A Study of 19th Century Chess

See: Considerations on Negro Slavery by Alexander McDonnell, 1824

Who would have thought the Lancet and chess would be connected!

Fascinating  stuff batgirl! 

M'Donnell business affairs are a bit of a mystery. How successful he might have been isn't really known. I do know he died in the Tavistock House, Tavistock-square, at that time a boarding house, where he was living.  Do wealthy men live in boarding houses?

Westminster Papers, Aug. 1, 1877
A BRACE OF CHESS NOTES
Dear Mr. Editor,-—In your July number, p. 40, appears a page headed as above.  I briefly state that the letter from the late Alexander MacDonnell, was written to me, and must have been given away after his death, with many others of the English and French champions, to persons begging of me their autographs. The note in question does not apply to La Bourdonnais, On the pending matches with whom my friend would never have stooped to allude; but to the match then going on between Paris and Westminster, in which I asked the opinion of McDonnell too late to be of service to our Side. McDonnell was a member of the British Club. but took no part in the match from disgust of its conduct having been found out by Mr. Lewis, who took the job on condition of having all the French stake if we gained the day!  McDonnell had lived some years at Tavistock House, a boarding house in Tavistock Square. I was at the time of his death travelling through Holland, so could not attend his funeral. On waiting directly afterwards on the lady of Tavistock House where he died, I learnt that his illness was short (Bright's Disease) and that he had frequently paced his bed-room in great agony till daylight in the later stages of the horrid complaint. When we buried the great Frenchman, having the sole conduct of the funeral, I naturally chose the spot in Kensal Green Cemetery, adjoining McDonnell‘s grave, where the two heroes lie accordingly side by side. While playing with McDonnell, La Bourdonnais rarely uttered a word, and smoking was not allowed at that time in any Chess room till night. After dinner, giving the Rook, his mirth chiefly existed then in burlesque quotations from the great French dramatists, (I never heard him attempt a song) accompanied with potent draughts of “ Burton ale beer," of which I have seen him attack the third quart bottle, before I left the room at ten o’clock. ...
George Walker

I don't trust Wiki in these matters.  There's been some deep research into M'Donnel's life, records and such, and much of it inconclusive. His financial situation is one of those inconclusive things. When he died, his will (which was made shortly before his death - he died Sept. 14 and his will was drafted on Sept. 2 -indicating that his Bright's Disease, at best, took a sudden turn for the worse) order the destruction of all his papers other than certain business-related ones which were willed to his brother-in-law, John Mulholland (married to his sister Eliza), indicating their separtate businesses were somehow related. It's guessed that Mulholland loaned M'Donnell the money for his business ventures. 

One of the most important occurances in the 1830s was the establishment of the Westminster Chess Club.  depending on  the source, this happened in 1831,1832 or even 1833:

Dates and names, even sequences of event get all mixed up and confused even by single individuals and especially in  contradictory accounts.  From looking through old newspapers, I've come to the opionion that the original Westminster  Chess Club that met at 20 Bedford Street, Covent-garden opened in the Spring of 1833 and closed it's doors when  Huttmann went bankrupt in the Fall of 1838:

This was the dream of George Walker - estabishing a chess club on the West End available and accessible to anyone.

So, how did this come about? 

In 1830 a man named John Henry Huttmann, a entrpreneur and purveyor of fine cigars, opened a cigar divan at 20  Bedford-street in Covent-garden. He pesuaded Walker to open a chess club in his building - with the hope of securing a  permanent customer base.  Walker, who needed little convincing, opened the club, bringing in most of the members from  the defunct Pery Club and from Lewis chess studio. Although the president of the club was Capt. Medwin (possibly  selected because he was a well-known literary figure with good connections), the star was, of course, Alexander M'Donnell.  The Westminster Club  contested a correspondence match with the Paris Cercle.  M'Donnell refrained from taking part since Lewis would only play if he received the £100 (so say £50) stake money should they win.  The Parisean team, lead by St. Amant,  won 2-0.  Walker claimed Westminster lost, not for lack of talent, but out of apathy.

