints Lord Lyttelton, then president of the British Chess Association, said that it was reasonable for Staunton to decline the match, but that in his opinion Staunton should have done so plainly in his first letter to America, but had instead often given the impression that he would soon be ready to start the match. von der Lasa later wrote, although not specifically about this affair, that he thought there was no chance of Staunton's health being good enough for a serious contest from 1853 onwards. Staunton's obituary in the City of London Chess Magazine said, "... nor were his innuendoes concerning Morphy otherwise than an utterly unworthy means of getting out of an engagement, which he could have either declined with a good grace at first, or afterwards have honourably asked to be released from. Nevertheless, all said and done, Staunton was, as we have often heard a distinguished enemy of his say, emphatically a MAN. There was nothing weak about him, and he had a backbone that never curved with fear of any one." Some 20th-century commentators have been more critical of Staunton. However some well-known chess writers, including Fred Reinfeld, Israel "Al" Horowitz and Reuben Fine, have been criticized by chess historians for their lack of accuracy, both in general and specifically where Staunton is concerned. Edward Winter writes, "It is unwise for the ‘non-playing’ historian to publish his own analysis, although he may be a useful compiler. Similarly, players who are unversed in, and indifferent to, chess history should not touch it." William Hartston wrote of Staunton's non-match with Morphy, "Sadly, this blemish on Staunton the man also did considerable harm to the reputation among later generations of Staunton the chess player." G.H. Diggle wrote in the British Chess Magazine, "That [Staunton] excused himself ... from playing a match against the greatest player of the century, then at the zenith of his youth and fame, was no tragedy for chess. The contest would have been a fiasco. But it would have been happier, both for the young champion and the old, had the latter never said he would play at all."

Later life

Staunton continued writing the chess column in Illustrated London News until his death in 1874, greeting new developments with enthusiasm. In 1860 he published Chess Praxis, a supplement to his 1847 work The Chess Player's Handbook. The new book devoted 168 pages to presenting many of Morphy's games and praised the American's play. Five years later Staunton published Great Schools of England (1865), whose main subject was the history of major English public schools but which also presented some progressive ideas: learning can only take place successfully if the active interest of the student is engaged; corporal punishment is to be avoided and fagging should be abolished. But most of his later life was occupied in writing about Shakespeare, including: a photolithographic reproduction of the 1600 Quarto of Much Ado about Nothing in 1864 and of the First Folio of Shakespeare in 1866; and papers on Unsuspected Corruptions of Shakespeare's Text, published from 1872 to his death. All these works were highly regarded at the time. When he died suddenly of heart disease, on June 22, 1874, he was at his desk writing one of these papers. At the same time he was also working on his last chess book, Chess: Theory and Practice, which was published posthumously in 1876. A memorial plaque now hangs at his old residence of 117 Lansdowne Road, London W11. In 1997 a memorial stone bearing an engraving of a chess knight was raised over his grave at Kensal Green Cemetery in London, which had previously been unmarked and neglected

