English Chess Forum

First, let me state that this is not intended to undermine the current English No. 1.
Long may he continue to play at the very top level, but I do hope a (British?) rival rises to that level in the next 5 years.

I postulated that longstanding English No. 1, Michael Adams, has the high ground at present, but Jonathan Bryant begged(?) to differ -

John McKenna wrote:If you think about it, Michael Adams has an inbuilt rating advantage over all other British players at present due to serial invitations to top events...
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one John. In particular, I don’t find (the above) premise at all convincing... (Jonathan Bryant)

OK, Jonathan, we can agree to disagree about that premise of mine, but how about listening further to what I am saying?

I still maintain that higher-rated players are generally favoured by the system - both the rating one and the one of invitations to prestigious international events - but with regards to how to become the new English No. 1 I generally agree with you -

Of course if you could cite times when the other English guys - Howell, Jones et al - have out-performed or match-performed Micky in a tournament or demonstrate results that would indicate that they are likely to be able to score 50% in an elite event I’d be happy to change my mind. (Jonathan B)

Mick Norris then kindly provided the following information -

The Classics have been tough e.g. looking at when more than just Mickey have played (albeit this is historical and not necessarily relevant to 2016 say)

2009: Adams/Howell +1 =6 McShane +2 =1 -4
2010: McShane +2 =5 Adams +1 =5 -1 Howell =4 -3
2011: McShane +3 =4 -1 Adams =3 -5
2012: Adams +3 =4 -1 McShane +1 =2 -5 Jones =3 -5

with apologies to Nigel for missing out his results, and acknowledgement that anyone can have a bad event...
Mickey remains number 1 and the only one guaranteed to survive at elite level.

Which backs Jonathan's assertion that Michael remains the English No. 1 at the London Classic because only he scored 50% or more in 3 out of 4 of the above-mentioned events. However, Luke McShane made a dent in that by his 64% 2010 score (+2 =5) to Adams 50% (+1 =5 -1) and his 62% (+3 =4 -1) score to Adams 18% (=3 -5). Not enough, I agree, to make him a new English No. 1...

You become the English number 1 when you establish an elo rating which is consistently above the current highest Elo rated English chesser.

It’s not that difficult a concept is it? Obviously we could argue the toss about whether popping above Adams for a few weeks on the live list would count (I would say not) or whether you have to be above Adams for a calendar year to usurp him (I would say not), but elo rating is clearly the way you measure this. (Jonathan Bryant)

With which I am willing to agree, and admit that in order become the new English No. 1 it would necessary to get above GM Michael Adams - who is currently at No.20 - on a number of FIDE rating lists...

Interestingly, Indian No. 2 Pentala Harikrishna (b. 1986) has just succeeded in making the first step that would have to be emulated by an English player. The situation on the FIDE Standard Top 100 Players December 2015 is -


19th Harikrishna, P. GM IND 2743 0 games b.1986
20th Adams,Michael GM ENG 2737 8 games b. 1971

Prior to that the English No. 1 was just ahead of the Indian No. 2 -

Adams: Nov. 18th (2744), Oct. 17th (2742), Sep. 17th (2742), Aug. 17th (2740)
Harikrishna: Nov. 19th (2743), Oct. 20th (2737), Sep. 21st (2737), Aug. 18th (2740)

This (from Wikipedia) is how Harikrishna got there (any English player who wants to mount a challenge take note?) -

In November 2004, he won the World Junior Chess Championship.

As of 2012, GM Harikrishna was playing first board for chess club Eppingen in Chess Bundesliga, and he is a member of Spanish chess club Solvay since 2007 (first board).

Harikrishna is also the first board for Indian BPCL A team, which has won PSPB Inter Unit Chess Tournaments in 2010 and 2011.

In international team competition, Harikrishna has represented the Indian team in six Chess Olympiads since 2000.

In May 2011 he won the Asian Chess Championship.

In January 2012 he won group B of the Tata Steel Chess Tournament. This result qualified him to participate in the A group in 2013, considered one of the strongest tournaments each year.

As a debutant in A group of the Tata Steel Chess Tournament in January 2013 Harikrishna finished in the first half (7th place) and reached an Elo rating of over 2700.

In August 2013 he won Biel chess tournament (Masters Open Tournament) with 8½/11 and the Biel Rapid Tournament with 7½/9.

In June 2015, he won the 10th Edmonton International Chess Festival with a score of 7.5/9 (+6,-0,=3), including a 5/5 start. (Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendyala_Harikrishna

The 10th Edmonton International was held from the 19-28 June 2015 in Edmonton, Canada. The tournament was won by GM Pentala Harikrishna interviewed (for Chessbase) below -

Sagar Shah: Congratulations Harikrishna for winning the Edmonton International with a superb score of 7.5/9. How does it feel to win a tournament ahead of great players like Ivanchuk, Wang Hao, Shankland and Ganguly and that too with an extra point?

