A Study of 19th Century Chess

From "The Life and Writings of Henry Thomas Buckle"  by Alfred Henry Huth
"This Chess Tournament, which was to be associated with the Exhibition, and help to inaugurate an era of universal peace and goodwill, began, continued, and ended in quarrel. First, the London Chess Club began a quarrel with the St. George's Chess Club, a far more numerous and powerful body and the founder of the movement, and the chess papers were full of bitter personalities. After the Chess Tournament, disappointed players charged each other with every kind of treachery, and disputes resounded from all parts of Europe. "

The tournaments up to this time seem more like get-togethers where people play chess.  There was little talk of structure, rules, prizes - things that one might identify with a tournament.  To put together a tournament in days when travel was slow. treacherous and unpleasant:

    Ship travel in 1851
"From Liverpool each passenger receives weekly 5 lbs. of oatmeal, 2 1/2 lbs. biscuit, 1 lb. flour, 2 lbs. rice, 1/2 lb. sugar, 1/2 lb. molasses, and 2 ounces of tea. He is obliged to cook it the best way he can in a cook shop 12 feet by 6! This is the cause of so many quarrels and...many a poor woman with her children can get but one meal done, and sometimes they get nothing warm for days and nights when a gale of wind is blowing and the sea is mountains high and breaking over the ship in all directions. "  New York "Daily Times," Oct. 15, 1851.

...and when international communcation was just as slow and cumbersome - The first long distance communication devise, the telegragh, was still in its infancy - made ironing out the details particularly laborious and uncertain.

The 1851 tournament had tremendous flaws, as should be expected, and had much to be praised. 

Howard Staunton, probably the main promoter and organizer, wore the tournament book.  In his introduction, if one looks past his propensity to be a windbag, he makes a lot of good points.  He discussed the inception of the idea and explains why the tournament was held in England.  Below is a rather long except that gives some indications as to why England and why that time:

"The Great Exhibition of Industry and Art in London was the beginning of a new epoch in the history of civilization. The impetus which it would give to trade, the prospect of a long-continued peace, with all the other dependent advantages, the discussion of which has almost been exhausted by our daily press, gained for it unbounded popularity throughout the world. The opportunity which this universal gathering together of all nations afforded for effecting the long-desired Congress of Chess-players, was at once perceived. It was certain that there would soon be in London an assemblage of visitors from other lands such as England had never witnessed; that thousands would come who had never visited us before, and might never visit us again. Passports would be more freely given abroad; leave of absence would be obtained with comparative facility, and the expenses of travel would be considerably reduced. So many other motives and inducements, in short, would be combined to tempt foreign Chess-players to gratify their cherished wish of a general meeting, that what had always1 heretofore been deemed hopeless, seemed feasible at last. The occasion was not thrown away. Some members of the St. George's Chess Club proposed that a universal Chess Tournament, for all comers, should be held by subscription among British amateurs. The suggestion was adopted. Promptly seizing so splendid and favourable an opportunity, the originators of the design proceeded to the execution of their plan. A Committee of Management was speedily formed of influential patrons and votaries of the game. Before asking others to subscribe towards the funds, the Committee themselves gave a considerable sum. The secretary then forwarded subscription lists to the leading members of the provincial clubs throughout the kingdom, strictly confining his application to our countrymen. No money whatever was asked of foreigners. It was even determined to afford every possible facility to counterbalance the expense and inconvenience of those players who had to make a long journey to be present. As this was an important feature in the proceedings of the Committee of Management, it will be as well to notice here a few of the advantages which were held out to foreign players. 1st. To some the entrance-fee required before competition for the prizes, was altogether remitted. 2nd. To others a guarantee was given to reimburse their expenses, should they prove so unfortunate as to win no prize; and 3rd. Sums of money were reserved for matches between such eminent foreign players as had been unsuccessful in the general Tourney."

Staunton published letters from various invitees. Here is one from Otto von Oppen that I found intriguing:

"Highly Honoured Sir, "Berlin, April 11th, 1851.
"The purport of this letter is to advise you of the determination of Mr. Mayet to visit London, and be present at the Tournament. I request, therefore, you will be good enough to insert his name upon the list of combatants. I have also to announce that Mr. Auderssen will be equipped by us for the voyage, and to beg that his name also be enrolled among the competitors. * * '* Mr. Von Jaenisch writes me that he has the certain prospect of being present at the tournament, provided his petition for leave of absence is granted, and promises us the pleasure of a visit here. * * * Have the goodness to apply without delay respecting the enrolment of Messrs. Mayet and Anderssen, that I may assure them their commission has been fulfilled.
"With much esteem, yours truly, "To H. Staunton, Esq., "Von Oppen."
London."