1852-1860, Final stages of playing career and Shakespeare publication

Immediately after the London International tournament Staunton challenged Anderssen to a match of twenty-one games, for £100. Anderssen accepted the challenge but the match could not be arranged: Staunton was physically unfit for an immediate contest, and Anderssen had to return to work.Carl Jaenisch had arrived too late for the tournament; Staunton convincingly won a match with him soon after (seven wins, one draw, and two losses). Later in 1851 Staunton played a match against his former pupil Elijah Williams, who had won their play-off for third place in the London International tournament. Staunton won more games (six wins, three draws, and four losses) but lost the match because he had given Williams a three-game start.In 1853, while trying to arrange a match against Anderssen, Staunton met von der Lasa in Brussels. The two began a match, but had to abandon it in the middle of the thirteenth game, with von der Lasa leading (five wins, four losses, and three draws). Staunton was unfit to continue because of heart palpitations, which had affected him in the second match against Saint-Amant in 1843. In von der Lasa's opinion there was no chance that Staunton's health would be good enough for a serious contest from 1853 onwards In the mid-1850s Staunton obtained a contract with the publishers Routledge to edit the text of Shakespeare. This edition appeared in parts from 1857 to 1860, and Staunton's work was praised by experts While Staunton was busy with the Shakespeare edition, he received a courteous letter from the New Orleans Chess Club, inviting him to that city to play Paul Morphy, who had won the recent First American Chess Congress. Staunton replied, thanking the New Orleans Chess Club and Morphy "for the honor implied in your selection of me as the opponent of such a champion" and pointing out that he had not competed for several years and was working six days a week (on editing Shakespeare), and that he could not possibly travel across the Atlantic for a match. He also wrote in the Illustrated London News that he had "been compelled, by laborious literary occupation, to abandon the practice of chess, beyond the indulgence of an occasional game... If Mr. Morphy - for whose skill we entertain the liveliest admiration - be desirous to win his spurs among the chess chivalry of Europe, he must take advantage of his purposed visit next year; he will then meet in this country, in France, in Germany and in Russia, many champions ... ready to test and do honor to his prowess."[38] Chess historian H.J.R. Murray wrote that Staunton's letter and article should have been interpreted as a courteous refusal of the offer, but that Morphy interpreted them differently, and one of the main reasons for his visit to Europe in 1858 was the hope of playing a match with Staunton.[1][39] Some other chess historians disagree with Murray's interpretation of Staunton's response.[40] Staunton did offer to play Morphy by electric telegraph, a technology whose progress and uses for chess he reported enthusiastically. However this offer arrived after Morphy had left for Europe - which perhaps was fortunate, as the newly-laid cable broke down after a month and was not replaced until 1866.[41]
Upon arriving in England in June 1858, Morphy promptly challenged Staunton to a match. At first, Staunton declined Morphy's offer saying that the challenge came too late. Morphy did not give up negotiations and urging Staunton to play. In early July Staunton agreed provided he was given time to get back into practise on openings and endgames,[43] and provided that he could manage all this without breaking the publication contract for his Shakespearean work. In early August, Morphy wrote asking Staunton when the match could occur,[44][45] and Staunton asked again for a delay of some weeks.[46] Staunton competed in a tournament that started in on 22 August in Birmingham, but this was a knock-out tournament and he was eliminated in the second round by Johann Löwenthal, after playing a total of four games.[35][45] This was to be Staunton's last public chess competition. H.J.R. Murray wrote that Staunton had overexerted himself and damaged his health by trying both to get ahead of schedule on the Shakespeare project and to play some competitive chess.[1] Just before Staunton left London for Birmingham, his old enemy George Walker published an article accusing him of trying to delay the match indefinitely, and Staunton received another letter from Morphy pressing him to name a date for the match. Staunton and Morphy met socially in Birmingham and, after a tense discussion, Staunton agreed to play in early November.[47][48] Just after the tournament a letter signed by "Anti-book" appeared in Staunton's column in the Illustrated London News, alleging that Morphy did not actually have the money for his share of the stakes. This letter is widely thought to have been written by Staunton himself; if so, he must have written it immediately after reading Walker's article and Morphy's letter and immediately before leaving for Birmingham.[49] Around this time Morphy wrote to friends in the USA asking them to obtain the stake money for the Staunton match. Morphy's family refused to contribute as they "should not allow him to play a money match either with his own money or anyone else's", but the New Orleans Chess Club sent £500.[50] Meanwhile Morphy went to Paris to play against continental masters. In September the Illustrated London News printed both a complimentary full-page article about Morphy and a complimentary mention of him in its chess column.[51][52] On October 6, 1885, while in Paris Morphy wrote Staunton an open letter which was also circulated to several publications, in which Morphy complained about Staunton's conduct.[53] Staunton replied on October 9, re-stating the difficulties he faced, but now giving them as reasons to cancel the match.[50][1][54] On 23 October, Staunton published his entire reply along with a partial copy of Morphy's open letter, omitting the reference to the "Anti-book" letter. Various chess columns then printed anonymous and acrimonious letters. Morphy took no part in any of this, but wrote to Lord Lyttelton, the president of the British Chess Association, explaining his own efforts to bring about the match, accusing Staunton of avoiding the match by all means short of admitting he did not wish to play, complaining about Staunton's representation of the facts in the Illustrated London News, and demanding "that you shall declare to the world it is through no fault of mine that this match has not taken place." Lyttelton replied that it was reasonable for Staunton to decline the match, but that in his opinion Staunton should have done so plainly in his first letter to America, but had instead often given the impression that he would soon be ready to start the match.