Labourdonnais had visited London in 1823 and, according the Walker, "all presented themselves in the lists and all were beaten."  Returning in 1825, he found an English girl, Eliza Waller Gordon, to marry.  Labourdonnais returned to London once again in 1834.  At this time the English had one player they hoped could equal him, M'Donnell.  They contracted to play a match of 21 games, draws not counting.  The games strated at noon or 1:00 and lasted until 6:00-7:00 PM.  They played nearly every day but Sundays.  M'Donnell  took an early lead, but then Labourdonnais rallied winning 16-5. Four games were drawn.  M'Donnell wrote to Walker describing his problem:
 "I am much obliged to you for your very friendly letter.  I acknowledge I am sensitive and nervous in playing, more on account of the kind partiality of friends, than from personal anxiety about the games. I cannot get over this, and I fear it will be fatal to my success. Let us not, however, underrate the Frenchman's powers. He is the most finished player of the age, and all I can expect is to play up to him after some practice. The openings may not be happy, but how can you mend them; I broke down in my Bishop's Gambit, the game of all others I most relied upon, and possibly it would be the same with any other attacking game. The fact is, practice of a superior kind is indispensable to form a first-rate player. I am sure La B. will play K. P. one sq. in all the games, until he gets the ascendancy. You will think it odd, but I cannot mend my opening.  On the whole the K. P. one sq. is a most perplexing game, and I think all the ways laid down in the book, give the second player the best game,"  &c."

At any rate, M'Donnell demanded a rematch and they agreed to a nine game match, excluding draws. M'Donnell unveiled the Evans Gambit of which La Bourdonnais was unfamiliar and was able win the match 5-4. There were no drawns in this match.

Of course, now there had to be a third match. This one was for 11 games. La Bourdonnais won 6-5. There was one draw.

Since the situation was getting less and less conclusive, a fourth match was arranged. This was to consist of 11 games.  Labourdonnais won this match by the large margin on 8-3, but there were 7 draws. Labourdonnais tried using the Evans Gambit himself with positive results.

A fifth match, of 11 games, was arranged. Labourdonnais won 7-4 with only 1 draw. The Evans Gambit was the opening of choice by both combatants in this match.

There was a 6th match that ended prematurely. Of the 9 games played, M'Donnell won 5-4.  Labourdonnais had to return to Paris for business just as M'Donnell had to return to Belfast, so the adjourned the match by agreement.  The match never resumed and La Bourdonnais was deemed the clear winner.  M'Donnell died from Bright's Disease almost exactly a year later at age 37.  He was buried as Kensall Green Cemetery where Labourdonnais, at 43 (some say age 45, even "Le Palamède" - but Walker, who supported Labourdonnais and his wife in his final months, paid for his burial, selected the site and had written on the headstone that he was 43), would also be buried right beside him five years later.

The games were meticulously recorded by William Greenwood Walker, George Walker and William Lewis. However, there has always been some discrepancies in the records and not a little bit of argument. But there is a generally agreed upon set.

This match was important on several levels. First, no previous match had been this involved nor this revealing of the two opponents skills and weaknesses. No other match had ever been so well recorded, nor so promptly published. No other match up to this time had ever been so thoroughly studied and annotated.  No other match had ever been so praised and admired by adherents to both parties. Most importantly, no other match had ever generated the level of interest as did this one. It served as a catalyst to inspire an unheard of wave of popularity for the game.  Ironically, a very mediore player, William Greenwood Walker, played perhaps an almost pivotal role, but certainly one for which no praise could suffice, in the history of the game.

The opponents were equal in talent, the main and telling difference being Labourdonnais' knowledge of opening theory. McDonnell's mentor was William Lewis who disdained the study of openings. The games are surprisingly modern and often positional and they are typically numbered 1-85 in the order in which they were played.

According to British chess historian, G.H. Diggle:
"Of the 85 games, the following have been agreed by generations of critics to be "the greats:" Games 17, 47, 62 and 78 won by the Frenchman and 5, 21, 30, 50 and 54 won by McDonnell."