After the tournament book came out, a pamphet called "A Review of 'The Chess Tournament'" was published, probably by Augustus Mongredien of the London Club, crtitcizing Staunton and the tournament in general. Here's a sampling:

 "It is a record of the games played in a Chess Tournament, held at the St. George's Club, in London, in 1851, a year remarkable for many interesting events. It will ever be most memorable as the year of the Great Industrial Exhibition of the World; but to chess-players it will also be marked as the year in which some attempt at a grand gathering of the players of all nations was made, and with partial success. "

....

"A brief statement of some facts connected with the projection of the Tournament will not be out of place. When first the scheme for a grand gathering of chess-players was propounded, the project was received with universal acclamations, and hopes were high that some great results would be accomplished. Enthusiasm pervaded the whole chess world to the farthest east, and penetrated even to the frozen regions of the north. Subscriptions were received from the most distant places, and everything promised a magnificent assemblage. The period was an exciting one. The Great Exhibition was shortly to be thrown open to its admiring millions; a sort of restless feeling or presage of great events pervaded most minds, and enthusiastic hearts warmed with a more genial glow and beat more trustfully than usual.

The London Chess Club felt the strongest wish to promote. an object so ardently desired by chess-players, and upon receiving an intimation from the St. George's Club upon the subject, they convened a meeting for the purpose of considering what Course should be pursued; this led to a correspondence between the two Clubs, which our readers will find in the Appendix.

In this correspondence, the London Chess Club stipulated for certain conditions or modifications which they thought indispensable, and which they considered as the only securities for the proper carrying out of the project. To their proposals the Saint George's Club refused to accede, and thereupon the London Club retired from any further participation in the scheme, wishing success to it (for the sake of chess), although strongly disapproving of the mode in which the affair had been concocted.

Here they thought the matter would have ended; they had been invited to join in an undertaking, and they had declined, upon considerations which they thought sufficiently powerful; and so no doubt it would, had not the ill-will of an individual towards the London Chess Club goaded him on to the most intemperate and incessant attacks on that body.

It is with the charges that he and some others have recklessly brought against the members of the London Chess Club that we have at present to deal. We can only ascribe his persistence in them to that fatuity which impunity is apt to beget in certain minds. The time has at length arrived for a complete exposure of the calumnies that have been heaped upon that Club; and if Mr. Staunton appears before the public in a character by no means enviable, he has only himself to blame in the matter.

The London Chess Club are charged "\'with having entered into a correspondence with distant societies to dissuade them from co-operating with the Saint George's Club."\'

The accusation is simply—false. "

One really interesting item claims:
"One fact connected with the subscriptions is to be noticed. It is curious to remark that the largest amounts come from the most distant places, no less than 150/., or considerably more than one-fourth of the whole, having come from India. The provinces and other places furnished about 170/., and the selfconstituted managing committee 115/.—these sums make a total of 435/., which, deducted from 551/. 10s. 6d., the total amount of the subscriptions, leaves about 115/. as the sum contributed by London! To what can be ascribed so startling a result but to some potent cause operating upon the mind of the metropolitan chess-playing public, that effectually prevented it from supporting the Tournament with its influence and purse. London, the richest and most populous city in the world, the very head quarters and metropolis of chess, contributed the paltry sum of 115/.!  Great indeed was the error of rejecting the proffered aid of the London players. That sum, and more, would have been covered in a few- minutes by the members of the London Club alone."

