During the 1840s and 1850s three chess masters dominated the global chessboard. These championsavant la lettre, before the world title had been generally recognised, were the Englishman Howard Staunton, the German Adolph Anderssen and the American Paul Morphy. In this column so far, I have concentrated on games playedmano-a-manobetween single opponents.
This week I turn to the so-called consultation game, with consulting adults facing each other in public. The principle is that one master challenges two or more consulting partners, as in the celebrated game won at the Paris Opera by Paul Morphy against the aristocratic duo of Count Isouard de Vauvenargues and the Duke of Brunswick. On numerous occasions Bobby Fischer declared this masterpiece to be his favourite game, and during the 1966 Havana Chess Olympiad, I witnessed Bobby demonstrating this game to none other than a somewhat bemused Fidel Castro.
Alternatively, one group in consultation faces another team. An example was the game, televised live, between myself, Jon Speelman, Cathy Forbes and Daniel King pitted against the world-beating duumvirate of World Champion Garry Kasparov and his recent challenger, Nigel Short. At the time, 1993, this was probably one of the most watched games in the entire history of chess.
My recent research has indicated that two well-known consultation games involving the three giants Staunton, Anderssen and Morphy may have exerted a decisive and hitherto undetected influence on the future of world chess.It should be recalled that in the mid-19th century, before the dawn of modern communications and while transatlantic steamship travel was still in its infancy, every clash between the greats of the day would have attracted great interest. Such encounters, compared with the virtually daily modern glut of internet games between top players, would have assumed particular importance.
Let me briefly examine the credentials of the three illuminati involved in this chessboard drama. According to the authoritativeOxford Companion to Chess(Hooper and Whyld) on which I have relied for much of my supporting historical background:Howard Staunton (1810-1874) was the worlds leading player in the 1840s, founder of a School of Chess, promoter of the worlds first international chess tournament, chess columnist, author, and Shakespearean scholar.
In 1843 Staunton travelled to Paris to challenge the leading exponent of the dominant French school, Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint Amant. In what was a clear forerunner of the format of modern world championship matches, Staunton crushed his opponent by the score of 13 points to 8. His victory was hailed in England as a chessboard rerun of the Battle of Waterloo and Staunton was fted as The Champion.
Staunton consolidated his reputation in 1846 when he won two matches against leading European rivals, demolishing BernhardHorwitz (14 wins, 3 draws, 7 losses) and annihilating Daniel Harrwitz with seven straight wins, the sort of score which, in modern times, only Bobby Fischer could achieve against serious championship rivals.
In1851 Staunton suffered from an attack of imperial overreach, when he organised the worlds first international tournament as an adjunct to the Great Exhibition in London. He also played in it, an unwise decision for one burdened with the responsibility of organisation at the same time. After defeating Horwitz, with four wins one draw and two losses in the second round, he lost to Anderssen, the eventual winner.
Engaged in compiling his critical edition of Shakespeares plays, Staunton thereafterfound less time to play chess, but in 1857 he triumphed in an epic consultation game against Anderssen, a win which must have considerably revived Stauntons hopes of his former glory.Anderssen was very much regarded as the champion at this time. London 1851 had been the clincher in establishing his reputation.Karl Ernst Adolf Anderssen (1818-1879) was winner of three great international tournaments: London1851, London 1862, and Baden-Baden 1870. When the first international tournament was held, London 1851, Anderssen won decisively, defeating Kieseritsky, Szn, Staunton and Wyvill in that order.Thereafter he was regarded as the worlds leading player until the advent of Morphy.
Apart from his work as a schoolmaster, Anderssen seemed to have no interest other than chess or having a drink with friends. During his stay at London in 1851, asked why he had not seen the Great Exhibition, he replied: I came to London to play chess!
Anderssen contested numerous friendly games against beginner and expert alike, never fearing for his reputation; indeed,he may even have preferred this kind of chess, in which his flair for brilliant tactical play could be given full reign. Although he was rather shy with strangers, the characteristic which emerges most frequently is Anderssens pleasant nature. Steinitz wrote: Anderssen was honest and honourable to the core. Without fear or favour he straightforwardly gave his opinion, and his sincere impartiality became so patent that his word alone was usually sufficient to quell disputes For he had often given his decision in favour of a rival.
When Anderssen died, theDeutsche Schachzeitungpublishedan obituary that amounted to 19 black lined pages, while William Potter, chess editor for The Westminster Papers,wrote that no one ever spoke ill of Anderssen. In death, as in life, all chess players are his friends.