Labourdonnais returned to Paris during his match with M'Donnell to handle some business affairs.  He had had some  severe financial reverses from bad land investments in the early 1830s and even wrote a book, "Nouveau Traite du Jeux  des Echecs,"  in 1833 trying to recoup some of his losses. Labourdonnais once lived in his family estate in St. Maloe, "with  five servants and two carriages" (Walker, Bell's Life, Dec. 17, 1840) but that was all gone now to satisfy his debts.  In 1836, Labourdonnais co-founded the periodical,  "Le Palamède,"  with Joseph Méry.  "Le Palamède" was the very first periodical devoted to chess. On shakey financial footing  from the start, it folded in 1839 probably because Labourdonais suffered a stroke and dropsy in 1838.  St. Amant revived it  in 1842 and edited it for 5 years.   Labourdonnais returned to England with his wife in the late November of 1840,  apparenly hoping to eke out a living playing chess for a flat rate whereas he couldn't support himself in Paris playing for stakes. But his health was too bad and it was getting worse every day (Walker called it "ascites  accompanied by scrotal hernia"). Walker headed a commission to support Labourdonnais and his wife. Labourdonnais died on Sunday, Dec. 13, 1840.

1837 saw a remarkable event in Germany - the formation of the Berliner Pleiades. This somewhat loose group of German  players dedicated to the scientific approach to chess consisted of Rudolf von Bilquer, Dr. Ludwig Bledow, Bernard Horwitz,  Wilhelm Hanstein, Cart Mayet, Carl Schorn and one of the finest 19th century players and historians, Tassilo von  Heydebrand und der Lasa.  Bilguer started the project of authoring the now-famous "Handbuch des Schachspiels," which has been constanly updated and  improved by various analysts after his death - v. d. Lasa actually published the first copy in Bilguer's name in 1843, three  years after Bilguer's death.  Germany was becoming a major chess power.

In England, the passing of M'Donnell left a vacancy in the chess hierarchy. Staunton wasn't yet on the scene and the best active players were George Walker, Popert (whose first name is in dispute, whether "H. W." of "William M.," with the "H. W." standing for "Herr William.") and Frederick Lokes Slous (or Selous). From the extant record of games, there seems little doubt that Slous was by far the best of the three. Slous' active chess life would end abrupty in 1841 due to personal and health reasons although he would continued to play a bit into his old age.

Below are two games played by M'Donnell, one against Walker and one against Slous, both at odds of "Pawn & Two."

What does it mean 'playing for a flat rate'? A sponsor would pay him a constant fee while the sponsor would keep the stakes after a win or suffer the loses?

Yes. In 1839 Walker had sent Labourdonnais an offer to come to London and receive actually a guarantee rather than a flat rate- that wasn't the best description.  As it reads, Labourdonnais would play at the St. George Club, presumably for stakes, but with a guaranteed income after expenses. The original offer was for a few months, but given Labourdonnais' destitute condition and deteriorating health, as well and the English chess players' admiration for the champion, it seems that it was factored in that Labourdonnais would likely remain in London. 

In Paris, Labourdonnais was finding it increasingly difficult to make a living at chess at the Regence, explaining "It takes a long while to win five francs there. If you win two games running, at a franc, giving rook, the loser then demands rook and knight."

H. J. R. Murray wrote ("BCM," Nov. 1908):
"When  Louis Charles de Labourdonnais died on December 13th, 1840 in his forty-fourth year, the first period of nineteenth-century chess may be said to have come to a close. The chief characteristics of the period had been the  concentration of master-play in London and Paris, a tradition which had been established by Philidor, and the supremacy of  William Lewis and his great pupil, Alexander MacDonnell, in England. and of Deschapelles and his first pupil,  Labourdonnais, in France. The most interesting events of the period were the somewhat informal reunion of these two  French players with Lewis and John Cochrane in Paris in April. 1821 ; the immortal series of matches between MacDonnell  and Labourdonnais, at Westminster, in 1834 ; the correspondence matches London v. Edinburgh, in 1824-8, and Paris v.  Westminster, in 1834-6 ; and the renewed interest in the chess problem in connection with which I may name Lewis,  William Bone, and the Rev. H. Bolton of Oby, Norfolk. Of possibly greater importance for the future development of chess  was the revival of German chess, the work of the German problemist and player, Mendheim (D. 1836), and in a more  special measure of that talented group of seven young Berlin players, the " Pleiades." The results of this revival were,  however, only apparent in the following period.

