A Study of 19th Century Chess

Good link. Thanks.

What about the 18th century Russian master, Stroganoff?  I heard he was a beefy guy who was, at times saucy, but other times a little thick, and at his best with a little sherry.

Without a doubt, the most significant event in the 1840s was the match between St. Amant and Howard Staunton at the Café de la Régence.  St.  Amant was the French champion almost by default after the deaths of Labourdonais and Boncourt and the retirement of  Deschapelles.  Staunton was the English champion probably for the reasons Murray enumerated (see the posting on Staunton in one of the above) - his great number of wins against Cochrane, his success at giving odds but mostly his name-recognition,  as he published and controlled the content of the only chess periodical in England at that time.   Staunton had also played a  match with Popert in 1840-1,  winning "by the odd game"  out of 25.   Since Popert was considered one of the few first-class players of the day, Staunton elevated himself immensely by this narrow victory. It should be mentioned that Fredrick Lokes Slous had beaten Popert, in total, 6 times with no loses and one draw a few years back, but Slous who had one win  and one loss against Staunton in 1841 bowed out of that chess arena shortly after for health reasons.

In May of 1843 St. Amant, at that time a wine merchant, traveled to London on business.  While there, he visited the St. George's Club.
The St. George's Club was founded by George Walker in 1840, after the closure of the Westminster Club, in  the  Beatties Hotel on George Street - hence the name.  But that club also closed towards the end of that year but reopened in April 1841 at the Polytechnic Institure at Cavendish-square (many, actually most, chess sites get this wrong, stating it was formed in 1843). 
"The British Miscellany, and Chess Player's Chronicle" of May, 1841 tells us:
At the request of several country subscribers we subjoin a list of the
leading establishments for Chess-playing in London:—
     The London Chess Club, George and Vulture Hotel, Cornhill.
     St. George's Chess Club, Cavendish Square.
     Goode's commodious and elegant Chess Rooms, 39, Ludgate Hill.
     Ries' Grand Divan, 101, Strand.
     Gliddon's King Street Divan, King Street, Covent Garden.
     Morrison and Huttmann's Divan, 194, Strand. 

Staunton had become secretary of the old Wesminster Club in the late 1830s and it seems that (though it's not firmly established) that Staunton's machinations within the club alienated George Walker who, in turn, blacklisted Staunton from joining the newly formed St. George's Club. Staunton played most of his games againt John Cochrane at "Goode's commodious and elegant Chess  Rooms" in Ludgate Hill.   Staunton had started a chess column in "The New Court Gazette" in 1840 in which, according to Tim Harding, he made, what would become his modus operandi, snide remarks about Walker.  When that column closed from lack of interest, he was  hired by "The British Miscellany"  and when that magazine failed shortly thereafter, he himself started "The British Miscellany and Chess Player's Chronicle" with the first issue relased in May, 1841.   He soon shortened it to "The Chess Player's Chronicle."
Here is an example of Staunton's method of personal attack from the first issue of "The British Miscellany and Chess Player's Chronicle"
"Secretary.—The two gentlemen named, we are well assured, had no hand either in the authorship or distribution of the  pamphlet entitled "Observations upon a New Treatise of Chess, by George Walker." The pamphlet emanated, it is pretty  well understood, from a Society of Chess Players which deservedly ranks as the first and most important in England, and is  an unequivocal indication of the opinion that body entertains of the egregious conceit and deplorable ignorance which this  Titmouse of Chess professors exhibits in his lucubrations upon the game."

Staunton had hired William Lewis as an analyst for his magazine. It may be that the Staunton joined Lewis' camp in that war of animosity between Lewis and Walker.
Here is an excerpt from a letter-to-the-editor (it was anonymously signed "No Lawgiver,"  which mean it was likely written by Staunton himself, another of his modi operandi) putting down Walker:
TO THE EDITOR OP "THE CHESS PLAYER'S CHRONICLE."
Sir,—As one of a numerous provincial Society established to enjoy the scientific recreation of Chess-play, permit me to  tender my thanks for your proper censures on the silly interpolations, which Mr. Walker has attempted to palm upon us  "country gentlemen," as the Laws of Chess in use at the London Chess Club.