At any rate, Staunton made a casual notice of this pamplet in the "Chess Player's Chronicle" :

"REVIEW.
A Pamphlet has just appeared of so peculiar yet so worthless a character, that we can neither wholly omit to notice it, nor bring ourselves to dwell on it for more than a moment. It evinces ingenuity in one part— the title page; the composition of which has evidently taxed its author's powers to the utmost. This, his opus magnum, poor fellow (for there is nothing but drivelling in what follows that first well-considered pane), is couched in a form likely to deceive: "A Review of the Chess Tournament, by H. Staunton, Esq., With some Remarks, &c., by a Member of the London Club." This would mean that the work contained a review written by Mr. Staunton, and remarks written by the Member In reality, the work contains only the latter, which are an attack on Mr. Staunton and the St. George's Club, for the part they took in promotion of the great Chess Tournament of last year. The pamphlet itself may be divided into two portions. In the first, the author declares that the tournament which has taken place, and as it took place, was the most important and the greatest event in the annals of chess. In the second part, he labours to prove that the London Club were hostile to those persona,who promoted it, and to those proceedings which brought it into effect, and then lauds the London Club for such obstructiveness. Not to have shared in producing "the greatest event in the annals of chess," is no praise to' a chess club: what pr iise then is it to have malignantly thwarted those who did carry out that event, and who accomplished, with much labour and some personal expense, an achievement that now extorts the admiration of enemies, and that will for ever be remembered among the votaries of the noble pastime and exercise of chess? What praise is this?

It is the praise which the author of the pamphlet in question bestows on that shrivelled and exanimate body, whilom the London Chess Club, but now hardly a club at all in numbers, and perhaps rather more a card.playing, than a chess.playing meeting, if the truth were told.

We had almost forgotten another encomium bestowed by the pamphleteer on this society, that of having saved the immortal name of British hospitality, by giving cigars and potables to Herr Anderssen and his companions. Well, be it so. The credit of the cigars is entirely due to the London Chess Club: that of the tournament to the St. George's."

Professionalism in chess was once considered a low thing. Gentlemen believed, or convinced themselves, that chess was an intellectual pusuit that should be practiced only in moderation.  Staunton, who practically lived in clubs and coffeehouses during his formative chess years and who, by necessitity, played for small stakes, was very quick to proclaim himself an amateur.  Until the decade following Morphy, this seemed pretty common and normal. Once tournaments became plentiful and players could eke out a living, however meager, from playing chess, then "professional" was no longer a dirty word. The association between "Chess" and "Gentlemen" seemed to relax too.

Pretty much. There was no connotation of lack of skill.  Morphy was quite proud to be called an amateur.

So should we all! Amateur means that you play for the love of the game.

That's one of the beauties of the 19th century.

You put a lot of work into your blogs and topics.  I just want to say, "Thanks!"

History reminds us of a less frenetic world, in which civility was treasured.

At the time of the tournament St. Amant was in the United States - actually, his wife was in California setting up a business, making contacts and waiting for the arrival of her husband, the French Consul.  St. Amant received his counsulship post in California on Feb. 24, 1848 as a reward for his performance as captain in the French National Guard and commandant of the Tullieries Palace.  Due to buget restrictions, he wasn't able to leave Paris until May 2, 1851.  The play at international tournament began officially on May 27, 1851 while St. Amant was still en route to America.  It was an arduous four month journey to San Francisco. At the end of his stay in the United States, St. Amant did travel east to make his departure. He passed through New. Orleans, but never met Morphy. However, in Sept. of 1852,  he did get to New York City where he played the better known Charles Stanley. St. Amant was in NYC to catch a steamboat back to France. He met with the New York players, which included such names as Stanley, James Thompson, Colonel Charles Dillingham, John L. O'Sullivan (editor of the "Democratic Review"), Frederick Perrin at Delmonico's at 2:00 for chess and dinner.  Stanley and St. Amant had played 2 games the prior evening, each winning one. At Delmonico's they repeated those results.

Back to 1851. 
Others who couldn't participate in the tournamnt were von Heydebrand der Lasa , possibly the best player in Germany;  Alexander Petroff, Ilya Schumoff and Carl Jaenisch,  the cream of Russian chess; and Vincenz Grimm, originally of Hungary but living in exile in Syria.  Henry Thomas Buckle, the polyamath, attended (and in fact was the fifth highest sponsor) but didn't play as he was too involved in his work at the time.

Lowenthal traveled 5000 miles (according to Staunton) from Chicago to London to play. After what he thought was an embarrassing result, he was to ashamed to face his friends in Chicago and, instead, stayed in London where he ended up performing a yeoman's service to English chess during the next 3 decades.

