The earliest queen’s gambit: philidor vs stamma | thearticle

It’s my own discovery! This week I hope to reveal a colossal advance in our knowledge of the early history of modern chess. The 1747 match in London between Stamma and Philidor is the

earliest recorded contest between two leading protagonists which might be considered decisive for determining the strongest player in the chess world. It is thefirst that could be considered

a prototype of modern world championship matches. Sadly, although Philidor himself bequeathed no fewer than 20 volumes of his notebooks to posterity, his later interpreters  (Atwood and

Walker) chose to publish only a restricted selection of the maestro’s games. For that reason, hidden away in some aristocratic library of unknown provenance, there may well be an

undiscovered treasure trove of games by Philidor, played at the height of his powers against opposition worthy of his steel.  Philidor’s rival Philip Stamma — known as Stamma of Aleppo since

he was a native of that famous Syrian city — was a late representative of the great Arabic school of chess. Indeed, what we now call the Queen’s Gambit was then known as the Gambit of

Aleppo, in Stamma’s honour, since he played it so frequently. Indeed, Stamma appears to have been the sole leading player of his day who preferred to open with 1. d4 rather than 1. e4.

Stamma (c. 1705-1755) travelled extensively in Europe and in 1737 published in Paris an  Essai sur le jeu des échecs , consisting of one hundred endings, in the ancient Islamic style of such

practitioners as As Suli and Al Lajlaj. The book contains a dedication to Lord Harrington, a keen lover of the game, who may well have been a co-sponsor, backing Stamma, in the proto-world

championship contest against Philidor.  From Paris, Stamma journeyed  to England, where in 1745 he published a revised version of his French book, under the title of  The Noble Game of Chess

. The revisions were important, since they included a collection of seventy-four openings, among which was the Queen’s Gambit, which he alone strongly advocated. Ahead of his time was the

circumstance that Stamma introduced into Europe (in both works) the algebraic notation, a useful innovation to simplify comprehension of printed chess moves. The alternative descriptive

notation was by then established in English-speaking countries and I only succeeded in persuading The Times to adopt algebraic as late as 1986. As a player, Stamma seems to have been less

gifted than as an author, since, in his match against the young Philidor in 1747, held in Slaughter’s Coffee House in St Martin’s Lane, London, he was beaten by +8-1=1. Philidor gave him the

odds of the move in every game and allowed Stamma to count all draws as won by Stamma. Thus, Philidor won eight games, lost one and drew won, with the formal tally (after adjustment for the

odds scoring system) emerging as eight points to two in the Frenchman’s favour.   This result established Philidor as undoubtedly the leading player in the mid-eighteenth century. For

nearly 50 years he was what we would now call World Champion. However, in my opinion it is premature to speak of a world champion until the later advent of oceanic steam travel, which

essentially shrank the globe to manageable proportions. Nevertheless the idea that Philidor was a proto-World Champion for the second half of the 18th century is absolutely true in terms of

his reputation in the major chess centres (Paris and London), and makes the recovery of any information about his games a valuable achievement. It is more a matter of conjecture in terms of

strength of play, because of the limited evidence . Some modern writers even claim that the Italian (Modenese) authors , such as Ponziani, may have been stronger. This is unprovable either

way, as they never played or met each other . My own view is that Philidor had far more original ideas, way ahead of his time, whatever score one awards to the tactical accuracy of his games

and analysis, when subjected to the harsh and unforgiving glare of 21st century analytical engines.  Furthermore, the history of chess indicates that stronger players tend to gravitate to

and flourish in populous conurbations : Baghdad, Madrid, Paris, London, Moscow. So the likelihood of aficionados from provincial Modena being superior to practitioners from the great cities

of London and Paris, strikes me as remote .  According to the Chess encyclopaedia (edited by Grandmaster Emeritus Harry Golombek OBE), Philidor, born in 1726 near Paris, was remarkably

precocious, both in music and chess. At the age of 11 he had a motet performed at the Chapel Royal in Versailles and he was already a fine chessplayer by his early teens. The best player in

