YES!

Is Staunton in it?

PROBABLY NOT!

<George Francis Train, the aptly named American behind London’s first trams>

I wish you would. Do you know what Fischer actually said, or do you just know that Staunton's name appeared on a list for one reason or another? He didn't say that Staunton was one of the <strongest> players of all time, as you seem to be implying.>

Here's the list.

Using the DeeperSearch option, after 2 minutes and 16 seconds, and employing 16 sources, this is the main body of the answer:

<Historical Context and Sources

The investigation into Staunton's birth date begins with the acknowledgment that no official records of his birth or baptism have been found, as noted in multiple sources, including Wikipedia: Howard Staunton and EdoChess: Howard Staunton. This absence of primary documentation complicates precise dating, but secondary sources, particularly the work of chess historian Harold James Ruthven Murray, provide valuable insights. Murray, in his research, summarized information from various sources, concluding that Staunton was born in 1810, reputedly the natural son of Frederick Howard, the fifth Earl of Carlisle, born out of wedlock.

Specific Findings on Birth Date

Multiple sources converge on April 1810 as the likely birth month and year. For instance, Ruchess: Howard Staunton states that Murray determined Staunton was born in the first days of April 1810, based on a court claim related to an inheritance dispute. This finding is echoed in EdoChess: Howard Staunton, which also mentions April 1810, and Mark of Westminster: Howard Staunton Biography, which confirms the same year and notes his grave marker at Kensal Green Cemetery, London, lists 1810-1874, aligning with this date. The Spanish Wikipedia page, Wikipedia: Howard Staunton (Spanish), similarly notes his birth in April 1810, with the exact date uncertain due to lack of research.

However, some sources, such as Chess.com: Howard Staunton, list a specific date of April 1, 1810. This specificity is likely a placeholder, as other detailed sources do not confirm the day, and the consensus leans toward the month being April without a precise day. The use of April 1 may reflect a common practice in historical databases to assign the first of the month when the exact day is unknown, rather than indicating verified evidence.

Place of Birth and Early Life

Staunton's claimed birthplace varies across records. In the 1851, 1861, and 1871 English censuses, he listed Keswick, Cumberland, located in the Lake District, as his birthplace, as noted in Wikipedia: Howard Staunton. However, other sources, such as Mark of Westminster: Howard Staunton Biography, mention Westmoreland, England, adding to the complexity. This discrepancy highlights the challenges in verifying his early life, which was reportedly marked by neglect and limited education, with Murray noting he inherited a few thousand pounds at coming of age, which he soon squandered.

Analysis of Uncertainty

The uncertainty around Staunton's birth date is compounded by his illegitimate birth, as suggested by Murray, and the lack of formal records. This situation is not uncommon for individuals born out of wedlock in the early 19th century, particularly those from less documented backgrounds. The reliance on Murray's research, which is cited across multiple platforms, provides a strong basis for the April 1810 estimate, but the absence of primary documents means there remains room for further discovery. For example, Ruchess: Howard Staunton mentions Murray's use of a court claim, which could be a fruitful area for additional historical research, though no further details on this claim were found in the current analysis.>

Here's the Russian Chess Federation article in question: https://ruchess.ru/en/persons_of_da...

The first thing to say is that Grok has accurately reflected the alleged claim by Murray:

<The precise date of Howard Staunton’s birth is unknown, but H.J. Murray, a contemporary historian, stated that the outstanding English chess player was born in the first days of April 1810. He concluded this after uncovering a court claim that Howard filed in an inheritance dispute.>

As far as I'm aware, the only biographical sketch of Staunton that Murray ever wrote is that which appeared in the <British Chess Magazine> in 1908, across the November and December issues:

http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Stau...

As can be seen, Murray does not state that Staunton was born in April of 1810, let alone the first days of the month, and reference to a court case related to an inheritance dispute is entirely absent.

Here I explained where I believe the date of April orignated from.

But who was the bright spark?

In the <Oxford Companion to Chess> (1e, 1984) by Whyld & Hooper, the entry for Staunton has: <He [Staunton] states he was born in Westmorland in the spring of 1810, that his father's name was William, that he acted with Edmund Kean, taking the part of Lorenzo in The Merchant of Venice, that he spent some time at Oxford (but not at the university) and came to London around 1836.> https://archive.org/details/TheOxfo...

From the spring of 1810 to April is but a short leap. I will have to check the second edition.

<THE WILFUL MIS-STATEMENTS OF MR. STAUNTON.

