Staunton’s Chess Player’s Handbook
The name “Staunton” has become so closely associated with chess that the words have become virtually synonymous. All modern tournament chess games are required to be played with Staunton chess pieces. The First International Chess Tournament, London 1851, was organized by Staunton. The leading distributor of chess books and equipment in the USA has taken the name “House of Staunton”. Howard Staunton was the leading popularizer of the game of chess though his authorship of many chess publications, including this book, “The Chess Player’s Handbook” by Howard Staunton, or “Staunton’s Chess-Player’s Handbook”.
This Handbook was the leading and most authoritative reference to the game of chess for a half a century. It is still popular today, as evidenced by perhaps 30 re-printings, including this one.
Staunton is a controversial personality in the history of chess. He is best known for his refusal to play Paul Morphy during 1858-1959, when Morphy came to Europe. This in itself was strange. All commentators agree that Staunton in 1858 would have been no match for Morphy. Morphy would have defeated Staunton easily. Thus, the real question is: Why was Morphy so insistent on wanting to play Staunton?
Perhaps the answer is this Handbook. Morphy was thoroughly familiar with all chess literature. He was what we call today, “Booked-up”. He must have studied this book and perhaps he had worked out ways to play lines advocated in this book. Also, he may have had a hero-worshiping relationship with Staunton. Staunton was the leading writer on the game of chess so naturally Morphy would have wanted to meet and play him.
Frederick Edge, Morphy’s principal biographer who accompanied Morphy on much of his tour of Europe, wrote about Staunton’s refusal to play Morphy. Perhaps Edge was exaggerating the issue.
On the other hand, it was partly Morphy’s fault that he failed to play Staunton. Both were entered to play in the tournament at Birmingham 1858. However, Morphy withdrew and did not play. Staunton was eliminated when he lost to Lowenthal by 2-0. Staunton obviously must have realized that he was off his game and that he would have no change against Morphy, who had defeated Lowenthal when he was only 13 years old.
Staunton was controversial in other ways as well. He was born illegitimate. His dates are listed as 1810-22 June 1874. This is because his date of death is known to have been June 22, 1874, but his date of birth is only estimated to have been 1810. No record has been found of his birth, although birth records were maintained at that time. Nobody seems to know where the name “Howard Staunton” came from.
Staunton was born in 1810, reputedly the natural son of Frederick Howard, fifth Earl of Carlisle. This seems to explain where the name “Howard” came from. Where the name Staunton came from is a mystery, but it is likely that he just gave himself that name.
Staunton had little or no formal education, yet he became a noted Shakespearean scholar. Prior to Staunton, the leading authority on Shakespeare was Thomas Bowdler, who was the author of “The Family Shakespeare”. It is a surprising coincidence that Bowdler was also a chess player who played many recorded games against Philidor.
This question has never previously been mentioned, but perhaps Staunton met Bowdler or was influenced by him. Thomas Bowdler was born 1 July 1754 and died 24 February 1825, so there is a possibility that they met.
Another controversy concerns whether Staunton was entitled to be called “World Champion”. The claim that he was World Champion was based on his defeat of Saint Amant, a leading French player, in 1843. Many writers have concluded that those games were not of world championship caliber. However, Bobby Fischer opined “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 must be considered the first modern player.”
Staunton played such openings as the Sicilian Defense and the Queens Gambit in the modern style, while the other leading players were still bashing each other with King’s Gambits. Here is the concluding game of Staunton’s match with Saint Amant, which is considered to be Staunton’s best game of the matches. One of the remarkable things about this game is it lasted 14 hours. As chess clocks has not yet been invented, the players could take as long as they wanted for a move. There was no need for sealed move envelopes, again because there were no time clocks.
[Site “Paris”]
[Date “1843.12.19-20”]
[Round “21”]
[Result “0-1”]
[White “Saint Amant”]
[Black “Howard Staunton”]
[ECO “D30”]
[PlyCount “132”]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.e3 c5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Bd3 b6 7.O-O O-O 8.b3 Bb7 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Qc2 Nc6 11.a3 a6 12.Rd1 cxd4 13.exd4 h6 14.b4 Bd6 15.Re1 b5 16.h3 Rc8 17.Qb3 Qc7 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Be3 Ne7 20.Rac1 Nh5 21.Qd1 Nf6 22.Nh4 Rc7 23.Qd2 Nh7 24.Qc2 Nf6 25.Kh1 Ne8 26.Nf5 Nxf5 27.Bxf5 a5 28.Qb3 axb4 29.axb4 Rc4 30.Na2 Nf6 31.Bd3 Qc6 32.Qb2 Qd7 33.Kg1 Nh5 34.Qd2 f5 35.f4 Ng3 36.Bxc4 dxc4 37.Qb2 Rf6 38.Nc3 Ne4 39.Re2 Rg6 40.Rd1 Nxc3 41.Qxc3 Bf3 42.Rde1 Bxe2 43.Rxe2 Qe7 44.Qb2 Re6 45.Kf2 Re4 46.Qa2 Kf7 47.g3 Qb7 48.Qa3 Re8 49.Qc3 Qh1 50.h4 g5 51.Qe1 Qh2+ 52.Kf1 Qh3+ 53.Kg1 Qg4 54.hxg5 Bxf4 55.Bxf4 Qxe2 56.Qxe2 Rxe2 57.gxh6 c3 58.Kf1 Re4 59.Bc1 Kg6 60.d5 c2 61.Bd2 Rxb4 62.d6 Rd4 63.Ke2 Rxd6 64.Ke3 Kxh6 65.Ke2 Kg6 66.Ke1 b4 0-1
XABCDEFGHY
8-±±±+(
7±±±±’
6-±tr-+k+&
5±±+p±%
4-zp-±±+$
3±±±zP-#
2-+pvL-±+"
1±±mK-±!