Pentala Harikrishna: Thank you Sagar. I feel happy to win Edmonton International by one point. I was leading from the beginning and at some point even had a one and a half point margin! Surprisingly it all came down to my last round against Wang Hao. Had he won the last round he would have won the event. In fact he had advantage throughout the game. I defended well in the end to escape with a draw.

...

SS: From 2004 to 2013 you were in the 2600s. And in the past two years you were not only able to break into 2700 but also steadily increase your rating. As on today you are 2740 and 19th in the world rankings! What really changed in the last two years? Some secret improvement technique that you would like to share with the readers?!

PH: 2005 was an excellent year for me and around April, 2006 I was 2682. At that time I was World number 25! From 2007 until 2010 I used to have solid results with few rating points here and there. From 2010 onwards, my motivation came back in chess and I started enjoying playing and working on the game more than before. 2011 Asian Championships was a big break for me. After that, I received an invitation to play in Wijk Aan Zee in the B group in 2012, which I won and qualified to play in the A group in 2013. Playing in Wijk A helped me a lot.

I feel nothing changes or improves at once. It is no secret that I worked on chess earlier as well. Sometimes results may not show up as quickly as one expects, but the work won’t be wasted if it is done in a proper way. Surya (Ganguly 2625) and I started working around 2011-2012 and his contribution to my opening repertoire has played a major role in my improvement. There are couple of others who have helped me with their ideas, whom I wish not to name.

I joined Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) in June2010. BPCL (that) played an important role in supporting my chess activities.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/isle-of-ma ... -interview

If Harikrishna changed federations and became an English player before 1st Jan. 2016 and in the following 12 months managed to be ahead of Michael Adams for 7 of those months I think we'd be calling him the new English No. 1.

David Howell (b. 1990) is younger than Harikrishna, so he is the one to watch.

If he chooses to take it on he has a hard task, but not an impossible mission.

I hope we can agree on that, Jonathan?

John McKenna wrote: David Howell ... is the one to watch.

If he chooses to take it on he has a hard task, but not an impossible mission.

I hope we can agree on that, Jonathan?

Certainly, but then it should be a (very) "hard task". England might not be the force we once were in world chess but we’re still in the top dozen or so chess playing nations - give or take. Becoming our number one should be difficult to achieve.

And, yes, I absolutely reject any claim that Adams’ rating is higher than our other chessers only due to some statistical quirk in the rating system. He has a higher rating because he’s a better player.


In many ways the question of "How do you decide who’s our best player?" is an interesting one, but it’s not particularly important in practice. Most of the time it’s obvious. Right now it’s Mickey Adams. For a long time before that it was Nigel Short. Is there/was there really a need to bring specific data to bear on this question?

Every now and then you get a brief spell when the situation is unclear. That period when Mickey first took over from Nige for example. IIRC didn’t Short play on top board for England in an Olympiad at a time when Adams had a higher rating?

At that point you can argue the toss about how you decide, but even then I think things tend to resolve themselves very quickly.


Three points to mention about what I think doesn’t make you number 1.
Winning the British Championship. Certainly in circumstances when the tournament fails to attract the top guys.
Winning the British Knockout championship - leaving aside the very top fellows weren’t playing, this was a great event. Not, though, designed to find our very best player.

One other thing. No matter how much potential you have, no matter that you might/could/probably would become number 1 if you really tried, it’s only results that count. You become number one by what you’ve achieved at the board not what you might achieve in the future or might have achieved in the present had things been different in some way.


What does make you number 1
FWIW, I would say that if you want to be considered England’s number 1 you have to demonstrate that you have out-performed the incumbent over a consistent period of time. I don’t think a few days or weeks is enough and yet neither do I feel the need to stipulate an exact timescale.

In what sense do you "out-perform" another chesser? Primarily, in terms of elo rating. Also in tournament/match results where performances can be directly compared (e.g. at the Classic or events like Sheffield 2011). Again, I don’t feel the need to be any more specific than that.

Ideally if there was a dispute about who was our head honcho a match could be arranged, but I doubt that would actually happen in practice in the current circumstances.


Like I say, though, I really don’t think there’s much of a need to put a lot of thought into this. Most of the time you just know.



One thing I think we do agree on: it’s a pity that there hasn’t been more competition for the top spot over the last 30 years or so. I suspect English chess would be in a much healthier position in international terms if there had been. Personally it’s quite nice that the older guys are still doing well (my birth year in sandwiched pretty much in the middle of Short’s and Adams), but there does seem to have been a missing generation of top-end strong players in their 30s and 20s. Whether that’s a reversion to the norm after an exceptional period of success or English chess under performing is another question all together.

Jonathan Bryant wrote: but there does seem to have been a missing generation of top-end strong players in their 30s and 20s.

That would have been Sadler and McShane over the last ten years. None of their rivals got particularly close to their standard.

Sadler was born in 1974, his rivals for that year, 1973 and 1975 being Andrew Webster IM (1973) at an inactive rating of 2402 and Dharshan Kumaran GM (1975) who is inactive with a rating of 2505. Dharshan tied for the British Championship, but it was a year (1993) when a lack of sponsorship and other attractions lead to most of the top players not participating. If you go forward to 1976, 1977 and 1978, you get Jonathan Parker and Danny Gormally for 1976 plus AI superstar Demis Hassabis (at a much lower rating). Jonathan and Demis pursued other careers. Forward to 1977 and 1978, you get Mark Ferguson and WGM Harriet Hunt. If I checked Scotland, I'd find Matthew Turner, I expect.