Staunton and Walker must have reconciled because Staunton did join the club in 1843. That was just prior to St. Amant's visit.
St. Amant met Staunton at St. George's where they played 6 games at a  guinea per game. St. Amant won by the narrow  margin of +3-2=1.  The Frenchman made a big to-do over this victory, calling the handful of games a "match"  and published a long account of the engagment in "Le Palamède." 
Murray wrote: "There was no talk of a match, but St. Amant was naturally elated, and took care to let French players know of his success through the Palamède, of which he had  become editor.  Staunton, who had been in poor health at the time did not consider that he had done himself justice in these  games, and so he issued a challenge to St. Amant for a match of 21 or 41 games for either 50 or 100 guineas a-side."

 

I must be an americanized European, beacause to me 19th century chess will always be spelled Paul Morphy.

I might respect Staunton's choice of wood when creating the chess pieces, but I respect Morphy even more for his chess understanding.

Morphy hadn't even learned chess at this point.

After losing a series of games to St. Amant and facing condescension in the French magazine, "Le Palemède,"  Staunton,  who claimed to have been recuperating from an illness during that meeting (probably an exaggeration), challenged St. Amant to an official match.

Anyone who knows about Staunton's dealing with Morphy (and we'll examine that in detail when the time arrives) will probably be  surprised to see Staunton in Morphy's shoes and St. Amant in Staunton's during the negotiations for this match.  Staunton  was prepared to accept any conditions and conducted himself quite admirably throughout; St.Amant, not so much.

Murray wrote a fairly succinct summary:
"...the match of twenty-one games was finally commenced in Paris on November 1843 for [£]100 a-side. Four  games were played each week, generally on Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, and the match ended on  December 20th with the complete triumph of the English player, who secured 12 games to his opponents 6,  4 being  drawn. At one time a far more run-away victory appeared likely, for at the end of the tenth game Staunton was leading by 8  to 1. There was no time limit in those days, and play ruled decidedly slow, St. Amant being the worst offender in this  respect.
...
One would have thought that Staunton's victory was sufficiently decisive, but St. Amant refused to accept the verdict. He  recalled the six informal games in London, of which he had won the bare majority, and magnified them into a chess match,  which he placed upon an equality with the formal contest in Paris. His defeat at Paris had been a mere accident : " je ne  reconnais votre supériorité que comme fait accidental." he wrote in a later letter to Staunton.  He professed to be anxious  for a new match, but he posed as still the champion, and insisted in regarding Staunton as the challenger. His vanity was  immense, and rendered all negotiations very difficult. Correspondence over the terms of the new match went on all through  1844. Staunton wished to treat the negotiations as private, but St. Amant published everything that suited his purpose,  grandiloquently claiming that they were making chess history, and that the letters were historical documents Very sorry  reading is it all. and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that St. Amant was endeavouring to force Staunton to break off  the negotiations. But Staunton resolutely refused to take offence ; he ignored the almost insolent tone of the letters, and  crossed to Paris in October. 1844, with his seconds, hoping to commence play on October 15th. Unhappily the fates ruled  otherwise. Staunton caught cold on the journey, and pneumonia supervened. Want of care in the early stages of  convalescence resulted in a bad relapse, and for some days his life was in danger. It was a very serious illness, and it left  behind it a permanent weakness of the heart, which really unfitted Staunton thenceforward for the hard work entailed in  playing important matches. Finally, after three months in Paris, Staunton was compelled to return to London, and all idea of  a return match was abandoned. The acrimonious correspondence continued for six months more, but public sympathy was  strongly on Staunton's side, and St. Amant's final letters did himself no good."

Staunton's seconds were John Worrall and naval Capt. Harry Wilson. Wilson took upon himself the onerous task of timing the moves of the games. Wilson's time study revealed that St. Amant used 3 hours to Staunton's one (Inexplicably, the English-language Paris newspaper, "Galignani's Messenger," chided Staunton for his slow play). Although the engagement was held in Paris, there were no allowances to cover Staunton's expenses and even though he won the match, his winnings didn't cover his costs. It might be argued that he lost money in the short term, but eventually profited indirectly from the ordeal.

