< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-20-21
 | | gezafan: <keypusher: Fischer famously put Staunton in his top 10 while leaving Lasker off entirely. That's a much bigger offense than dissing Botvinnik.> I'm a great admirer of Staunton but I wouldn't put him over Lasker and Botvinnik. However, let me point out that at the time Fischer said this he was already a GM, one of the top players in the world and had studied the games of the top players in history. His opinion had to have been based on something.. |
|
Jul-21-21 | | Petrosianic: Specifically, Fischer put Staunton there because he was ahead of his time in playing fianchettoes before anyone else was. That doesn't mean he was one of the 10 strongest players. |
|
Jul-21-21
 | | MissScarlett: In which games did Staunton fianchetto his bishops? It's more likely that Fischer had in mind some of Staunton's analytical ponderings, but I'm not familiar enough with Staunton's books to comment. Access to Jack Collins' library is often said to be how Fischer was so knowledgable about chess history, but if you look at the quality of chess literature published until the 1960s, I imagine Fischer had only a patchy and superficial impression of 19th century chess. |
|
Jul-21-21 | | Retireborn: <MissS>
Staunton vs Horwitz, 1851 is the only such game I'm aware of, although one notes Ray Keene's assertion that Staunton was "fond of" the double fianchetto. |
|
Jul-21-21
 | | MissScarlett: The <Oxford Companion> claims <Strategic use of the fianchetto, pioneered by Staunton and L. Paulsen, has since become the basis of many openings>, but that doesn't take us much further. The games of Cochrane and Mohishunder from the 1850s can be identified as introducing Indian-type defences to the West, and Staunton was certainly aware of some of these. If anywhere, Staunton's writings from the 1860s need to be examined. |
|
Jul-21-21
 | | ray keene: For another Staunton double fianchetto masterpiece see game 8 of his 1851 match v Williams. It's on Chessgames.com and in my book on Staunton. |
|
Mar-19-22 | | SonnyGIII: God save the Queen! |
|
Mar-29-22
 | | MissScarlett: <<Of the other seven children: 1 William Henry (born 1826) died as an infant 2 William Edward (born 1828) married in 1849
3 Francis (born 1830) married in 1850
5 Harriett (born 1833) no idea, possibly died as an infant 6/7 Mary Magdalene (born 1836) and Sophia Charlotte (born 1837) I can't find these two anywhere in the 1851 census, though they were definitely alive 8 Stephen (born 1841) died in 1843> >Howard Staunton (kibitz #463) Been doing a little digging of my own to try and shed light on what Staunton's domestic arrangements may have been after his marriage to Frances in February 1849. That it took place in Brighton and none of her six surviving children or other family were apparently in attendance suggests the possibility that their union may not have been universally popular. How Staunton who - as far as is known - lived alone and had no family, suddenly took to life in the family home in Sydney Place, one can only imagine. William Edward - c.20 (age in Feb 1849). Married in Dec 1849 Francis - c.18 Married in September 1850
Frances Ada - c.16 Married in November 1853
Harriet - c.15
Mary - c.12 Married in Jan 1854
Sophia - c.11 Married Feb 1859
So it's possible that at the start of his marriage, all six children still lived at home. Within 18 months, the two eldest boys were married and presumably independent. Were they in a rush to get away? The 1851 census took place on Sunday, March 30th and recorded the household as Staunton and Frances, Frances Ada (the daughter), Louisa (the wife's half-sister), as well as two female servants. What does this mean? Where were the three youngest girls? Away at boarding school or living with other family members? Or - given that a census was only a snapshot taken on a particular day - simply away from the house that day? It is difficult to picture Staunton trying to concentrate on his chess work (and perhaps even his wife) with so many distractions underfoot. |
|
Mar-30-22
 | | MissScarlett: <Mary - c.12 Married in Jan 1854> Mary Magdalene was actually 13 in February 1849 (she was baptised in February 1836), so she would've been 18 (or practically so) when she married in January 1854. Her husband was <Fleming Hillas> (1833-1881). What's interesting is that the Hillas family home around this time was 12 Sydney Place, whilst the Nethersoles (I hesitate to call them the Stauntons) lived at no.8. It's a strong indicator that Mary regularly lived at the family home. The young couple's first daughter, Eliza, was born in Melbourne, Australia, in July 1855, so emigration was probably on their agenda right from the beginning. Was Staunton so difficult to be around? |
|
Mar-31-22
 | | MissScarlett: <5 Harriett (born 1833) no idea, possibly died as an infant> <Harriet - c.15> It can be hard to see the wood for the trees. Yes, it seems likely that Harriet died young. She's not in the family home in Essex St. for the 1841 census, for instance. Must say that this geneaology research can become very involving and addictive. My Staunton tree already totals 62 people, and there's probably another 20 to go. No sign yet of Kunta Kinte. Anything interesting, you may ask. Well, little I didn't already know, but a few tidbits and a couple of potential leads. |
|
Apr-10-22
 | | MissScarlett: I wish <John Townsend> would join this site! There's nobody else I can discuss this stuff with. There's over 80 people in the tree now... |
|
Apr-14-22
 | | MissScarlett: Illustrated London News, March 28th 1857, p.300: <We are indebted to Russia for so much that is valuable on the theory of the game, and for so many admirable examples of practical skill that every amateur here will rejoice to find that our Chess communications with the distinguished players of that country are again resumed, and that we may once more calculate on enriching our columns with those masterly combats which have given celebrity, wherever Chess is known, to the names of the Princes Ouroussoff, and to those of Petroff, Jaenisch, Shumoff, and other leading members of the Cercle des Echecs in St. Petersburg.> |
|