The new period opened with but little promise. Writing of Labourdonnais in 1841, George Walker said " In life he was  unrivalled as a chess-player ; in death he leaves no one worthy to fill his place " ; and, indeed, the age of giants seemed to  have passed away. Lewis and Deschapelles, it is true, were still alive, but both had long withdrawn from the arena. Lewis  never showed any desire to reclaim the sceptre which he laid down of his own free will in 1827-8. Deschapelles, on the  other hand, still from his tent claimed to be the first player of his time, and played occasionally at the odds of Pawn and two,  or at his weird game of Pawns, while he would from time to time, when the noise of the exploits of the younger generation  penetrated to his retirement, emerge and blow his trumpet lustily with a challenge to the world to prove that he was still  alive, but which was never intended to be taken seriously. The leading players in full practice were all on a lower level than  MacDonnell and Labourdonnais, and had received odds from the one or the other.

In France the wine merchant, St. Amant, a descendant of the old nobility, and in chess a pupil of both Deschapelles and  Labourdonnais, stood out as the best player left ; in England, George Walker, Frederick L. Slous, and H. W. Popert were  probably the leading players in active play. I gave Walker's life in this Magazine in 1906 : Slous was a player of much  promise, who, according to Walker, would have proved a formidable rival to Staunton had not ill-health compelled him to  abandon chess : Popert had played much with MacDonnell, and had a reputation for defensive play. Mongredien once  remarked : " That when the position was critical and required deep calculation, his opponent had ample time to go away,  eat his lunch, and return before Popert had made up his mind what to do." He must have been an uncomfortable  antagonist, and it would be small consolation to his weary adversary to know that Popert always made the best move in  such circumstances.

But while " The Old Guard " were doing their best for the reputation of English chess, there was a new player rapidly  climbing up to their level who was to snatch the sceptre from them all. With his advent the second period of nineteenth- century chess commenced—the period which saw the inception of international tournaments, the success of the chess  magazine, and the recognition of the weekly chess column as an institution. The culminating point of the period was the visit  of Paul Morphy to Europe, in 1858-9.

It is to this period that Howard Staunton belongs. In the previous period it had been usual to speak of players in terms of  their early instructors in the game. Thus MacDonnell, Cochrane, and Walker were the " pupils " of Lewis, as Lewis himself  had been the " pupil " of Sarratt. Staunton stood in no such relationship to his predecessors. He was the product of the  Divan and other West End chess resorts.
. . .

In 1836 I find the name of H. Staunton, Esq., among the subscribers to Greenwood Walker's Selection of Games at Chess,  actually played in London, by the late Alexander M'Donnell, Esq. (London, 1836). This is probably his first public  appearance in connection with chess. In later life he used to say that he had never actually seen either MacDonnell or  Labourdonnais, and that the first good player he ever encountered was Popert. It is somewhat extraordinary that he missed  Labourdonnais, who was in England after Staunton had taken to chess, and played in the resorts where Staunton himself  visited. In 1836 Staunton was a mere tyro, and when St. Amant played a short series of games in that year with George  Walker (St. Amant. 5 ; Walker 3 ; one draw), he estimated that either player could easily have given him a Rook. But he  rapidly improved. Regular practice at the Divan, at Huttmann's, in Covent Garden ; at the " Shades," Old Savile House,  Leicester Square ; and at Goode's, Ludgate Hill, soon told its tale. In 1840 he played a match with Popert at the Old  London Chess Club, and won by the odd game, and chess-players began to recognise him as a player of distinction. In the  course of the next two years he established his position as the first English player of the day. I recognise three factors as  contributing to this result.