Here are two games from that match:

In 1841 Charles Henry Stanley, who had developed as a chess player under Popert, played Staunton a match as Pawn and  Two winning, +3-1=3.   Staunton, even in 1841, had studied odds-giving and, as a result, was usually deadly granting odds.  Stanley, who was born in Brighton in 1819,  moved to New York in 1843.  In 1844, he beat Charles Vezin, Philadelphia's  strongest player,+4-2=1 and Charles William Schulten +7=4=1 (in a second match in 1845, they derw +7-7=2.  The  following year he started the first chess column (which appeared in "The Spirit of the Times" from March 1, 1845 until Oct.  4, 1848) in America,  was elected secretary of the newly formed New York Chess Club and he played a match with the New  Oreans resident who, by virtue of having beated John Wiliam Schulten in two matches in 1841 and a rematch in 1843, was  considered at the time the strongest player in the United States,  Eugene Rousseau.
The stakes for the Rousseau-Stanley match was $1000. Rousseau's second was Ernest Morphy, Paul Morphy's uncle. 7  year-old Paul attended too.  When Paul was 10, he beat Rousseau himself.  Stanley won the match easily and decisively  with a +15-8 score. 
"The Book of the Frist American Chess Congress" tells us:
"One of the most important matches recorded m the annals of American Chess was contested at New Orleans in the year  1845, between Mr. Charles Henry Stanley, of New York, and Mr. Eugene Rousseau, of New Orleans. The entire amount of  the stakes was one thousand dollars. One combatant was a countryman of Labourdonnais and St. Amant, the other was a  native of the land of M'Donnell and Staunton; and both were known to have no superiors in the country of their adoption.  There was only one thing that somewhat detracted from its interest. Mr. Rousseau is said to have been seriously ill for  some little time previous to the match, and when the time came to meet his adversary he was far from convalescent. His  friends urged him to demand a postponement, but fearing lest such a request might be wrongly interpreted, he expressed  his determination to play at all hazards. He was so weak that every morning he was forced to ride some miles in order to  gain, if possible, sufficient physical strength to endure a sitting of three or four hours. Mr. Stanley left New York for New  Orleans on the 10th of November, 1845, and arrived at his destination on the 23d of the same month. The match was  commenced on the first of December and finished on the twenty-seventh. It was played at the rooms of the Club, on the  corner of St. Charles and Common streets, in the building occupied by the Commercial ReadingRooms. The most  interesting games were, perhaps, the first and nineteenth of the series, the scores of which we copy from the collection of  the games afterwards published by Mr. Stanley."

In 1846, Stanley founded the  the first chess periodical in the United States, the "American Chess Magazine" and   published America's first book of a match, "Thirty-one Games at Chess." The periodical only lasted a year, but in 1847 he  founded "The Chess Palladium and Mathematical Sphinx."  After he abandonned his column in in "The Spirit of the Times"  ended, he began a new one in "The Albion." This was lasted until 1856. Through this chess column, Stanley met a  penniless Hungarian refugee named János Jakab Löwenthal. Löwenthal was known  to be a strong European player who  became a political refugee from Hungary. He came to America hoping to become a western pioneer, but the elegantly,  cultured Löwenthal was hardly the pioneer type. Stanley and others set him up as chess professional in a cigar divan in  Cincinnati.

In Germany... well, let's let Max Lange speak first:
" Adolphus Anderssen, born July 6th, 1818, in Breslau, devoted himself from 1838 to the study of philosophy and  mathematics, at that University. More given to the simpler doctrines of Kant than to the modern ones, especially those of  HEGEL, he soon embraced with ardour the study of mathematics, and was afterwards for some time employed as  assistant master at Frederic's College, in Breslau. Afterwards he accepted an advantageous engagement at Stolpe, in  Pommerania, where he remained two years. In the spring of 1851, he came to Berlin. There he found strong opponents in  Chess, as Mayet, Dufresne, Falkbeer, and sometimes also von der Lasa. His success in Berlin brought him to the  tournament in London, after which he returned to his native town, and in 1852 he obtained an engagement as chief master  at the above-named College. His merits as teacher of mathematics were soon acknowledged by the title of Professor,  which was conferred upon him."

Anderssen actually started his long chess career as a chess probleminst. He published a book of 60 problems, "Aufgaben  fur Schachspieler" while still in school in 1842.  In 1846 Ludwig Bledow  founded what seems to have been one of the first,  if the the first German chess periodicals, "Schachzeitung der Berliner Schachgesellschaft."  When Bledow died in August  of that same years, Anderssen took over the publication. Later he would co-edit  with N. D. Nathan, E. Kossak, Dufresne  and Max Lange. It's name would change to "Schachzeitung" and to "Neue Schachzeitung." Also in 1846, Anderssen played  v.d. Lasa, winning a couple and making an impression on the Berliner Pleiades. Anderssen drew a match with Daniel  Harrwitz, also a budding player from Breslau (Harrwitz had recently lost a match to George Walker in London).

It took Stanley 13 days to get to New Orleans. That's probably a story of its own.