The fifteen other players ("As eight prizes were offered by the committee for competition, the number of sixteen was as favourable as could have been devised for the ultimate pairing-off of the antagonists. The occurrence of this number was not an accidental circumstance. It being found impossible to raise the number of competitors to thirtytwo—another number equally capable of ultimate division — several excellent players had retired a few days previously, in order to give the committee the advantage offered by the number sixteen.  -Staunton) were:
-from Germany- Adolf Anderssen, Bernhard Horwitz and Carl Mayet;
-from England- Howard Staunton, Edward Shirley Kennedy, Hugh Alexander Kennedy, Henry Bird, Marmaduke Wyvill, Elijah Williams, Samuel Newham, Eduard Lowe,  Alfred Brodi and James Mucklow;
-from France -Lionel Kieseritzky;
-from Hungary - John Jacob Lowenthal and Jozsef Szen.

"Before proceeding to this ballot, Mr. Staunton called the  attention of the gentlemen assembled to the necessity of reconsidering the clause of the prospectus which limited each contest in the first melee to a rubber of three games. He had originally proposed that the minimum should be three out of five games, but from an apprehension that, in the event of a large number of combatants entering, the Tournament would be inconveniently protracted, the Committee had decided on two games out of three. The objection to a larger number of games, however valid, if thirty-two players or more had entered, was no longer tenable, now that they had reduced the combatants to sixteen; and in justice to those amateurs who had come from distant parts at great expense to be present at this memorable encounter, and his fairness to the subscribers, who naturally looked for a large collection of games from so many distinguished players, he earnestly entreated them to agree that the first series should be determined by three games out of five instead of two games out of three.

Mr. Staunton enforced his proposal by reference to Mr. Lewis, one of the oldest and most experienced players of the age;  and also to a letter which he had just received from Mr. Cochrane entreating him to get the decision as to the three games  reversed; and lastly, to an able player at his side, Mr. Loweuthal, who had travelled nearly fire thousand miles to take part in  the Tourney, but who, in common with all good players, objected to risk his repute, his loss of time, and his expenses, upon  so unsatisfactory a test of relative skill as a rubber of three games afforded. After much discussion, the opinion of the  players was taken by ballot, and the proposition was unfortunately lost by one vote."

Round 1

Wyvill - Lowe
                                 Wyvill
Horwitz - Bird
                                 Horwitz
Staunton - Brodie
                                 Staunton
Mucklow - E.S.Kennedy
                                 Mucklow
Anderssen - Kieseritsky
                                 Anderssen
Williams-Lowenthal
                                 Williams
Szen - Newham
                                 Szen
H.A.Kemedy - Mayet
                                 H.A.Kennedy
The result of this first series illustrated most disastrously the impolicy of playing short matches. With hardly an effort, eight players were already hors de combat, and altogether excluded from further participation in the general melee, while another in the first rank was in the most imminent danger of sustaining defeat from an inferior opponent. The absence of the two great Russian players, Jaenisch and Schumoff, was now more than ever deployed, as the presence of either of them would have prevented a comparatively weak provincial amateur from holding a place among the winners, to which, save by the merest accident, he never could have been entitled. With this issue terminated the first melee of the Tournament.

The eight winners, all of them prize-bearers, proceeded then to ballot for fresh adversaries, to determine the relative rank of their prizes.

Round 2

Anderssen - Szen
                                 Anderssen
Wyvill -H.A.Kennedy
                                 Wyvill
Staunton - Horowitz
                                 Staunton
Williams - Mucklow
                                 Williams

The four winners in this second section, were Wyvill, Anderssen, Staunton, and Williams; the losers, prize-bearers still, Szen, Captain Kennedy, Horwitz, and Mucklow. The four first-mentioned, in drawing lots, were paired thus: Wyvill against Williams, and Staunton against Anderssen; and the four latter thus: Kennedy against Mucklow, and Horwitz against Szen. To deal first with the second division, Captain Kennedy won every game from Mr. Mucklow; and Szen, to the surprize of everybody, won all the games of Horwitz. Mr. Mucklow was beaten this time with extraordinary ease, Captain Kennedy not choosing to expend the whole of four days upon so unimportant a contest. Horwitz, as the games too plainly testify, played deplorably beneath his strength. We seek in vain, throughout the match, for one flash of that brilliant and original genius which distinguishes his best efforts. Mr. Williams defeated Mr. Wyvill three times running in the opening games of their contest; but Mr. Wyvill, who is decidedly one of the finest players in England, recovered himself gallantly, and beat his adversary, in magnificent style, all the four next games.