Apr-14-22 | | Z free or die: <: I wish <John Townsend> would join this site! There's nobody else I can discuss this stuff with. There's over 80 people in the tree now...> You could always try to entice with the generous offer of a free premium membership, courtesy of <MIssScarlett>. |
|
Apr-14-22
 | | MissScarlett: If we can't get Townsend, I'll settle for Killoran. Let's face it, it's only pride keeping them away! |
|
Apr-15-22 | | Z free or die: <<Missy> I'll settle for Kiloran [sic?]> I presume you mean <Killoran>? As in <Gerald Killoran>, mentioned four times in a single Chess History html page: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... Looks like neither Killoran nor Winter have reservations about providing scans of (presumably) PD material. Just thought I'd mention that little tidbit. PD = Public Domain. |
|
Apr-15-22
 | | MissScarlett: <<<Missy> I'll settle for Kiloran [sic?]> I presume you mean <Killoran>> My eyesight is getting bad, yours must be worse. <Looks like neither Killoran nor Winter have reservations about providing scans of (presumably) PD material.> Probably they sought the requisite permission. Winter is nothing if not scrupulous. Killoran can enlighten us when he gets here. |
|
Apr-18-22
 | | MissScarlett: Had a walk through Brompton Cemetery today. Depressing, full of dead people. Was trying to find a grave containing two of Staunton's (alleged) sister-in-laws. Roughly knew its location, but no luck. Must have been within yards, but even if I found the right headstone (assuming there still is one), it would probably be unreadable after 180 years. |
|
Apr-18-22
 | | harrylime: SYRIANS and the CHESS COWARD Staunton
Foooook off
lol |
|
Apr-18-22
 | | jnpope: <Depressing, full of dead people.> Better that than hearing panicked screams coming up from people trapped six feet underground. |
|
Apr-18-22
 | | MissScarlett: You been listening to <Thriller> again? Did you ever see Romero's <Night of the Living Dead>? Killer ending - the black bloke gets shot in the head! |
|
May-08-22
 | | MissScarlett:  click for larger viewIn his <New Court Gazette> column of August 8th 1840, p.511, Staunton gives this position - White to mate in 5 - as an antidote to those finding the normal run of problems too difficult. |
|
May-31-22
 | | MissScarlett: The following ad appears in <Kingpin>, #24, Spring 1995, p.17: <Raymond Keene presents...An Evening with Howard Staunton
* Was Staunton really the son of the Earl of Carlisle? * What did he think of Morphy?
* How does he rate Short and Kasparov?
Find out on Tuesday April 1 when Simpsons in the Strand will be hosting a special Victorian banquet in honour of the only English World Chess Champion. Exhumed especially for the occasion, Howard Staunton will be discussing his life and games.* If you would like to attend this extraordinary once-in-a-lifetime event, please send a cheque for 75 guineas to the Staunton Resurrection Society, c/o Simpsons, Strand, London. Donations gleefully received. Period black tie and beard compulsory.
Mr Staunton is available for simuls/lectures/tuition at very favourable rates. * with the assistance of Grandmaster Raymond Keene OBE and a spiritualist.> |
|
Jan-08-23
 | | MissScarlett: This woman was Staunton's niece - well, sort of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_...
Her step-father's brother was the former husband of Staunton's wife. |
|
Jan-08-23 | | LoveThatJoker: <MissScarlett > I'm not going to lie: this looks good, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sap...
LTJ |
|
Jan-22-23
 | | MissScarlett: <Mary Magdalene was actually 13 in February 1849 (she was baptised in February 1836), so she would've been 18 (or practically so) when she married in January 1854. Her husband was <Fleming Hillas> (1833-1881). What's interesting is that the Hillas family home around this time was 12 Sydney Place, whilst the Nethersoles (I hesitate to call them the Stauntons) lived at no.8. It's a strong indicator that Mary regularly lived at the family home. The young couple's first daughter, Eliza, was born in Melbourne, Australia, in July 1855, so emigration was probably on their agenda right from the beginning. Was Staunton so difficult to be around?> Howard Staunton Someone posted on Ancestry, the Australian death certificate of Mary (who, to remind everyone, was Staunton's step-daughter by way of his marriage to Frances in 1849). She died in South Yarra (a suburb of Melbourne) on March 9th 1863, aged only 27. The name is given as <Mary Madeline Hillas> but there's no doubt it's her. Cause of death is given as <Disease of Heart and Lungs 8 Years Exhaustion>. It's noted that she'd been in the colony for 9 years, and she left behind Fleming and three children (two others deceased). But what caught my eye is the identity of the parents. The father, as expected, is<William Dickenson Nethersole>, the mother is not Frances, but <(Unknown) Fladgate>. The handwriting isn't the easiest to read, though I'm confident that's what it says. Who then is Fladgate?
Frances family name was Cates - she had two sisters, Emma and Helen, who married two brothers, Francis and William Fladgate. So by the 1830s, the Cates, the Nethersole and the Fladgate families were all somewhat intertwined. Various Fladgates and Nethersoles had lived/worked in Essex St. (off the Strand) as solicitors for many years. But who could be Mary Magdalene's mother, if not Frances? Francis and William Fladgate had three sisters, Maria, Ann and Elizabeth. Maria, the oldest, married in 1823 and already had five children by 1830. This proves she was highly fertile, but it seems unlikely she would have gotten mixed up with William Dickenson Nethersole (who'd been married to Frances since 1825). But the two sisters, Ann and Elizabeth never married. At the time of Mary's birth in 1836, Ann was 31, and Elizabeth, 28. Of course, there may have been other branches of the Fladgate family beyond the scope of my knowledge, but these two ladies are my prime suspects. Does the choice of the name, Mary Magdalene, with its connotation of a repentant prostitute, have any significance? Does the emigration of Mary and Fleming in 1854, soon after their marriage, suggest that she and Frances were not particularly close? |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|