First and foremost I would place the remarkable series of games which he contested with John Cochrane during 1841-2.  Cochrane, a Barrister of the Middle Temple, had held a legal appointment in India since about 1826, and was home on  eighteen months' furlough. As a young man he had been an enthusiastic player, with a brilliant style and fertile imagination It  has been said of him that he invented many attacks in various openings, but never a sound one among them. Their novelty  was their success in their author's hands. The Cochrane Gambit is called after him, though he was not the originator of it.  Although he had been out of serious chess for fifteen years, he returned o it with enthusiasm, and soon convinced London  players that his old reputation had a real basis. For the last year of his stay he continued to play regularly, and proved  himself easily the superior of every English player that he encountered, with the exception of Howard Staunton. He played Io  games also with St. Amant, in 1841-2, on one of his annual visits to England, and won 6 games to his opponent's 4. With  Staunton some 120 games are extant on level terms, and Staunton led in the proportion of two to one. Just before  Cochrane's return to India, Staunton began to give him the odds of Pawn and move, and of seven games at these odds  each player won three, the other game being drawn. The two players used to meet at the " Shades," and they played for a  guinea a game. At the same resort Staunton played many games with Mr. J. Brown, Q.C., a strong London amateur.
In the second place I place Staunton's success in giving odds to other players of reputation. At a later date there were  players who sneered at this success and hinted that Staunton had made a special study of the odds of Pawn and move and  Pawn and two, and that he won because his opponents were less familiar with the game at odds. There never was a more  baseless assertion. The game at odds was probably more played from 1830-50 than at any period in England, and the  very men who failed against Staunton were regularly giving the same odds themselves to other players.

And, thirdly, Staunton's literary activity kept his name prominently before the chess public. In 1841 he saw an opening for a  chess magazine that should, above all things, give a plentiful supply of games of recent date, and, after a very brief career  as part of the " British Miscellany," the chess portion of this magazine was placed upon an independent footing as the  Chess Player's Chronicle. Staunton was both owner and editor of this magazine from 1841-52. In its pages he published  week by week his best games. thinly disguising the names of each antagonist under initials or describing him as " one of  the strongest Metropolitan amateurs of the day." By means of these games, and others which he published between other  leading players of the day, it was possible  for country chess-players to draw a line between players and infer Staunton's  superiority. But in the magazine I regret to find also the beginnings of those petty personalities, likes and dislikes, that were  to accompany Staunton throughout his whole chess career. I would fain ignore them if I could, but they are far too prominent.  The "odium scaccicum" is a very real thing, and chess-players seem particularly prone to petty jealousies. The  dispossessed magnates of chess were angry at the success of an interloper, and whispered imputations on Staunton's  private character. It is possible that his irregular birth made Staunton specially sensitive to such things, but, instead of  ignoring the gossip, he hit out at his enemies, real or supposed, under the cover of answers to correspondents. There were  people who refused t0 credit the existence of these correspondents. On the other hand, Staunton was very vain of his chess  successes, and gave offence by his patronising airs in the magazine. And so English players were soon divided into two  camps, the pro-Staunton party, who lauded their hero to the skies and the anti-Staunton party, whose one desire was to see  him humiliated, and who did not care even if it should prove to he a foreigner who unseated the English champion. It must  be admitted once for all that Staunton did not always fight fairly. He misused his editorial position again and again, and in  this way gave his enemies openings of which they were not slow to avail themselves.

No man was ever worse served by his friends or suffered more as a result of his own indiscretions.

You really, really need to combine some of your posts and put them in book form.  I mean, you really need to do this.

Thanks Rob. But I'm cyber-hooked. Do you think anyone much is actually reading all this or am I wasting my precious time?

You have players of all strengths reading and enjoying what you have posted; your fans are not fly-by-nighters, they love the history and personalities as much as the game itself--and you are the best at rescuing the people that made chess without being chess.  I've said this before, and I'll say it again, that I'd buy your books on chess history because they are about the people who made the game the game, and what twists of fate made the events possible, and I (among others) love that stuff--I mean, we all don't say this enough, but, thanks, Sarah, you do great work in covering the stories that chess history has overlooked or dismissed.  And there are always going to be a segment of chess players worldwide that are interested in the history as well as the personalities as well as the twists--well, your fans.  I'm not saying you would crack the NYT bestseller lists, but you would have a target audience that is self-identified and enjoys this stuff, so why not?  And if it takes off, you might just be able to quit your night job. 