There was now but one series of matches undecided. The two winners of the first division in the third series, were left to contend for the first and second prizes: the third and fourth had to be competed for by the two losers in the same division. Similar contests for the fifth and sixth, and the seventh and eighth prizes, remained to be undertaken by the winners and two losers in the second division. Again, to take the second division first; these matches were not of long duration. Owing to a misunderstanding, Mr. Horwitz and Mr. Mucklow did not play at all.

Round 3 semi-final

Wyvill - Williams
                                 Wyvill
Anderssen - Staunton
                                 Anderssen
H.A.Kennedy - Mucklow
                                 H.A.Kennedy
Szen - Horowitz
                                 Horowitz

Round 4
Anderssen - Wyvill
                                 Anderssen
                               
Anderssen - winning a silver cup and £183
Wyvill - £55
play-offs determined the following
Williams - £39
Staunton - £27
Szen - £20
H.A. Kennedy - £13

                                
In the mean time, the provincial matches had also been decided. The second of June was the day appointed for the gathering of the combatants in these contests, but although a large number of amateurs had entered their names and paid their subscriptions, very few appeared in the list on the day of meeting. The paucity of their number is chiefly owing to the idea, which seemed to possess every one, that a whole legion of competitors would be arrayed for these combats. Dreading the delay which they apprehended would be the consequence of such a host of players entering, most of the provincial amateurs who had enrolled themselves, were absent at the appointed meeting; ten only made their appearance in due time. An eleventh arrived from Devonshire the next day, but all the matches were then made up. The ten in question, were: Major Robertson, of the 82nd Reg. from Carmarthen, Mr. Trelawny, M.P., of Cornwall, Messrs. Ranken and Brien, of Oxford University,  Boden, of Hull,  Hodges and Wellman, of Reading, Angas, of Newcastle. Gilby, of Beverley, and Deacon, of Bruges.
The winners were:
1. Mr. Boden, £27 10s., 
2. Mr. Ranken, £12,
3. Mr. Hodges, £7 10s., 
4. Mr. Brien, £5

That's him, Samuel Standidge Boden.

Better yet, the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4

- or -

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3

One might expect to see a flourish of chess activity after this first international tournament, which was held during the Great Exhibition no less. But it seems chess was unusually, though deceptively, quiet during the years following.  Carl Jaenisch  made it to the tournament but too late to play. He did however play a match with Howard Staunton, losing seven to two with  one draw.  The tournament made painfully evident the need for the codification of chess rules. Russian and Italians  particularly played different rules involving castling and "en passant" (Italians and Russians used "free castling" and "passar battaglia" which negated "en passant"). Jaenisch, himself, very much favored these Italian rules.  There were other chess-related issued that needed addressing.

Prof. George Allen wrote in the "Book of the First Amaerican Chess Congress":
"In the prospectus of the London Tournament of 1851, it was intimated, that the revision of the Chess Code would be  accompanied by " the establishment of a uniform system of Notation for the whole chess community;" and in the Preface to  the Rules of the St. Petersburg Club, Major Jaenisch strongly urges, that a uniform Chess Code should be equally yoked  with a uniform chess language. The subject of Chess Notation might, therefore, with great propriety, be embraced in the  reference to the above-named Committee. All which is respectfully submitted."

Jaenisch of Russia , Staunton of England, Dubois of Italy, v. d. Lasa of Germany and George Allen of the United States were in ongoing commuication with each other, trying to codify the rules of chess.  Jaenisch having the opportunity to meet and talk to Staunton in 1851 was probably a more important occurance than if he had played in the tournament.

