Talk:Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais

Chess High‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Sources[edit]

Philidor and the Café de la Régence Chess Masters Philcha (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"De La Bourdonnais was considered to be the unofficial world champion"[edit]

This sentence does not work as is. There was no distinction between official and unofficial world champion in his time:

There is no evidence that the term "world champion" was used then, and the Earl of Mexborough's 1843 speech on Staunton (quoted at Development of the World Chess Championship) used a tentative phrasing that suggests the Earl was very conscious of using a neologism. In fact I think the Earl's words segue from "champion" as "representative in combat" to "champion" as "world's best" in one sentence.
As I've argued before "official" vs "unofficial" is 1980s revisionism. See for example Kennedy's claim for the 1851 London tournament and the contemporary question over whether the Morphy-Harrwitz match should be regarded as for the world championship (both at [[Development of the World Chess Championship]).

I suggest that e.g. 'De La Bourdonnais was regarded as what was later called "world champion"' would be better. -- Philcha (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this point, we're talking here about one (admittedly famous) series of games, not anything like the present global system. Murray, Hooper & Whyld and Winter are all very clear that Steinitz was the first world champion. For one thing, the whole framework of having a contract, having clear rules, chess clocks etc. is necessary to level the playing field. In any event, the games foremost historical writers have accepted that Steinitz-Zukertort was the first world championship for these kind of reasons. It's not for us to adopt a stance of "we know better" in the teeth of clear statements by historical experts. I would not be happy with anything more than "it was an important match". Remember, La B. was a professional, but his opponent was not even the leading British professional! The match did help chess to develop, and I see it as instrumental in developing opening theory. That is a theme which runs through to the present day. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]