France, M. de Kermur, Sire de Légal, took an interest in his chess education. At first it seems Légal gave Philidor the odds of a Rook, then, after three more years, had to play him

level;finally he was beaten by his erstwhile pupil. It goes without saying, that the moves of such games have been lost in the mists of time, or, given the exclusive Francophone connection,

the equally obscuring neiges d’antan.   By the 1740s Philidor had been considered the best player in France for some years. It is interesting to observe that he never regarded himself as a

professional chess-player, butrather as a musician and composer, who supplemented his income by playing chess and giving blindfold displays. By his late teens Philidor had discovered his

gift for playing blindfold . In 1744, before an awe-struck public, he played two games simultaneously and blindfolded . Any master could do this nowadays and more; but Philidor was the first

to perform the feat in Europe. It is said that Philidor also travelled to Prussia, where he astonished Frederick the Great himself with his mental skills in this medium. In 1745 he visited

the Netherlands and there he made an important contact with some officers of the British Army , at that time engaged in military action. This was a fortunate development for him : he had

come with a musical company that soon became penniless . But Philidor’s plight was relieved by the chess-playing British officers, who not only paid him for his trouble but also gave him

valuable introductions to chess enthusiasts in England. In 1747 Philidor utilized these introductions on a visit to England, where he demonstrated how much greater a player he was than any 

of his contemporaries by beating Philip Stamma in their Match at odds, in London, by an overwhelming margin — an astonishing feat, since Philidor gave Stamma the odds of the move and the

formidable advantage that any drawn game should count as a win for Stamma. From London Philidor published in 1749 the celebrated  Analyze du jeu des Echecs . The theme of the work — that, as

he put it, “pawns are the soul of chess ” — was so modern as to be about a hundred years before its time. As a writer and player myself, I would find it totally comprehensible that Philidor

would have wished to celebrate his triumph against Stamma by including at least one example of his prowess (even with the names suppressed) in his new book.  By the early 1770s, he was

again employed in playing chess and giving blindfold displays. He now made yearly visits to England and in particular to London, which had become second only to Paris as one of the most

important centres of chess in Europe. An arrangement was made by which he taught chess at the London Chess Club and spent the spring in London. Whilst he was in England in 1789, the French

Revolution broke out and he was put on the proscribed list of émigrés . This was a terrible blow for Philidor, since it separated him from his family and most of his friends. The latter made

repeated efforts to get him removed from the proscription list but to no avail. He died in London in 1795 , aged 68. By a cruel turn of fate, three days later his name was indeed removed

from the list. It is ironic that Philidor was the great proselytiser of the power of the pawns on the chessboard, yet it was an anti-aristocratic revolutionary government which made his

pecuniary exile in his final years so arduous.   Some of the games from his simultaneous blindfold displays have been preserved and since, for most of his life, Philidor had no equal in the

chess-world, he gave odds practically all the time when he played; as a result of this, and the censorship of what might loosely be termed his informal literary executors, very few of his

games on level terms have come down to us. This paucity of games on equal terms, played against worthy opponents, underscores the importance of the insight that this week’s game may well be

one from the Stamma match. Whatever can be said about Stamma as a player , he certainly had an eye for brilliant tactical solutions.  One of the 100 puzzles contained in his book,  Essai sur

le jeu des échecs  (1737), follows:- White to play and mate in 5 The elegant win is 1. Qg8+ Kxg8 (1…Rxg8 2 Nf7 smothered mate) 2. Ne7+ Kh8 3. Nf7+ Rxf7 4. Rc8+ Rf8 5. Rxf8 delivering a back

rank checkmate.  It is also interesting to highlight the role played by the Duke of Cumberland in sponsoring Philidor and his book (he personally, and remarkably, subscribed for 50 copies

in 1749 and many other army officers who subscribed probably did so to humour their commander in chief).  Philidor began his career as a professional player at the English army camp in

Flanders, even before he went to London – and Cumberland may well have sponsored his Stamma match as well , possibly in conjunction with Stamma’s patron , Lord Harrington. This would be a

novel way of looking at the “Butcher of Culloden” . A s well as being the conquering hero who terminated Bonnie Prince Charlie’s dreams of Britannic Imperium , Cumberland was a chess patron

and enthusiast. For his part, it was doubtless the influence of Lord Harrington which enabled Stamma to be appointed translator of Oriental Languages to the court of King George II. The

concomitant salary of £8 0 per annum would have been sufficient for Stamma to enjoy the lifestyle of a gentleman in the London of his day.  My key insight was that the otherwise anonymous

games and analysis in Philidor’s book might well be concealing an all important Philidor win against Stamma from their match. The clue would be a Black win against 1. d4. Lo and behold,

there was such a game, which I conjecture to be:  PHILIP STAMMA VS. FRANÇOIS-ANDRÉ DANICAN PHILIDOR MATCH, LONDON, 1747 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3  In the modern game, replies are more