xabcdefghy
This game certainly looks like a game played in the modern style in the Queens Gambit Declined, Tarrasch Defense. However, one should also look at the opening in this, another game:
[Site "Paris]
[Date “1843.03”]
[Round “6”]
[Result “1-0”]
[White “Howard Staunton”]
[Black “Saint Amant”]
[ECO “A34”]
[PlyCount “93”]
1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 f5 3.e4 d6 4.Bd3 e6 5.exf5 exf5 6.Nh3 Nf6
XABCDEFGHY
8rsnlwqkvl-tr(
7zpp±±zpp’
6-±zp-sn-+&
5±zp-+p±%
4-+P±±+$
3±sNL±+N#
2PzP-zP-zPPzP"
1tR-vLQmK-+R!
xabcdefghy
Just the first few moves of this game are presented here as the rest of the game is unspeakably terrible. Somehow, this game is left out of most collections of Staunton’s games, even though he won it.
Perhaps Morphy had this game in mind when described Staunton as the author of “some devilish bad games”
Here is another amazing game. This game is amazing because of its length. This game lasted 18 hours. Again, there were no time clocks and no need for sealed moves.
[Event “London”]
[Site “London”]
[Date “1857.08.06-07”]
[Result “0-1”]
[White “Adolf Anderssen & Allies”]
[Black “Howard Staunton & Allies”]
[ECO “C00”]
[PlyCount “106”]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 g6 3.Be3 Bg7 4.Nd2 Ne7 5.Bd3 b6 6.Ne2 Bb7 7.O-O d6 8.c3 Nd7 9.Qb3 O-O 10.f4 d5 11.e5 Rb8 12.Rac1 c5 13.Qa3 c4 14.Bc2 a6 15.g4 b5 16.Ng3 Re8 17.b4 cxb3 18.axb3 Rc8 19.Bd3 Qb6 20.Qb2 f6 21.Rce1 Qc6 22.Nb1 fxe5 23.fxe5 Bxe5 24.dxe5 Nxe5 25.Bc2 Rf8 26.Bg5 Nf3+ 27.Rxf3 Rxf3 28.Bd1 Qc5+ 29.Kg2 Rf7 30.Kh3 Qd6 31.Qe2 Rc6 32.Qe3 Bc8 33.Kg2 Rc7 34.b4 Nc6 35.Qd2 Rcd7 36.Bb3 Ne5 37.Bf4 Rxf4 38.Qxf4 Nd3 39.Qe3 Nxe1+ 40.Qxe1 Rc7 41.Qe3 Kg7 42.Nd2 e5 43.Qg5 Qe7 44.Nh5+ Kh8 45.Nf6 Bb7 46.Kg1 Rxc3 47.h4 Kg7 48.Nh5+ Kf7 49.Qh6 Ke8 50.Ng7+ Kd7 51.Qxh7 Rg3+ 52.Kf2 Rxg4 53.Ke2 Rg2+ 0-1
XABCDEFGHY
8-±±±+(
7+l+kwq-sNQ’
6p±±+p+&
5+p+pzp-±%
4-zP-±±zP$
3+L±±±#
2-±sNK+r+"
1±±±±!
xabcdefghy
It seems surprising that White resigned this position. After playing for 18 hours, why not play a few hours more? Of course, with best play, White is lost but there are likely a number of chances to blunder in this polition.
The final nail in the coffin of the claim that Staunton deliberately avoided playing Morphy is this game, that is one of two consultation games played by Staunton against Morphy. This game features a wild opening. It appears that Staunton and his partner were winning but missed several of the best moves.
[Event “London”]
[Site “London”]
[Date “1858.??.??”]
[Result “0-1”]
[White “Staunton / Owen”]
[Black “Morphy / Barnes”]
[ECO “C41”]
[WhiteElo “?”]
[BlackElo “?”]
[PlyCount “68”]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 6.e6 Nh6 7.Nc3 c6 8.Ngxe4 dxe4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qe5 Rg8 11.Bxh6 Bxh6 12.Rd1 Qg5 13.Qc7 Bxe6 14.Qxb7 e3 15.f3 Qe7 16.Qxa8 Kf7 17.Ne4 Bf4 18.Be2 Kg7 19.O-O Qc7 20.Nc5 Bxh2+ 21.Kh1 Bc8 22.Rd4 Bg3 23.Re4 Kh8 24.Rd1 Qg7 25.Rh4 Bxh4 26.Qxb8 Ba6 27.Qh2 Bxe2 28.Rd7 Qh6 29.Ne4 Bc4 30.Nf6 e2 31.Re7 Qc1+ 32.Qg1 Qxg1+ 33.Kxg1 e1=Q+ 34.Rxe1 Bxe1 0-1
XABCDEFGHY
8-±±+rmk(
7zp-±±+p’
6-+p±sNp+&
5±±±±%
4-+l±±+$
3±±+P±#
2PzPP±+P+"
1±±vl-mK-!
xabcdefghy
In this game, the Staunton team seems to have missed several wins. For example, White could have played 11. Bg5 in which case the reply of Bg7 was forced. Also, 23. Re4 was a week move. Even with all these mistakes, White seemed to be winning almost until the very end.
The above was also one of the last recorded games that Staunton ever played in his life.
The great accomplishment for which Staunton is best remembered today are his chess men, which set the world standard today. Staunton did not design the chess pieces. The designer, Nathaniel Cook, registered the design in 1849. Jaques of London obtained the manufacturing rights and brought them to Staunton for his endorsement. Staunton was so enthusiastic about them that he not only endorsed them but he personally signed every box of chess pieces that were sold. To this very day, the manufacturer of the chess pieces is Jaques of London and every box carries the signature of Howard Staunton on it.
Sam Sloan