And personally I believe, he was as strong as - or even stronger than - Staunton. But we will never know - despite Sonas dubious calculations.

I don't acknowledge unofficial world champions. In my opinion, "unofficial" is synonymous with "not."

In my opinion the only person in history who ever demonstrated undoubtedly superior performance over anyone else who counted in the world was Paul Charles Morphy. Never before or after him did we have a player who dominated chess by such a huge margin. In spite of the lack of title at the time, Morphy does deserve to be regarded as World Champion, period. Before Morphy, maybe Philidor and Labourdonnais, but they never got the chance to prove themselves, so this remains pure speculation. But after Morphy's voluntary exile from the chess scene, I'd argue that Anderssen was the best active player; he had an excellent tournament record in the 1860's to support this claim. Morphy and Anderssen--they are my candidates for the World Championship Trophy in the pre-Steinitz era. Give the rest a break, especially to Saint-Amant and Staunton, and put them where they truly belong: some haughty roosters puffing in the barnyard of 19th century chess, who scurry into the shelter at once when the shadow of a real eagle eclipses the sun. (This last remark is for Staunton, not for Saint-Amant; at least Saint-Amant didn't make exaggerated claims of his status and didn't try to duck Morphy when Morphy challenged him for a game or two.)

.

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/En...

<You mentioned von der Lasa--are you saying that the standard of play in Germany at that time was already clearly higher than than that of France and Britain?> That is difficult to judge after this many years, but I would say there's a good chance of that. Think about the excellent rise of the Berliner Pleiades group in the 1840's--Bledow and the likes invented a professional approach towards chess for the first time in history, whereas France and England still remained in the coffehouse era.

PIERRE CHARLES FOURNIER DE SAINT AMANT
http://www.bidmonfa.com/saint_pierr...
_

It's rather like saying that W. G. Grace wasn't a very good cricket player simply because he competed during the earliest days of the sport. Even Brian Lara would dismiss that notion as absurd. For the benefit of the Americans in the audience, a similar analogy would be to state that 19th Century lineman Pudge Heffelfinger could not play in the NFL today because he only weighed 195 pounds.

I think, that f.x. the german players in the late 1830'es and beyond are somehow overlooked by us in comparision with Staunton and St. Amant - and that especially Staunton - although undoubtly being a strong chessplayer at that time - never was put to a test, that could confirm that. His fame came IMO from his mouth - not his results.

Steinitz certainly publicized his claims to the world championship as much as Staunton. The difference was that Steinit's claims were clearly supported by results, and accepted by the chess world as a whole.

<In my opinion the only person in history who ever demonstrated undoubtedly superior performance over anyone else who counted> What about Bobby Fischer or Steinitz or Kasparov or Capablanca or Alekhine or Karpov. Sure they were never, and could never, be as dominant as the players of yore. But that's no reason to belittle their accomplishments. But the all crushed their opposition mercilessly util they grew old, or someone newer and better came along. Fischer and Steinitz won 20 and 25 games in a row, Fischer against some of the storngest opposition available. Not even Morphy oculd say he did that, though perhaps Philidor could.

<The late tragical death of Fournier de Saint Amant brings back many interesting recollections. Once famous as the greatest chess-player of the world, and for years held to be champion of France, M. St. Amant lived to be nearly seventy-three, and to die from being thrown from his carriage.>