Actually, Morphy traveled from New Orleans to the Chess Congress in NYC in 1857, leaving by riverboat (up the Mississippi) on or about Set. 23 - to Cincinnati where he took a train to NYC, arriving on Oct. 4 .... a total of about 13 days.  There was, of course, steamboat service between the two cities.  When Morphy returned from Europe in 1859 he landed in NYC and made his way home via Philadelphia/Baltimore/(possibly) Washington/Richmond.

So there seems to have been several options for travelers.

It was a trek whatever mode of travel one might have used. Any travel was a major issue back then.

János Jakab Löwenthal of Hungary earned himself a bit of fame as one of the three main members of the Pest team (the other two were Vincenz Grimm and József Szén)  that defeated the famous Parisian Le Cercle des Echecs team in both games in their correspondence match of 1842-5

The Kossuth revolution in Hungary displaced Grimm and Löwenthal, both of whom had close associations with Lajos Kossuth, in 1849 (with Szén following after the repressive government's closure of social clubs).  While Grimm found asylum in Turkey, Löwenthal made his way to the United States via Hamburg, arriving on December 29, 1849.  Friendless and speaking little English, Löwenthal was, to his surprise, embraced by the American chess community and toured various cities in the U.S. where chess was played. 

Below, I've given Löwenthal's own description of his his chess adventures during his almost 2 year say in the United States.  It's rather long, but  very much worth the effort of reading as it gives a good view of the mid-century American chess scene and introduces us to Paul Morphy.

I arrived in New York from Hamburgh, on the 29th Dec., 1849. I will not dwell on the events which forced me to fly my own country, Hungary. They are known to all. Their interest belongs to the past, their results to the future; and a Chess record is not the place in which to touch upon them. It is enough to say that I landed a refugee - driven from home, separated from family, depressed in mind, physically ill, and with very slender means at my command. My intention was to go to the West and settle down upon the land. I took lodgings at a hotel near Broadway, and afterwards removed to a boarding-home in Chambers street; and for about a month occupied myself with seeing the city and its institutions, and gaining such information as my ignorance of the language enabled me to collect.

During this time I was waiting for means to carry out my original intentions, but they never came; and as my limited funds melted away, my position became more and more difficult.

Up to this time I had thought but little about Chess. The game had been to me, in my own land, an amusement which absorbed and occupied the time I could spare from business. With my lamented friend, Szen, once my Chess-master and afterwards my fellow-Player. I had spent many delightful hours over the board; and in my tours, I had met and contended with most of the great German players; but of Chess as an occupation I had never thought.

One day, oppressed by the feeling of loneliness which comes over a stranger in a crowded city, and perplexed at the dark prospects before me, I wandered into a reading-room and took up the New York Albion. The first thing which caught my eye was a diagram with a position upon it. If a benevolent magician had waved his hand over me, the change could not have been greater. In a moment my old love for Chess revived, with a vividness I had never before experienced. It seemed as if it had grown into a passion after, for a few weeks, lying latent. The sense of loneliness vanished. I could find Chess-players, and a common love for Chess was, I knew, a sort of freemasonry. I could not leave the room before I had solved the problem. All night I fought in dreams many old battles over again, and anticipated combats yet to come. The next morning I called on the editor of the Albion, who received me very kindly, and gave me his card as an introduction to Mr. Stanley of the British Consulate—a gentleman with whose name I was already familiar. Mr. Stanley gave me a most hospitable reception. I spent that evening at his house, and played with him; the result being, I think, even games. In Mr. Stanley’s style of play, I found very much to admire, particularly the originality and invention displayed by him in the openings. This was especially remarkable in the Knight’s Game, in which he introduced the method, since approved by the best Chess authorities, of bringing both the Knights over to the King’s side, thus giving additional safety to the King, and preparing a strong attack. I cannot allow the opportunity to pass, without expressing the deep obligations Mr. Stanley placed me under by his unvarying kindness, and the constant exertions he made to advance my interests.

It was about this time that Mr. Stanley left for Washington, to play his match with Mr. Turner; and when he returned victorious, he introduced me to the leading members of the New York Chess Circle, who were in the habit of meeting at the Carlton House, Broadway. There I met Mr. Thompson, whose frequent visits to Europe had caused him to be well known in European Chess circles, and in several encounters with him I had much the best of the play. I also made the acquaintance of Mr. Perrin, the present Honorary Secretary of the New York Chess Club, and Mr. Evert, to both of whom I successfully gave odds.

