Which Alexander Cunningham is which?



There were 2 notable Alexander Cunninghams, in the early 1700's, both
learned and Whiggish Scotsmen who spent time in Holland: one a classical
scholar who dies in the Hague in 1730, the other a diplomat and historian
who dies in London in 1737.



So which was the famous chess player, who gave us the Cunningham gambit?



Leibniz, who was mildly interested in chess, once wrote in some bafflement
to ask of the two 'Messieurs Synonymes' he had the honour to know, so it is
not surprising, says Eales, that modern historians have the same problem.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
Which Alexander Cunningham is which?



There were 2 notable Alexander Cunninghams, in the early 1700's, both
learned and Whiggish Scotsmen who spent time in Holland: one a classical
scholar who dies in the Hague in 1730, the other a diplomat and historian
who dies in London in 1737.



So which was the famous chess player, who gave us the Cunningham gambit?



Leibniz, who was mildly interested in chess, once wrote in some bafflement
to ask of the two 'Messieurs Synonymes' he had the honour to know, so it is
not surprising, says Eales, that modern historians have the same problem.

Phil Innes

According to Hooper and Whyld, it was the historian (1654-1737), not
the critic (1655-1730). "At one time it was thought that they were the
same person, but a letter in the _Scot's Magazine_, Oct. 1804,
established that they were two ... Then the gambit was attributed to
the critic, an opinion not reversed until Murray published his
findings in the _British Chess Magazine_, 1912"

On Nov 29, 3:10 pm, "Chess One" wrote:


There were 2 notable Alexander Cunninghams, in the early 1700's, both
learned and Whiggish Scotsmen who spent time in Holland: one a classical
scholar who dies in the Hague in 1730, the other a diplomat and historian
who dies in London in 1737.

So which was the famous chess player, who gave us the Cunningham gambit?

1. e4 e5
2. f4 ef
3. Nf3 Be7

---

Before the above sequence of moves was published,
there was published the similar in natu 1. e4 e5,
2. f4 ef, 3. Bc4 Be7.

In fact, what is now often called the Fischer defense
in the King's Gambit (3. Nf3 d6) was lifted from a Mr.
Stamma.

The true originators of such lines were likely patzers
who, if queried as to why they played so might well
have responded "well, I had to move something and
at least this way I get in one check before losing".
In almost every case where some now-famous player
gets the credit (or blame), it is very likely that some
unknown patzer got there first -- but such games were
never published.

An interesting development is that in those cases
where a famous master had announced, say, a
"mate-in-fifteen", we are now able to verify or, more
likely, refute the ancient analysis. Yet not much
headway has been made in the opening phase;
one cannot type in the moves above and come up
with anything resembling a definitive answer to the
question "who stands better?"


-- help bot

wrote in message
...


Chess One wrote:
Which Alexander Cunningham is which?



There were 2 notable Alexander Cunninghams, in the early 1700's, both
learned and Whiggish Scotsmen who spent time in Holland: one a classical
scholar who dies in the Hague in 1730, the other a diplomat and historian
who dies in London in 1737.



So which was the famous chess player, who gave us the Cunningham gambit?



Leibniz, who was mildly interested in chess, once wrote in some
bafflement
to ask of the two 'Messieurs Synonymes' he had the honour to know, so it
is
not surprising, says Eales, that modern historians have the same problem.

Phil Innes

According to Hooper and Whyld, it was the historian (1654-1737), not
the critic (1655-1730).

Yes - this is Alexander Cunningham 'diplomat and historian, and British
Minister to the Republic of Venice 1715-1720. First published London 1735,
in Captain Joseph Bertin's /the Noble Game of Chess/.

inter alia, I notice another response here about 'patzers' and so on, but
the real distinction is that heretofore the game had become one very much of
society manners, and by these efforts we find the real foundation of chess
as a serious and modern game. At least Leibniz thought so

"At one time it was thought that they were the
same person, but a letter in the _Scot's Magazine_, Oct. 1804,
established that they were two ... Then the gambit was attributed to
the critic, an opinion not reversed until Murray published his
findings in the _British Chess Magazine_, 1912"

There is one other early source I can find, again by Leibniz, in 1705:

"The Earl of Sunderland has beaten all our chess players here; his
supporters maintain that he is now superior to Mr. Cunningham, and that when
passing through Holland recently he defeated him five times running. They
also say he has written a book on this game in Latin*.

Had I known this, i would have sought the honour of an audience to hear
about it from him, for I approve strongly of rational games, not for their
own sake, but because they serve to perfect the art of thinking."

One other Leibniz mention occurs 2 years later, in 1707 wrote the same
correspondent,Thomas Burnet;

"how does your compatrior Mr. Cunningham? Shall we see nothing of him?
.... If he would only publish his thoughts on the art of playing chess, he
would oblige the public."

Eales adds that per the [my] note above, 'chess was now beginning to be
taken seriously by at least some intellectual figures.'

Though not much - with a 1730s publication in Paris, based on yet earlier
Dutch works, but still and yet, with Greco as base material.

Cordially, Phil Innes

*If we want a second mystery, this putative title seems not to have existed
at all.