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."