Although we do not usually descend to notice the egregious falsehoods and ridiculous absurdities brought out, week after week, in the Chess column of the I. L. N., and, month after month, in the pages of our superannuated contemporary, the C. P. C., we deem it a duty to publish the richly-merited chastisement awarded to the editor of the above publications, on a late occasion. Many of our readers will have noticed, in the Chess part of the I. L. N., of the 5th of November, a statement to the effect that Mr. Harrwitz had made a boast of intending "to win a love-match of Mr. Lowenthal." On the 7th of Nov., Mr. Harrwitz, in the presence of the above-named scribe, and, lest he should deny it, in that of some half-dozen gentlemen, denounced the report alluded to, as a gross falsehood, in strong terms, strong but well suited to the taste of the offender. "It is quite amusing," writes a clever correspondent, "to see that individual stultifying and contradicting himself, from week to week, in the I. L. N., with his glaringly one-sided and partial statements. He must be very hard up indeed, to use such pitiful subterfuges as fill the Chess column of that paper. No one but himself believes the rubbish he is continually putting into print." Indeed, we have every reason to believe, that not even himself believes the "rubbish" he would like others to believe. If, for instance, Mr. Harrwitz is really such a poor player as he is represented to be, why did Mr. Staunton slink his challenge in May last? and why the one Mr. Harrwitz gave to all the world in June? He writes against the practice of playing for money; and he himself got his living by playing shilling games, and even for sixpence, not many years ago. But then, tempora mutantur, and when he now offers to play for £250, he should not be taken at his word, for it is against his principles to play for money, - where he fears to lose. He publicly contradicts Mr. Lowenthal's statement, of having beaten him in the majority of games played, because Mr. L. is not likely, under present circumstances, to assert the truth. <He vituperates the members of the London Chess Club, to whom he owes so much gratitude, ignoring the existence of certain letters which might, some day, be unpleasantly forthcoming.>>

Winter has the very article <Missy> quoted from, and much more context, subtext, and possibly prolex:

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter...

* Mat is the German for mate, and matt is weak, feeble.>

(BCR v1-2 (1853) p319)

This should be 1834, not 1835. Undoubtedly just a typo on Townsend's part, but I will take its correction in the next 48 hours as confirmation that Townsend is reading this.

The Patriot, November 9th 1855, p.234:

<Deaths. [...]

November 3, at 15, Brompton-row, Alexander Greig, Esq., in his 91st year, in the full assurance of faith in Christ his Saviour.>

<Greig>, not <Grieg>, which appears in another similar notice, seems to be correct.

Wait, this is 1855, not 1845, isn't it?

Yes, but the 1841 census has an entry for Brompton Row for an <Alexander Greig>, aged 75, and of independent means, and (presumably) his wife, <Lucy>, aged 70. In this census (the first), ages for adults were typically rounded down to the nearest 5. It also neglected to record individual property numbers within a street or property, so it can be difficult to determine whether the markings that indicate separate households distinguish separate properties or divisions within a property. However, it seems as if the Greigs may have been the sole occupiers of No.15 at that point.

Based on this, my first assumption was that Greig was the long-time owner/occupier and that he may well have lived there as landlord in 1845 when Staunton resided there. But then I found the 1851 census. 15 Brompton Row (now clearly marked) is subdivided into three households (totalling 8 adults) and the Greigs are absent. One household is headed by <Ann Goff>, aged 54, <Lodging House Keeper>. Was No.15 a house of multiple occupation already by 1845?

<Brompton Row is an interesting street because it was much favoured by actors, an occupation thought to have been pursued by Staunton. Still, there is no proof that Staunton was an actor, despite this and other evidence.>

Strictly speaking, Brompton Row was part of a larger street, not one in itself:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/s...

Interesting is the use of the word 'several.' In the 2014 <Historical Notes on Some Chess Players> (now he uses capitals?), Townsend identified four children from the marriage of Thomas Gibson and Agnes:

Agnes E. Gibson, born c.July 1850 in Bona, Africa (now Annaba, Algeria).

John Knapp Gibson, born November 5th 1853 in Norwood, Lambeth, England.

Delphi M(ary?) A. Gibson, born c.1861 in Alexandria, Egypt.

Henry Gibson, born c.1866, Hampstead, England.

Whether all of the children went with their parents to Naples/Italy (Thomas also died in Naples, in 1891) at some point is unknown. In fact, to my knowledge, there's no documentary trace of the children after the 1871 census when the whole family lived together in London.

Anyway, the top result for a search Delphi Mary Alexandrina Gibson is a Roman Catholic baptism in 1876, presumably just before she got married.

Often adult baptisms have the date of birth of the person, or at the very least their age, and the search result gives a year of birth on 1860.

So Delphi would have been 15 and a bit if she married in the first quarter of 1876. That really is very unusual - in the vast majority of the marriages I've researched over the last few years, both parties have been over 18.

Delphi's name was transcribed as Delphi Mary Alexandrina Gibson, but there might be mistakes in the transcription since her mother's name was transcribed as Agnes Staunlon (Agnes's first name was Latinized, as was Delphi's father's).

See: https://i.postimg.cc/7YVvhDPS/Delph...

https://i.postimg.cc/pXsRCMVb/Delph...

The <Dover Express> was a weekly newspaper that regularly (but not constantly) ran a feature called <Visitors>, an updated alphabetically sorted list of local visitors.

Starting with the issue of August 13th 1875, through to September 29th 1876, every list included <Gibson, Mr., Mrs., and family, 2, Douro place>.