typically: 3. Nf3 or 3. e4. Philidor personally preferred 3. e4 and the influence of his various analytical forays could still be felt in the games of Macdonnell, Labourdonnais, Staunton and

even Morphy in the following century. Philidor himself in his book remarks that a certain author (presumably also a strong player) habitually favoured 3. e3, another powerful clue pointing

to Stamma being the otherwise anonymous player of the White pieces in this game. As an archimandrite of the Arabic School, Stamma might also have been predisposed towards single, rather than

double, pawn moves on the first turn, since the two step initial advance was unknown in the older Arabic version of chess, from which the international variant sprang.  3… f5? An

interesting — if, to modern eyes, wholly anti-positional — development. Black spuriously deems contesting control of the e4-square more important than the production of the weak, and now

backward e-pawn. Both 3… Nf6 and …e5 are stronger alternatives. 4. Bxc4 e6 5. f3?  Another move redolent of the ancient Arabic tradition of one step pawn moves in the opening.  White

challenges the strategic purpose of Black’s third move, entering into contention for the e4-square. But this is inaccurate, and either 5. Nf3 or Nc3 keeps a pleasant advantage intact. 5… Nf6

6. Nc3 c5 7. Nge2 Nc6 8. O-O g5?  An ambitious and dangerously committed lunge, seeking to pressurize the White king before his own has relocated to a safe position. More progressive tries

were, 8… a6 or  …Na5. Nevertheless, the text is quite consistent with Philidor’s standard practice of advancing on the enemy with a pawn phalanx at any opportunity . This theme becomes more

pronounced as the game progresses.    9. dxc5? Missing promising opportunities to exploit Black’s dubious last move. For example, 9. a3 permits a square to which the c4-bishop can retreat,

as is illustrated by: 9… a6 10. Ba2 Rg8 11. d5 exd5 12. e4 d4 13. e5 b5 14. exf6 c4 15. a4 dxc3 16. axb5 Qxd1 17. Rxd1 c2 18. f7+ Kxf7 19. Bxc4+. Also worthy of consideration , in view of a

future e3-e4 advance, is the prophylactic 9. Kh1. 9… Qxd1 10. Rxd1 Bxc5 11. Nd4 Ke7  Marginally preferable is, 11… Kf7, as in many variations, this move needs to be played later.  12. Na4 

Bd6?!  Allowing White the advantage, when after, 12… Bxd4 13. exd4 h6 14. h4 gxh4 15. Kf2 Rd8 16. Be3 b6 17. Nc3 Bb7 18. Ne2 Na5 19. Bd3 Be4, Black is very close to equalising. 13. Nxc6+

bxc6  Philidor is happy. A wing pawn gravitates towards the centre.  14. f4?  Relinquishing a tangible edge. White should continue, 14. e4 h6 (14… f4 15. b3 e5 16. Bb2 Rd8 17. h4 h6 18. Rac1

Nd7 19. Be2 Bb7 20. Rc2 Bb4) 15. exf5 exf5 16. Re1+ Kf8 17. Be3 Nd5 18. Bf2 Rh7 19. Red1 Rc7 20. Bxd5 cxd5 21. Rxd5, maintaining a healthy initiative.  14… h6 15. Bd2  White has better

alternatives in: 15. b3 Rg8 16. Rxd6 Kxd6 17. Ba3+ Kc7 18. Bb2 Nd5 19. Re1 Kd6 20. Ba3+ Kc7; and,15. g3 Rd8 16. Bd2 Rb8 17. b3 Bd7 18. Kf1 c5 19. Nb2 Bc7 20. Be2 Ne4 21. Rac1 Bc6 22. Be1,

both of which retain level chances. 15… Nd5 16. g3 Bd7 17. Kf2  Conceding Black an edge, when 17. Rac1 Rag8 18. Bxd5 cxd5 19. Nc5 Rb8 20. b4, is equal.  17… c5  Black does better with, 17…

h5 18. Rac1 h4 19. Bf1 Be8 20. Bg2 Bh5 21. Rg1 Nf6. 18. Nc3 Bc6 19. Nxd5+ exd5 20. Be2 Rag8 Not Black’s best choice. Full equality is maintained after either:   a) 20… gxf4 21. gxf4 Ke6 22.

Rg1 Rhg8 23. Bc3 Be7 24. Rxg8 Rxg8 25. Rg1 Bh4+ 26. Kf1 Rxg1+ 27. Kxg1 Bf6 28. Bxf6 Kxf6; or b) 20… Ke6 21. Bc3 gxf4 22. gxf4 Rhg8 23. Rg1 Be7 24. Rxg8 Rxg8 25. Rg1 Rxg1 26. Kxg1 Bf6 27.