The tediousness of these dicussions can be seen through the following excerpt also by Allen in the 1857 Congress book. :
"Upon the whole, the Committee have not been disappointed in their anticipation of Mr. Staunton's probable leaning:—in  most instances, his judgment accords rather with the German than the Russian author, while in some cases he differs from  both, and everywhere gives evidence of an independent command of the entire subject. Like Mr. Von der Lasa, he prefixes  a chapter on the fundamental laws of the game, the powers and moves of the pieces, etc. Against his own conviction, he  agrees with his colleagues in enacting that taking the pawn, en passant, becomes a forced move when no other is possible  (It is perhaps needless to add that he lends no support to Major Jamisch's recommendation of the passar battaglia.). He  does not assent to "the extreme leniency" of Major Jaenisch in reference to penalties for false moves, nor can he consent,  with Mr. Von der Lasa, "to legalise what is illegal," but prefers to re-enact the old rule, by which a false move is a lost move.  He retains the penalty of moving the king. The text of his code contains the "fifty move rule," but he rather inclines, in his  notes, to Major Jsenisch's extension to sixty moves. It is rather singular that in the introduction to the Chess Tournament, Mr.  Staunton pretty distinctly intimates his opinion, that the spirit of the fifty-move law permits the party, which has the King and  Rook against the King and Bishop, to claim a re-commencement of the counting on capturing the Bishop at the forty-ninth  move; but now that Mr. Von der Lasa, against his own convictions, and in deference, perhaps, to the opinion thus  expressed, had inserted the privilege to begin the counting again, Mr. Staunton has found Major Jsnisch's to be the  sounder doctrine. He sees no reason for extending the latitude for correcting an error in setting up the pieces, etc, to the  sixth move. His sections on correspondence and consultation games are fuller than those of either of his colleagues. The  proposition, which was first suggested in England, tolimit the duration of a game to two hours on each side and to measure  the time consumed on each move by a sand-glass, was favored by Major Jaenisch at first, but since abandoned by him. Mr.  Staunton proposes to adopt it. These provisions, with many details, which it would be out of place to enumerate here, are  discussed, in copious notes, with great acuteness and constant reference to the earlier authorities as well as to the  arguments of the two continental writers. The number and perplexing character of the questions thus presented confirm the  Committee in their opinion, that no intelligent judgment could be formed upon them from such consideration as could be  given them during the present session of the Congress."

An 1853 edition of "Vedomosti" said: "On March 27 at 8 pm at the home of Count Alexander Gregorievich Kushelev- Bezborodko the opening ceremony  of the newly founded Society of Chess was performed with governmental permission."  It was charted in 1854, becoming the first organized chess club in Russia, one year prior to the Count's death.  The  difference between it's founding date and charter date can be attributed to the political climate of the time.

While the government was petitioned to allow the charter of such a group (the petition was sent by Count Kushelev- Bezborodko, Major C. F. Jaenisch and two influential parties - which is possibly the only reason it was eventually approved),  it took amost a year to receive the approval.  The Chess Society, with its annual dues of 15 rubles in silver, was a congress  of very wealthy, influential men. Although it peaked at 50 members, by 1860 it inexplicably dissolved for lack of funds.
 
Jaenisch was appointed by the members of the chess club as the official Russian representative for chess codification already in 1853 and conceded to "en passant" but only later to standard castling.

In the "Chess Player's Chronicle," 1854, Staunton praised Russia's endeavors in this regard:
"It is much to the credit of this newly-formed and eminently aristocratic coterie, that one of their first measures was to  grapple with a difficulty the evasion of which has been a standing reproach to the Chess-players of Europe for the last half  century. We allude to the anomalies and absurdities so long permitted to disfigure and render ridiculous the "Laws of  Chess." At a meeting held by the members for the purpose of considering the present state of the laws and rules of the  game, it was resolved that the Secretary, M. C. F. de Jaenisch, be requested to draw up a new code of "Laws" for the use  of the Society. The task could certainly have been intrusted to no better hands. Profoundly versed in all that relates to the  practice and theory of Chess, and conversant almost above all other men with its History and Literature, M. Jaenisch, there  can be little question, will produce a digest of the Rules of Chess which will win the sanction and become the guide, not only  of his own countrymen, but of Chess-players generally throughout the world."

1853 also saw the death of Lionel Kieseritsky, the chess professional at the Café de la Régence.  He was originally from  Livonia. He was replaced the following year by Daniel Harrwitz who came from Anderssen's home town of Breslau.  The influence of Paris in chess was fading and even the main characters were from places outside France.  St. Amant had all but foresaken chess and Jules Arnous de Rivière was just starting out.

Here's a game between Harrwitz and the upstart de Rivière in 1856.

The next most signifcant event would be in the United States of America.