Thank you Batgirl. Always interesting.

Although he was born in 1787, when we first hear of him, William Lewis was a man of 25 or so and had an appointment in the merchant's office in London. We know he entered the music trade in the early 1820s and in 1826-7 he patented an improvement in the construction of pianofortes.  This, however, was not a financial success any more that was the chess club that he had formed. Facing bankruptcy, he was able, through his friends, to secure a post in the secretaryship of the Family Endowment Society at 12 Chatham Place, Blackfriars, London.  This position which he held for many years, allowed him to eventually retire with a more than adequate pension. But Lewis needed a lot of money to turrn his situation and so he entered the literary field, publishing a problem collection (mostly those of Rev. Bolton, but a few of his own creation) in 1827 and his own "Lessons on Chess." In 1831, he published the first in his series. "Progressive Lesson," and the second in the series in 1832.  That same year he published "Fifty Games of Chess." That book described his visit to Stroebeck, Germany (see: The Little Chess Village, Part II ).  Lewis' books were highly valued and even the Berliner Pleiades praised them immensely.

For the next 10 years, however, Lewis found himself at odds with George Walker whose goal was to make books available and affordable to the common man.  By selling books cheaper, Walker initiated a price war.

In the "BCM" 1906, HJR Murray explained:
"Lewis' books were very expensive and Walker thought he saw room for cheaper chess books, which would not compete with Lewis at all - a fallacious argument, as Lewis soon fond out to his cost.  Chess-players will not give £2 for a book on openings when they can get a useful one for 5/-. The result was a cutting-down of prices all around.  Lewis brought out, in 1835, "Chess for Beginners," at 5/- ; Walker followed in 1837, with "Chess Made Easy," for 3/6/  Lewis replied with the "Chess Board Companion," at half-a-crwn.  Walker gave in at this point, for, "it was clear," he says, "that if I carried on the war with "Chess for the Masses," at a single shiling, my competitor would rejoin with a sixpenny "Chess for the Millions." 

But there was more to the story as can be seen in Lewis' venomous preface to his "A Treatise on the Game of Chess: Containing an Introduction to the Game, and an Analysis of the Various Openings of Games, with Several New Modes of Attack and Defence; to which are Added, Twenty-five New Chess Problems on Diagrams" :

"I cannot close this Preface without noticing the conduct of Mr. George Walker, in his Treatise on Chess, published in 1833, and again in 1841.
Long after the publication of the former edition I was informed by a friend that Mr. W. had been guilty of a wholesale . . . what shall I call it ? . . . appropriation of many pages of original matter from my Second Series of Lessons, published in 1832. I found, on examination, to my great surprise and regret, that Mr. W., who on all occasions has vehemently (though not always justly) exclaimed against the practice of " plundering " from others without acknowledgment, had himself, without permission from me, or any avowal on his part, copied from my work what he well knew was alone my property, and this not a move or two to criticise or comment on, but whole pages.
This is no doubt an easy way of obtaining reputation as a Chess writer, but probably few persons would be found to follow Mr. W.'s example in this particular.
In the last edition of Mr. W.'s book, whether from a returning sense of propriety or from some friendly hint, he says in the Preface, after mentioning my name, that he has not hesitated to avail himself occasionally of my labours, "feeling that to shrink from naming a contemporary author is equally contemptible as ridiculous;"  he also states that he holds  "such borrowing to be perfectly legitimate, when the avowal of obligation is openly proclaimed;"  but Mr. W. need not surely be reminded, that where there is a borrower there must also be a lender; and that before making use of another person's property, it is indispensable to obtain the consent of the owner.
I am not aware that I have myself taken any original matter from Mr. W.'s book; if I have so done, it has been from inadvertence, for which I beg his and my reader's pardon.
Whether Mr. Walker will have the manliness, to confess that he has done wrong, and is sorry for it, is a matter that concerns himself, but is of no importance to me.
                           12, Chatham Place, Blackfriars, December, 1843.