My first formal match was with Mr. Turner. It was arranged for me by the kind offices of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Thompson, and was played at New York. In this and another match, which immediately followed, I was the conqueror; but I regret to say that I have not preserved any of the games. Mr. Turner struck me as a player of great natural talent and strong imagination, but somewhat too liable to be carried away by a brilliant combination or a dashing coup.

In Mr. Turner I found a generous friend. He kindly invited me to accompany him to his residence near Lexington (Kentucky); my old thought of turning farmer reviving, I accepted the invitation. We left on the 3d of March, 1850. Our stay in Philadelphia was too short to suffer me to meet any of the players of the city, who, I had heard, held a high rank among American amateurs. From Philadelphia we went by rail via Baltimore and Cumberland, and from thence by steamers to Wheeling and Pittsburg, and reached Lexington by stagecoach on the 9th of March.

I had heard much of the powers of Mr. Dudley, and looked forward with great pleasure to meeting him. On the 10th, I made his personal acquaintance at Charles’s hotel, and we at once sat down to the game and did not cease playing till the time arrived for me to go to Mr. Turner’s farm, distant about six or seven miles. I greatly admired Mr. Dudley’s style of play, but, on this occasion, could hardly form an estimate of his strength. We were, in these first encounters, reconnoitering  each other. I saw, however, that I had found a very able antagonist and subsequent experience impressed me with the conviction that Mr. Dudley was the best American player I ever met. Looking back now I do not see any reason to alter the estimate I then formed.

 At Mr. Turner’s plantation I was entertained with the most open hearted hospitality, and I shall never forget the kindness of my host and the efforts he made to serve me.

 On the 11th of March, I was introduced to the leading Lexington players at the Club, and I remember particularly Mr. Steward and Mr. Hunter, as among the most enthusiastic devotees of Chess.

 On the 12th of March, I commenced a third match with Mr. Turner, and at that sitting won every game.

On the 14th, I was introduced to Mr. Wikle, the editor of the Lexington newspaper, who emulated my other friends in kindness, and inserted in his journal a very handsome notice of my arrival. I also made the acquaintance of Mr. Lutz, a German by birth, but for many years resident at Lexington.

During my stay with Mr. Turner, Chess, of course, filled up the hours that gentleman could spare from his duties. The result of our play then was, that out of seven matches, some of the first five, others of the first three games, I won six and lost one by the odd game.

Mr. Dudley paid us a visit, and a match was arranged for rue with him, by Mr. Turner. Time winner of the first eleven games was to be the victor. The first game—a well contested one—was won by Mr. Dudley, and if I had had sufficient English at my command, I should have said that such a game was worth losing. The second game, through a blunder on my part, also went to the score of my opponent. Mr. Turner seemed somewhat startled at the turn affairs were taking, while I felt uneasy. In all the important matches I have played, I have lost the first two games. In consequence of my habit of mind, I take some time to become familiarized with my position, and able to apply myself thoroughly to what is before me; and this is so, whether my opponent happens to be equal or inferior to me. At the third game, I settled down to my work, and won that and the following live, and ultimately the match only by a majority of three games. This close play was, I think, owing to Mr. Dudley often playing the Ruy Lopez Opening in the Knight’s Game. That attack was not then sufficiently appreciated in Europe, and I was but little acquainted with the defence. I took the line of play given in the German Handbuch, and lost nearly every game. Mr. Dudley played this opening with great skill and judgment. Since that time, I have had the opportunity of investigating this attack, and have prepared a defence which, if not completely satisfactory, seems to me far preferable to the old method. I soon had my revenge—for in another match which followed immediately I won eleven games, Mr. Dudley scoring only three. In this match I remember I adopted in the defence to the Ruy Lopez 3. P to KB4. with success, and though that move has not secured the approbation of the leading European players it is my individual opinion that it may as well be played as any other, and that, at all events, it gives the second player an open game. After some days pleasantly spent with Mr. Steward, Mr. Lutz, and Mr. Turner, Sen., a third match with Mr. Dudley was arranged. The previous matches had been played in private, but this took place in compliance with the wish of the Lexington players, and was played in public. It excited considerable  interest. The play commenced on the 29th of March, and terminated on the 4th of April the score at the close being Mr. Dudley 5, myself 11, drawn 3. These games are the best I remember playing lu America, and would be well worth recording; but I have not a note of one of them. Mr. Dudley bore his defeat well, and in the most handsome manner, declared himself fairly beaten. On the 10th of April I left Lexington for Frankfort on my way to Cincinnati, carrying with me many pleasant reminiscences, and furnished with letters of introduction to Mr. Temple, the Treasurer of the State of Kentucky. Mr. Temple introduced me to Gen. Pain and to Governor Crittenden, in whom I had the satisfaction of becoming acquainted with one of the leading statesmen of America. I stayed at the Governor’s house to tea and supper amid a large party. Mr. Brown, who was, I was told, considered the best player in Frankfort, was present.

