I Protest

for hundred of years the Black pieces have been denied an equal chance ! Why ? because it is the White pieces who always get to move first !! This is an injustice I can barely deal with. Each time I look at a chess board, my FEELINGS are so compromised !!

@ogb said
for hundred of years the Black pieces have been denied an equal chance ! Why ? because it is the White pieces who always get to move first !! This is an injustice I can barely deal with. Each time I look at a chess board, my FEELINGS are so compromised !!

[sarcasm] noted

@ogb said
for hundred of years the Black pieces have been denied an equal chance ! Why ? because it is the White pieces who always get to move first !! This is an injustice I can barely deal with. Each time I look at a chess board, my FEELINGS are so compromised !!

LOL.......Well you as a rule play two games so have one with each colour! 😉

-VR

@very-rusty said
LOL.......Well you as a rule play two games so have one with each colour! 😉

-VR

yes..I've noticed that does help ..TY
Possibly I'll appeal to the USCF , (Fide) to change the rules so that the Black pieces will be allowed to move first..

The reason why White goes first in chess was because the president of the
London Chess Club (circa 1830-40) was fed up with the argument about players
NOT wanting the White pieces. White was associated with cowardice (white flag).

So to resolve this matter it was suggested that upon the flip of a coin a player
could choose the colour the chess pieces or opt to to go first. Most chose Black
(or Red) so overtime White was moving first.

Then in the 1850's it was realised that mistakes in publishing names and diagrams
was happening so Staunton helped standardising the rule that White goes first.

In the 1820's Edinburgh had Black throughout the Edinburgh London match but
'had the move' in a few games. Their view of the Scotch Game was:



In the 'Immortal Game' Anderssen - Kieseritzky, 1851, (an offhand game, a friendly.)
Anderssen had the Black pieces but moved first which has led to a few publications
discovered by Edward WInter crediting Kieseritzky as the winner.

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/pics/cn8854_chess1.jpg

@greenpawn34

🚬

Greenpawn..thanks for the interesting chess history..

@ogb

U R rated over 2200 and didn't know that?

@sonhouse said
@ogb

U R rated over 2200 and didn't know that?

I know Howard Staunton had a lot to do with standardizing a lot of chess rules and tournaments. and he wasn't too keen on playing Paul Morphy...

HI ogb,

Blame Johann Loewenthal for no Morphy - Staunton match.

Staunton played in the 1858 Birmingham tournament to get his eye in
and shake off the rust but was knocked out 2-0 by Loewenthal (see game below)

A month beforehand Loewenthal had just been scudded 9-3 by Morphy in a match.

Staunton realised he was way past his prime (his famous match win v Saint Amant
was back in 1843). Staunton was the umpire for the Morphy - Loewenthal match.
He saw first hand Morphy in full flow. He was hopelessly out of practise and had grown old.

He had noticed the glee his enemies greeted the Loewenthal victory,
another tanking this time by Morphy would have been unbearable.
Loewenthal makes this game v Staunton look like a Morphy v N.N. exhibition.


.

GreenPawn...I have David Lawson's book on Morphy, (The Pride & Sorrow)..which I read decades ago. I do remember Staunton had several opportunities to have a match vs. Morphy, but he kept dodging him.

Staunton was right to avoid a match with Morphy, as he most likely would not win a single game, not even get a draw. If he was the Staunton of 1843, it would have been a good match, tho Staunton would still lose, bur he would win his share of games. His defensive style would have frustrated Morphy, plus Staunton knew how to play an endgame. If the match was for the first 10 wins, I'd give it to Morphy 10-5.

BTW, the White moves first rule was not made canon until the FIDE congress of 1929.

HI sundown316,

I think the Staunton at his peak would have given Morphy a good match.
As Black he would have gone for a French. Morphy always played the exchange
variation, that would have held no dangers for Staunton. Staunton handled
the exchange variation in much the same way as Korchnoi...early c5.

If Staunton fancied his chances as Black then the Sicilian. He would not have
played 1...e5 v Morphy.

As White Staunton would have played 1.c4 an opening Morphy never faced
and yet it is called the English because of Staunton who understood it very well.
(Fischer putting Staunton in his top 10 because of his modern positional style
was not a joke.)
Maybe 1.d4. Morphy often met 1.d4 with the Dutch, then we may have
got a Staunton Gambit. Or probably not.

In 1858 Staunton's health was bad and he had that Shakespeare thing going on
and he was way out of practise game wise. But he did dodge Morphy.
Although they stayed for 3-4 days together in Staunton's house.
(They must have a played a few jolly skittles not only consultation games.)

It's pity it never happened. I would have liked to see a Morphy v Cochrane match.
IMO Cochrane was one of most imaginative players from the 1800's.

Bronstein disagrees, he is on record as saying the best player from that era was La Bourdonnais. (!)

Yeah, FIDE in the 1920's put all the laws in stone (three fold rep was still a bit
hazy - I think in the USSR the moves had to be continuous, the rest of the world
could claim 3 fold if the same position had been reached on say moves 23, 26
and 34. In the USSR it was only something like moves 23,24,25.

Staunton pushed for the rule in the 1850's. Some said OK - other did not seem
too bothered. Steinitz in his 1880's - 'Chess Instructor' said White always goes first.

@greenpawn34I agree that the Exchange Variation is White's best choice vs. the French