Daniel Willard Fiske

In 1857, 26 year old Daniel Willard Fiske, then an assistant librarian at Astor Library in New York and member of the New York Chess Club, inspired by the Great Exhibition tournament of 1851, had the idea that "...such an assemblage of American players would serve at once to illustrate and assist the advancement of chess." 
Fiske had been a precocious child, reading by three and at age eight, reading the political news of the Tyler campaign to audiences of listeners.  Even before graduating from the Hamilton College in New York, Fiske went abroad to study Scandinavian languages. He attended the University of Upsala while working as a foreign correspondent for several American journals. One of his classmates at Upsala was the future King of Sweden and Norway, Prince Oscar Bernadotte. 
He returned to New York at age 21 and took his position at the Astor Library.  He stayed there until 1859.  But back in 1857, besides organizing the chess congress, he founded "The Chess Monthly" which he co-edited with Paul Morphy, while compiling and editing the chess congress book.  Leaving Astor, he took the position of General Secretary of the American Geographical Society.
During that same time, Fiske was contributing articles on the language and literature of Iceland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden to Appleton's "New American Cyclopaedia."  He worked for "Syracuse Daily Journal" and the "Hartford Courant" before accepting a position both as Professor of North-European Languages and as Head Librarian at the newly created Cornell University.  There he ended up teaching German, Swedish, Danish and Icelandic as well as conducting classes in Persian. Fiske also taught a course in Journalism. Besides the above languages, Fiske was fluent in Russian, Italian and French.
Visiting Iceland in 1879, he returned home the next year to marry Jennie McGraw, heiress to a large fortune.  Jennie had tuberculosis and died in 1881, while Fiske, who inherited much of her fortune, became embroiled in a lawsuit with Cornell.  He left Cornell and moved to Italy despite an Professorship offer from Harvard. 
Fiske is known as the Father of Icelandic Chess because of his generous donations of chess boards and pieces. There's even a Willard Fiske Center in the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavík.

an older Willard Fiske

In his engaging, folksy style, Frederick Edge wrote the following:

     About 1855 or 1856, the [New York] Club made the acquisition of two enterprising young players, Mr. Theodore Lichtenhein and Mr. Daniel W. Fiske; and to the latter gentleman is due the credit of first suggesting this Chess Congress, which made known to fame the genius of Paul Morphy.
. . .
     The Congress was advertised to open on the 6th of October, but players began to arrive some weeks previously. First of all came Judge Meek, of Alabama, a truly imposing specimen of a man. Soon after him followed Mr. Louis Paulsen, from Dubuque, Iowa, whose astonishing blindfold feats out West were the theme of general talk, and almost total disbelief, amongst Eastern players. From Judge Meek we first heard of Paul Morphy's wondrous strength. He told the New York Club that if the youthful Louisianian entered the tournament, he would infallibly wrest the palm of victory from all competition.
     We were much afraid, nevertheless, that Mr. Morphy would be unable to quit his legal studies for the purpose of attending the Congress, but when Mr. Fiske announced the receipt of a telegraphic despatch, which stated that he was en route, everybody hailed the news with satisfaction. Mr. Paulsen now came to the support of Judge Meek, and declared that Paul
Morphy would carry off the first prize in the tournament; giving, as the grounds of his opinion, some two or three published games of the young Louisianian, which he considered worthy to rank with the finest master-pieces of chess strategy.
    Benignant fate brought the young hero safely to New York, some two days before the assembling of the Congress."

Besides Morphy of Louisiana, the tournament included, William S. Allison of  Minnesota, Samuel Robert Calthrop of Connecticut, Hiram Kennicott of Illinois, Hubert Knott, Theodor Lichtenhein, Napoleon Marache, Hardman Philips Montgomery of Pennsylvania, Alexander B. Meek of Alabama, Louis Paulsen of Iowa, Benjamin Raphael of Virginia, and from New York: Theodor Lichtenhein, Napoleon Marache, Willard Fiske, William James Fuller, Charles Henry Stanley, Frederick Perrin and James Thompson.

It was yet another knock-out tournament, lasting from Oct. 5 through Nov. 10, 1857, but luckily the two strongest players didn't meet each other until the end.  An unusual occurance during this congress was that Paulsen announced that on Saturday, October 10, he would give a four board blindfold exhibition. He invited Morphy to take on of the boards, which Morphy accepted on the condition that he, too, play blindfold.  C.H. Shultz, W.J.A. Fuller and Denis Julien played the other three boards. The result was +2-1=1, The loss was against Morphy and the draw was against Julien. 