I won two games of Mr. Brown, to whom I gave odds, and then requested the honor of a game with the Governor. Here my good fortune deserted me, Mr. Crittenden proved victorious, and I had to console myself with the thought that I had been beaten in even play by one of the shrewdest brains in the States.

On the 12th of April I went to Louisville by steamboat. Here I was introduced to the Club by Dr. Raphael, and played several games. In the evening I was entertained by the gentlemen of the club at a supper which was presided over by General Preston.

On the 16th of April I reached Cincinnati, and on presenting my letters of introduction met with a most cordial reception. My warmest thanks are due to Dr. Schmidt, the editor of the German Republican, himself a player of no small power, who introduced me to the leading amateurs, and did all he could to help me. Dr. Schmidt was fairly entitled to the first place among the Cincinnati players, and next to him were Mr. Phineas Moses and Mr. Smith. Among the most enthusiastic lovers of the game I may mention Messrs. E. Brookes, Hopel, Eggers, Cooper, Baker, Salomons, and Paice. These gentlemen met at each other’s houses, and I played with them giving odds. A match was soon afterward arranged for me with the leading players consulting together. The first game was played on the first of May at the house of Mr. Moore, and others at the houses of Messrs. Brookes and Smith. The gentlemen consulting were Messrs. Schmidt, Smith, Moses, Brookes, and Moore. I won the first three games and the match. I was also engaged in private matches with Mr. Smith and Mr. Cooper. Mr. Smith had great Chess talent, and a little study and perseverance would have placed him among the best amateur players.

At Mr. Hopel’s I played and won a blindfold game, and on another occasion two games simultaneously without sight of the board, and won them both. My antagonists were Messrs. Cooper and Salomons.

On the 10th of May I left Cincinnati, and after spending two days at Louisville reached New Orleans on the 18th. On the 22d I delivered my letter of introduction to Mr. Rousseau, and was by him introduced to Mr. E. Morphy and several other amateurs. Matches were arranged between Mr. Rousseau and Mr. E. Morphy and me. On the 26th I played with Mr. Rousseau (not match games), and won 5 games, all we played.

On the 27th I met Paul Morphy, then a youth, and played with him. I do not remember whether we played in all two or three games; one was drawn, the other or others I lost. The young player appeared to me to possess Chess genius of a very high order. He showed great quickness of perception, and evinced brilliant strategic powers. When I passed through New York on my way to the get:   international tournament in London, I mentioned him to Mr. Stanley, and predicted for him a brilliant future.

The intense heat of New Orleans, which from the first had enfeebled me both physically and mentally, produced severe illness and incapacitated me from playing. It was not until the 15th of June that I was able to undergo the fatigue of travelling, and on that day I left for Cincinnati, where I arrived on the 22d, and remained during the rest of my residence in the United States.

My old friends received me with open arms, and through the kind assistance I was enabled to establish a Cigar Divan in connection with the Chess Club. I commenced under the most favorable auspices. In a short time more than 40 members had joined the club, and there was a prospect that that number would be greatly increased. Mr. E. Brookes was the President and Dr. Schmidt the Secretary, and to those gentlemen and the other Chess-players of Cincinnati I owe a debt of kindness I may never be able to pay but shall never forget.

Early in 1851 I was tempted to leave Cincinnati to take part in the International Tournament about to be held in London. It was my intention to return to my Cincinnati friends, by whose help I was enabled to take the journey; why I did not do so involves an explanation too long delayed, and which I may perhaps now be permitted to make.

For a wonderful account of Löwenthal's encounter with young Paul Morphy in New Orleans see Rob Tierney's (Dashkee94) 8 part tale. 

I first half of the 19th century is behind us. I've ignored a lot a players who might have interesting stories, but the problem with the first 50 years is that newpapers and periodicals, the main sources of information, didn't make a real entrance until the last 12-14 years and so for many players of those times, there is a scarcity of solid data. The second half of the 19th century is an entirely different thing. We have more players, more clubs, we have tournaments, and most importantly, we have better records.