In 1858, with Anderssen still clearly wielding the sceptre of world chess, butjust as Staunton, after his epic consultation victory, must have been harbouring thoughts of a comeback, the American Meteor, Paul Morphy, burst upon the scene. The young American burned with the desire to overthrow those monoliths of the Old World, Staunton and Anderssen. After much negotiation, a proposal for a Staunton vs. Morphy challenge fell through, whereupon a certain fanatical journalist,by the name of Frederick Milns Edge, stirred up a quarrel, casting Staunton as the villain. Morphy, had, perhaps unwisely, signed some letters drafted by Edge, who liked to see himself as Morphys personal assistant, while Staunton, continuously harassed by Edge, was once incited to make a true but impolitely worded comment about Morphy. Generally, these two great masters behaved honourably, each holding the other in high regard; but Edges insinuations unfairly blackened Stauntons reputation and the matter of the absence of a Staunton match remains a matter of controversy.
In 1964 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. Playing over his games I discovered that they are completely modern. Where Morphy and Steinitz rejected the fianchetto, Staunton embraced it. In addition he understood all those positional concepts that modern players hold so dear, and thus with Steinitz must be considered the first modern player.
Respected critic William Potter wrote: There was nothing weak about Staunton and he had a backbone that was never curved with fear of anyone. Another wrote that there was nothing mean, cringing, or small in his nature, and, taking all in all, England never had a more worthy chess representative than Howard Staunton.
So what persuaded Staunton to avoid Morphy? I think the key lies in a consultation game between the two, when they were still on cordial terms. But first, some remarks about the meteoric Morphy.
Paul Morphy (1837-1884) was an American chess genius who defeated three of Europes leading masters in 1858 and then abruptly retired from the game. Born in New Orleans of Creole descent, Morphy developed exceptional talent at an early age.
Morphy crossed the Atlantic to Europe in 1858 and startled the chess world by beating established masters Lwenthal (9 wins, 2 draws, 3 losses), Harrwitz (5 wins, 1 draw, 2 losses) and Anderssen (7 wins, 2 draws, 2 losses) within the space of a whirlwind six months, proving to himself and his contemporaries that he was the best player in the world.
When Morphy returned to New York he was fted, the first American to achieve world supremacy in any sphere. Perhaps the most accurate verdict lies in the epithet the pride and sorrow of chess. Until 1859 the chess world enjoyed the pride; thereafter, all was sorrow.
Outside of chess, which he had now rejected, Morphy seemed incapable of work, and did nothing for the rest of his life. Increasingly withdrawn from society, he suffered in his last years from delusions of persecution. He was looked after by his mother and younger sister until he died of a stroke while taking a bath.
In many ways Morphy was clearly mentally unstable, but his match with Staunton came closer to happening than is generally thought. Encouraged by his consultation win against Anderssen, Staunton took on Morphy in a similar exercise and after 17 moves with Staunton playing White, the following position arose:
Staunton is rook for bishop ahead plus an extra pawn, but Morphy has the makings of an attack. Meanwhile, Stauntons queen is out on a limb and in danger of being trapped. Staunton, in this position of turbulent imbalance, now chose the feeble 18. Be2 and lost. But when I showed this position to Stauntons most illustrious English successor, former world title challenger and now World Chess Federation Vice President, Nigel Short, during dinner the night before his birthday last week, Nigel without sight of the board instantly found a win for Staunton: 18. Rd4! Bc7 19. Ra4 Bb6 20. Qb7!! Qxb7 21. Nd6+ regaining the queen and enabling Whites knight to escape. It was probably the 20. Qb7 coup which had eluded the lucubrations of both Staunton and Morphy.
Had an emboldened Staunton won against Morphy in such coruscating style and he was just one move away from victory then Staunton might have postponed his Shakespearean ambitions. Thetwo matadors of the mind would doubtless have ensured that a Stauntonvs. Morphy match did actually come to fruition. In that case, the course of chess history might have been changed.
I have always enjoyed consultation games and they do seem to encourage creative flow. Here are links to three of my own efforts:
The first in 1964: Keene/Burnett vs Sully/Tyrell/Jones. The second Keene/Hartston vs Schouten/Kerkhoff (1965) and the third in 1969 between Patterson/Williams/Allies vs Keene/Eales/Allies.
Raymond Keenes latest book Fifty Shades of Ray: Chess in the year of the Coronavirus,containing some of his best pieces from The Article, is now available from Amazon , and Blackwells .
We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.
Continued here:
A turning point in chess history - TheArticle