Morphy and Paulen both went into the final round undefeated and with one draw apiece.  Morphy dominated Paulsen in the final round winning 5, losing 1 and drawing 2, making Morphy the winner and Paulsen second place (Lichtenhein beat Raphael in a play-off for third place).

This dramatic arrival of Paul Morphy in 1857 on the world stage of chess completely separated the first half of the 19th century from the second, even more so than the arrival of Adolf  Anderssen in the 1851 tournament in London, though Morphy's task was probably easier than that of Anderssen. The increased popularity of tournaments, which would soon be conducted using better systems, as well as the need to understand the principles of chess, employed seemingly innately by Morphy, initiated the gradual push from an game of part-time amateurs to one of full-time professionals.

As Alekhine said (as quoted by Macon) Shibut, "In the sixties and seventies of the last century in London, and principaly in Paris where the traditions of Philidor were alive, where the immortal worksof Labourdonnais and McDonnell were still remembered, at the time, finally, when Anderssen was living - beauty alone could scarcely have astonished anyone.  Strength, Morphy unconquerable strength - that is the reason for his success and the guarantee of his immortality.  And that the essense of that strength consists of the fact that Morphy always played positionally goes without saying, in the broad sense of the word ... That is, he clearly pictured to himself in each separate instance just what the given position required, and adopted himself to these requirements."

Standing: Daniel S. Roberts, Charles H. Stanley, James Thompson
   Sitting: George Hammond, Thomas Loyd, Colonel Charles Dillingham Mead, 
              Hardman Philips Montgomery, Frederick Perrin, Napoleon Marache.
              (William James Appleton Fuller is cut off on the right).

At the time of this 1856 drawing Daniel S. Roberts lived in Brooklyn and was president of the Brooklyn Chess Club.  That was also the year he moved to San Francisco.  He was invited to the Congress but didn't attend.

Daniel S. Roberts, shown above, moved from Brooklyn to San Francisco just before the First American Chess Congress began. He was, however, just in time for a different chess congress.

The 1st American Chess Congress concluded in Nov. 1857.  On Monday, March 22, 1858, there was a California Chess Congress at the hall of the Hunt's Building in San Francisco, a joint effort among the Pioneer Chess Club (founded 1855), the German Chess Club (founded 1855) and the Mechanic's Institute (founded 1854).  The president of the congress was Selim Franklin, a tranplanted Londoner, and the main competition included 8 First Class players: Selim Franklin, Charles Sutro, Edward Jones, E. Justh, Daniel S. Roberts, Wilhelm Schleiden (presidentof the German Chess Club of San Francisco), John Shaw and Philip Kalkman.

The actual play stared the next day from noon to midnight. The tournament boasted a large audience, "among them were men of all ages and conditions, members of the bar, physicians, merchants and literary men. As the Tournament progressed several clergymen and judges visited the Hall."

During the second week of the tournament, the venue was changed to the Rooms of the Pioneer Club.

The Tournament concluded on the evening of May 1.
Selim Franklin won first prize, a gold watch
Edward Jones won second prize, an inlaid rosewood chess table.
John Ellis won first prize in the first division-second class, "a beautiful marine chess-board and set of men"
R. H. Bacon won second prize in the first division-second class, a fine gold watch seal.
In the second division-secondclass, J. H. Gardiner won first and George F. Sharp won secondt, each receiving an elegant quartz watch seal.

The publication of a pamphlet containing all the games was intended to be "the first production oof the chess-press wet of the Rocky Mountains."  Unfortunately, I can't find any  reference to it's actual publication.

During the month following this tournament, Paul Morphy arrived in London.

Batgirl, these are interesting, but do you have any games for us to analyse?

What games exist, to the best of my knowledge, were forward by D. S. Roberts for publication.  He sent his early wins, but when he was eliminated, he ended his corresponence.  Here are two of Robert's second round wins over the eventual victor Selim Franklin.

edit: I deleted the second game since it seemed to have errors in notationand the result.

I'll try to see if I can uncover anymore example of play at this congress.

Thanks!

Wow that first game looked about the same quality as some bullet games I just played. 

Here are two of Franklin's wins over Roberts.