"The Chess Player's Chronicle" published this rather interesting letter from Vincenz Grimm, one of the Pest Club triumvirate, along with Löwenthal and Szén, who defeated the Parisean team back in 1842-3 in a two game correspondence match and who was exiled to Syria a year or two prior to this letter.

CHESS AT ALEPPO.

By The Celebrated Hungarian Player, Herr Von Grimm.

When Aleppo was named as the place of our exile, I instantly thought of Stamma [Philip Stamma had moved to London and played at Slaughter's where he figuratively rules. Young Philidor beat Stamma easily in a match in 1847. This established Philidor's reputation, but hurt Stamma's.  Stamma was rather poor and had published a book, "Essai sur le jeu des echecs," a few years before. Losing that match did nothing for his book sales. Stamma's book was the first to employ algebraic notation.], concluding that in the native town of this master, Chess must be flourishing.  But it is not so. There are comparatively many Chess Players, but no one of renown.  Most of them play conformably to European rules and to those who do, one can easily give the odds of a Rook.

This however is more difficult, when playing according to the Arabian rules.

The difference in the latter is:

     1st. The King is always placed at the right hand of his Queen, so that he is opposite to the adversary's Queen.
     2nd. A Pawn can never move two squares.
     3rd. In Castling three moves are required. In the first, the King is played to one of the Pawn's squares. In the second, the Rook goes as far as he likes, or can. In the third, the King hides himself, by a Knight's move behind his Pawns. If once checked, either before or during these three moves, he loses the faculty of the Knight's move.
     4th. A Pawn arriving at his eighth square, can only be exchanged for a piece already taken by the adversary.

The difference in first placing the King paralyzes our theory of openings : and the restriction of the Pawns in moving only one step completely precludes those impetuous attacks so necessary when we give the odds of a Piece.

The Arabians play very quickly, and never fail to point with the finger to the Piece they attack. They no more respect the principle of nonintervention than the Russians do, for every spectator gives his opinion, and his advice.

Their Chess-boards ordinarily consist of a handkerchief, on which the squares, all white, are only separated by black lines.

The Pieces are seldom of ivory, but commonly of wood rudely carved and the Bishops and Knights very difficult to distinguish.

All my endeavours to find some Arabian Manuscripts on Chess are fruitless. The connoisseurs of Arabian literature believe that some must exist, but nobody of my acquaintance has, or knows of any. No one here remembers the name of Stamma, but Chess-players are fond of relating the following anecdote regarding a celebrated Aleppean player of the last century. This man was exceedingly poor, notwithstanding which, he would do nothing except play at Chess, and as nobody here plays for money, he could scarcely obtain an existence. A certain Pasha, a great amateur of Chess, visiting Aleppo, made the acquaintance of our hero, and engaged him to go to Stamboul. The latter pleading poverty, the Pasha provided for his journey, and at Stamboul, after clothing him from head to foot, introduced him to the Sultan. Entering the Seray, he left, as is the custom, his slippers at the door. The Sultan also a great lover of Chess, instantly called for the Chess-board. They played, and the Aleppean lost the first game.

The Sultan, frowning, addressed the Pasha, "How darest thou present to me as a great master this man who loses so ignominiously?" The Pasha, only now conscious that he had more at stake than the players, asked his protege why he played so indifferently. The reply was, "I left the new slippers you gave me at the door, and fearing that some one will take them away, my mind is so occupied with this thought, that I cannot play as well as is necessary against so strong an adversary as the Sultan. Then the Sultan, smiling, ordered in the slippers, which our friend took, and placing them under him won all the succeeding game?, without offending the so cunningly flattered Sultan. Though the Aleppean, who may have been no other than Stamma, exhibited in his play abundant skill, I think it would hardly surpass his courtly ingenuity concerning the slippers.

                                                     Aleppo, Feb. 27th, 1851. V. Grimm.

Cochrane was covered pretty extensively in posts: 10, 11, 27, 40, 55

One can argue with the utility and methodology used for chess "look-back" studies and retro-ratings.

Similar ideas have been used to retro-rate past college football teams, historic tennis players, etc.  Elo-based systems look at results (win, loss, draw), and not how that result was achieved.  So, as they are applied to past results which predated the institution of the Elo system, the retro-rating become more uncertain as we head back in time.

With that said, Prof. Elo stated that Levitsky's best five-year average was 2450 (from his 1978 list).

