Count Bruehl and George ATWOOD certainly did win games against Philidor, and JOSEPH Wilson did play the master though possibly only had losses. See George Walker’s introduction to his “Selection of games actually played by Philidor and his contemporaries” which was based on Atwood’s MSS that came on the market after the death of Wilson, circa 1832.IAN WALLIS posted last year (in the thread about Fischer numbers in the General Chat section of this board):
“As for Philidor... Very problematic as most of his games were off hand and/or played at odds.
However, John Bruehl and George Atwell [sic], more commonly known as a mathematician, allegedly beat him. The following is pure conjecture as I have not verified it. I shall leave that up to a more qualified historian.
Jonathan Wilson beat George Atwell
William Lewis beat Jonathan Wilson
Alexander McDowell beat William Lewis
La Bourdonnais beat Alexander McDowell
Jozsef Szen beat La Bourdonnais
Both Adolf Anderssen and Daniel Harrwitz (who incidentally also beat Morphy!) beat Jozsef Szen.
The path is well trodden from here so over to someone else...”
The problem with trying to do Philidor numbers is the "missing generation" of people who, during the Napoleonic wars and 1820s when few results were recorded, would have played the people who beat Philidor in his late years in London in the 1780s and 1790s. (And to go back to his earlier games would be harder still and need another generation.) If you want to do it on wins only then it would be almost impossible as not many people have known wins v Philidor.
In most cases where Philidor lost, he would have been playing two or three games, and possibly blindfold. There is the further complication of whether games at odds are allowed.
If all results and circumstances are allowed, it's a safe assumption that Jacob Sarratt was a 2 as he must have played some people (at least Verdoni) who had played Philidor, and this would make William Lewis a 3 and probably John Cochrane also.
Maybe Lewis was a 2 but (admittedly not having tried very hard) I cannot prove it. Too many of the published games did not name the players. Walker’s book cited above is one of the earliest exceptions.
If Lewis is only a 3, then Cochrane would be more useful because of his longer career. He played Staunton of course, lots of Indians and then London opponents in the 1870s including I believe Zukertort in 1874.
Tony Gillam might know as he is researching Cochrane.
Probably you can get a lower Philidor number for Labourdonnais via a French route than by going through English players.
French primary sources would be needed.
Most likely Deschapelles (like Sarratt) would have played somebody who played Philidor, making him a 2, and Labourdonnais a 3.
Also Labourdonnais and Deschapelles played against Cochrane and Lewis (and I think MacDonnell) in Paris in the early 1820s (though the games are not in ChessBase) and Labourdonnais beat the leading English players in London in 1825 (not Cochrane who was by then in India).
You cannot count The Turk (as somebody wanted to do in that other thread) because it was operated by different people at different times.
Maybe Staunton numbers would be of interest, and easier to prove? (Not allowing consultation games.) He lived to 1874 but played very little after 1858.