The 1840s were off to an interesting start.

You're writing faster than I can read. Don't you have some yard work or something? 

Keep it up. Good stuff.

Recalling William Schlumberger, the director of the Turk in the United States, one of his legacies was introducing Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint Amant to some of the finer points of chess.  After Schlumberger sailed to America in 1827, St.  Amant remained at the Café de la Régence gaining the needed experience to attain his world-class level.
In 1836 St. Amant, then a wine merchant, visited London and beat George Walker in a short match +5-3=1.  Shortly after this he all but abandonned chess.  Walker noted in "Fraser's Magazine" in 1940, "It is matter of universal regret that St.  Amant has in a measure fallen away from his allegiance to the chequered flag he once followed, by night and day, through  France and England, and now confines his chess to Sunday evenings." But St. Amant, considered one of the handsomest of men and a fine dresser ["Certainly, no other player in the world is more agreeable to look over." - Walker ;  "The elegant  St. Amant was a dandy, almost a 'dude.' He was quite too awfully exquisite." -Theo. Tilton "Chess-monthly," Sept. 1886],  had many vocations and advocations to occupy his time. During his life he was a wine merchant, a clerk, an actor, an explorer, a diplomat and the French chess champion.  A notoriously slow player, he ironically was the first player known to have suggested time-limits in chess.  St. Amant apparrently returned to chess in 1841 when he took over Labourdonnais' defunct monthly, "Le Palemède."  In the 1830s St. Amant was considered inferior only to Labourdonnais, Deschapelles and Hyacinthe Boncourt (a contemporary of Philidor and a brief director of Maelzel's automaton). Whether he was inferior to Boncourt in reality seems hard to prove and that sentiment may have been a courtesy to that great player. But since Labourdonnais and Boncourt died in 1840 and Deschapelles, who did beat St. Amant 3 to 2 in 1842, had in effect retired from chess, or, at least, never claimed the departed Labourdonnais' title, St. Amant became the 'de facto' French champion.
 
There are some peculiarities or incongruities I've noticed.  St. Amant at times demonstrated a 'comme ci comme ça' attitude towards chess. Also, St. Amant had been described: "None of the French players approach St. Amant for courteousness of demeanour and readiness to oblige. He never sneers at a bad player; never taunts the unfortunate, nor insults the conquered" (Walker, 1840).  His style was Romantic, or as Walker put it: "St. Amant's game unites the dashing style of Greco, with the ingenuity and steadiness of a veteran chief."  In a few years, St. Amant would be playing Howard Staunton (who, later said, that when he first saw St. Amant - probably in 1836 - that the Frenchman coud give him a Rook) in the most important match since Labourdonnai-M'Donnell, a clashing of the styles of Greco and Philidor, all lackadaisicalness supressesed, with recriminations and excuses unbefitting gentlemen or proponents of the Royal Game.

The Russian player/analyst Carl Jaenisch was coming into his own in the late 1830s.  He had beaten Lionel Kieseritsky of Dorpat, +1=1, in a correspondence match. Kieseritsky then left Dorpat for Paris and would become a chief rival to St. Amant as well as the house player at the Café de la Régence,  although the two men never played together.  But Jaenisch as unable to best the German Pleiades, losing to Bledow then to v.d. Lasa and Hanstein.  Petroff moved to Warsaw in 1840 where he served as Under-Secretary of State,  but by tha same year the United States hadn't really produced any players to compare to the Europeans or Russia, but, then again, Paul Morphy was only 3 years old.

Fascinating!

Petroff predated and exceeded Jaenisch but they were both extremely important in the development of chess in Russia.  A little later came the Urusoff brothers, Shumoff and finally Schiffers who was Tschigorin's direct influence.

I had written a five part article called The Childhod of Russian Chess, covering the development of chess in Russia from the beginning of the 19th century up to Tschigorin. It also contains a link to a 6th page just on Petroff.