ChessMetrics has this page in Levitsky: http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S075223000000111000000000017610100

I think you're in the wrong thread :-D

Not that I want to discuss Levitsky on this thread, but after looking at the link to chessmetrics, I headed over to Levitsky's page at Edo Chess Ratings. Go there and compare the information each system employs - well, there actually is no comparison. Then look at Rod Edward's methodology compared to that of Jeff Sonas.

The first major event as we cross the mid-century line was the Great Exhibition Tournament of 1851, the first tournament of international players.  Before we even think of examining that tournament, it should be noted that it wasn't the first chess  tournament.  Exactly 10 years prior, the Yorkshire Chess Association decided to hold a meeting or a congress at  Scarborough’s Hotel on Bishopgate-street in Leeds.  This was a gathering of players of different neighboring towns for the purpose of letting players of similar force contest each other. It was held on Monday Jan. 18, 1841 and attracted almost 50 players, mostly members of the association, but  Augustus Mongredien, president  and Gustav Christian Schwabe, secretary of the  Liverpool Chess Club also attended this momentous meeting.  Mongredien was an interesting man. He had been a member of the old Westminster Club and had often played M'Donnell.  In 1859, he would play a set match of 8 games with Morphy,  drawing one, losing the rest.
Two games by Mongredien at this first chess tournament in Leeds were contested against a team of Leeds players with John Rhodes acting as captain of the team. His team mates were: Cadman, Brown, Powell,  Muff, Boscovitz, Luccock and Barr.  Here are the two games:

The players played from 11:00 am - 5:00 pm, breaking for lunch in between.  According to the Leeds "Mercury" : "It was a  refreshing sight to every lover of the noble game to see between twenty and thirty chess boards in requisition, the picked  players of the county matched against each other, and each striving to support the reputation acquired in his own locality."  And according to George Medley in Löwenthal's book on the 1862 international tournament, "The railway between  Manchester and Leeds was not then in existence, and these gentlemen had to post through the snow a distance of about  forty-five miles in order to be present."

Between this congress and the international tournament of 1851, there were 8 more English provincial chess meetings as well as a knock-out tournament at  Ries’ Divan in the Strand in London won by Buckle in 1849.

It's expressed all over the web that the New York Chess Club held a club tournament in 1843. I've been unable so far to find any documentation about this.  The 1857 Congress Book makes no mention of in it's detailed history of chess in New York.  So, all I can deduce it that either there was no tournament or else it was an almost inconsequential meeting of a small number of members of that club playing among themselves. That same year in Gemany there had been plans to host an important national contest-

"The Chess Player's Magazine," July 1863 (ed. Löwenthal)
ON THE PRESENT STATE OF CHESS IN GERMANY.
                  BY E. FALKBEER.             
Most of your readers, I presume, have heard of Dr. Bledow. He was a man of great literary acquirements, a professor of mathematics at the Berlin University, and, in his way, a great enthusiast of the game. He first suggested the idea of a Chess Congress of the leading German amateurs. The other distinguished players I mentioned in my last (the Berlin Pleiades), eagerly embraced the suggestion, and a great meeting at Trier (in 1843, if I mistake not) was planned under the Doctor's auspices. Owing to some unhappy circumstances, however, that meeting never came to pass, and when, about the same time, the great and much-talked-of encounter between the English and French champions, Mr. Staunton and Mons. St. Amant, took place, it so much absorbed the attention of the Chessplaying public, that the German scheme completely fell to the ground.

Speaking of Bledow and Mongredien, here are two games contested between them in Germany the year before Bledow's untimely death.

...in 1845, Mongredien was in Berlin, and of 12 games with Bledow he won 4 and lost 7, while he made an even score with Mayet (3 wins, 1 draw, 3 losses). "BCM," Oct. 1899

The term 'the amateurs' keeps coming up in the articles written in those days. Something that we don't really use today, maybe because of the existence of the titles (FM, GM, etc.).

Elo had nothing to do with Jeff Sonas' chessmetrics page. Sonas started with the premise that the best player at any time must be at least 2700, and went from there. That's a demonstrably false presumption.

Chessmetrics is best used to compare players within a certain time frame. He originally meant it as a way of measuring players across time, but it's almost useless in that regard. His lists are weakest when he covers the 19th century because there are so few extant games. There are players that didn't play any major tournaments who are higher rated by Sonas than much more famous players because of one extant win against a well known player. 

Again, Chessmetrics does have some uses, but it's hardly a definitive or even a good way to determine who were the best players before 1900, and it's useless as a measure across time, which was one of his main goals. 

Batgirl, thanks for the informative posts in this thread!