Bxf6 Kxf6 28. Kf1. 21. Bc3   Now Philidor unleashes a further refinement of his strategic vision, standardly predicated on a tsunamic pawn advance. In this case it involves sacrificing rook

for bishop.  21… gxf4 22. Bxh8  White does marginally better after: 22. gxf4 d4 23. exd4 Rg2+ 24. Ke3 cxd4+ 25. Bxd4 Re8 26. Bh5 Rc8 27. Rg1 Rcg8 28. Rxg2 Rxg2 29. Bf3 Bxf3 30. Kxf3. 22…

fxe3+ 23. Kxe3 Rxh8 24. Bf3 Ke6 25. Rd2?! Black gains an initiative after this inaccuracy. White should have preferred 25. Kf2 Rb8 26. b3 Be5 27. Rac1 Kd6 28. Rc4 Bd4+ 29. Rcxd4 cxd4 30.

Rxd4 Rc8 with an almost level position. 25… d4+ 26. Kf2 Be4 27. Re1 Kd5 28. Rde2 Re8 29. g4 29… Bxf3?  This second exchange sacrifice is an inspired decision, but objectively it represents a

serious error by Black. A level position is retained after the less ambitious: 29… Rf8 30. Rxe4 fxe4 31. Rxe4 Kc4 32. h4 Kd3 33. g5 hxg5 34. hxg5 Rf5 35. g6 Bf8 36. Rg4 Bg7. 30. Rxe8 fxg4

31. h3?  That White is still in quite good shape after this inaccuracy, is a testament to the scope of Black’s twenty-ninth move error. White should have continued: 31. Rd8 c4 32. Re7 Kc5

33. Rxa7 c3 34. bxc3 dxc3 35. Ra3 Bxh2 36. Rxc3+ Kb6 37. Rh8, when he is close to winning. 31… c4? Black’s error regifts White his prior advantage. Better was 31… d3 32. R1e3 c4 33. Rxf3

gxf3 34. Kxf3 Kc5 35. b3 cxb3 36. axb3 Kb4 37. Rd8 Be5, when Black limits White’s edge. 32. Rg8?? This blunder turns the game on its head. White’s pronounced momentum was telling, if not

winning, after: 32. hxg4 Bxg4 33. Rd8 d3 34. Ree8 Kc6 35. Re4 Bc5+ 36. Kg3 Kc7 37. Kxg4 Kxd8 38. Kf3 c3 39. bxc3. In fact White is spoilt for choice as, 32. Rd8 d3 33. Ree8 Kc5 34. hxg4 Bxg4

35. Re4 d2 36. Rxd6 Kxd6 37. Rd4+ Kc5 38. Rxd2 accomplishes the same outcome. 32… d3 33. Ke3?!  In case things weren’t bad enough, White errs further. Correct was 33. Rb1 or hxg4. 33… Bc5+

34. Kf4 d2  and wins 0-1 Pancho, our silicon brain, gives: 35. Rb1 (35. Ra1 d1=Q 36. Rxd1+ Bxd1 37. hxg4 Bd6+ 38. Ke3 Be7 transposes) 35… Bd6+ 36. Ke3 d1=N+ 37. Rxd1+ Bxd1 38. hxg4 Be7 39.

Rg7 Bg5+ 40. Kf2 Ke4 41. Ke1 Bxg4 42. Rxa7 h5, with a decisive advantage to Black. This game is seminal. By modern computer standards, it is subject to substantial criticism, but as an

example of early chess science, expounding the influence of the impact of massed pawn infantry (the soul of chess according to Philidor’s theories) and as a display of strategic sacrifices

of the exchange (rook for bishop) it is truly remarkable . I would like to express my thanks to the leading chess historian Richard Eales for providing essential information, plus checking,

as well as endorsing, my view that the preceding game may well represent at best one of the “lost” Stamma vs. Philidor encounters or, at worst, be indicative of the general thrust of their

otherwise vanished clashes.  Ray’s 206th book, “  Chess in the Year of the King  ”, written in collaboration with Adam Black, and his 207th, “  Napoleon and Goethe: The Touchstone of Genius

 ” (which discusses their relationship with chess) can be ordered from both Amazon and Blackwells. His 208th, the world record for chess books, written jointly with chess playing artist

Barry Martin,  Chess through the Looking Glass ,  is now   available from Amazon.  A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an

important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._