Unlike 1972, the 1993 match didn't give any real boost to sponsorship or prize money, so with the East Europeans free to travel, prospects for a new professional player in the years 1993 to 2000 wouldn't have looked that good.

McShane was born in 1984. His nearest rivals in age being Craig Hanley and Lorin D'Costa from 1984. The strongest player born in 1983 was Jonathan Hawkins, although you tend to think of him as a generation after McShane. For 1986, there's Stephen Gordon and for 1987 Gawain Jones. Let's not forget that David Howell is now 25. For players younger than him, the best we have are IMs.

Turner was born in 1975 I think?

Would anyone have any interest in extending the line of England number 1s back into the dim and misty past? I suppose Jonathan Penrose would dominate for a long time at one point, and the line might end somewhere around Howard Staunton? The question of when and where to look at British number 1s (instead of English ones) might be tricky. Has the strongest British player ever not been English? And of course there would be periods when it was not clear at all who was number 1, but that would be the interesting part of the exercise!

To set the ball rolling:

(i) Who was the England number one before Nigel Short, and when did Nigel gain the ascendency?
(ii) When did Mickey Adams start to seriously challenge Nigel as number one? How long was the period when they both had claims to be number one? And when did Mickey firmly establish himself as undisputed number one?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: To set the ball rolling:

(i) Who was the England number one before Nigel Short, and when did Nigel gain the ascendency?
(ii) When did Mickey Adams start to seriously challenge Nigel as number one? How long was the period when they both had claims to be number one? And when did Mickey firmly establish himself as undisputed number one?

Checking the board orders for Olympiads gives a way of solving the problem. The (three) way competition between Adams, Short and Sadler was resolved in Adams' favour by about 2000, Sadler having retired.

Before that, Tony Miles was board 1 from 1976 to 1986, even if Nigel thought he should have been board 1 in 1986.

After Penrose, either Ray Keene or Bill Hartston would have been regarded as number one. Penrose had a long era from around 1958 to 1970. Before that you are talking 1950s, which I suppose means Alexander, provided he wasn't required to play in Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union. Going back to the 1930s it would be Sir George Thomas, preceded by Mir Sultan Khan. For the 1920s, presumably Frederick Yates.

Roger de Coverly wrote: After Penrose, either Ray Keene or Bill Hartston would have been regarded as number one. Penrose had a long era from around 1958 to 1970.

I wasn’t playing chess at the time, but I did take a keen interesting in 1970s chess a while back. It seems to me that Keene was always a nose in front of Hartston and that from 1971 to 1976 he could be regarded as England’s leading player. I’m not sure when we’d say Miles took over, but certainly it became clear at the time he became a GM elect.

You have to change your ways of evaluating the question as you go back in time. No elo system pre-1970s of course. Also, wasn’t it the tradition that if you won the British Championship you got to play board 1 for England? I’m pretty sure I remember seeing Brian Eley playing on top board in an Anglo-Dutch match or similar in 1973.

Whatever else he might have been, Eley was never Britain’s number 1. British Champion or not.

Roger de Coverly wrote: After Penrose, either Ray Keene or Bill Hartston would have been regarded as number one. Penrose had a long era from around 1958 to 1970.

I wasn’t playing chess at the time, but I did take a keen interesting in 1970s chess a while back. It seems to me that Keene was always a nose in front of Hartston and that from 1971 to 1976 he could be regarded as England’s leading player. I’m not sure when we’d say Miles took over, but certainly it was clear at the time he became a GM elect if not before.

You have to change your ways of evaluating the question as you go back in time. No elo system pre-1970s of course. Also, wasn’t it the tradition that if you won the British Championship you got to play board 1 for England? I’m pretty sure I remember seeing Brian Eley playing on top board in an Anglo-Dutch match or similar in 1973.

Whatever else he might have been, Eley was never Britain’s number 1. British Champion or not.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: (ii) When did Mickey Adams start to seriously challenge Nigel as number one? How long was the period when they both had claims to be number one? And when did Mickey firmly establish himself as undisputed number one?

This is one of the relatively few times over the past 60 years or so (at least) when 'undisputed number one' hasn’t been immediately obvious. Others that come to mind are when Speelman beat Short in a Candidates' match 1988 and the period prior to RDK winning the British Championship in 1971.


With regard to

How long was the period when they both had claims to be number one?


it kind of depends on how you define "claims". Didn’t Nige briefly pop back above Mickey on the elo list a couple of years back? That’s a 'claim' to be number 1 of sorts, albeit hardly a definitive one. I don’t recall anybody at the time making any serious claims that Short had regained the top dog spot in anything other than a temporary statistical sense.

Looking at the numbers from Roger's dating (which may be subject to debate of course), Adams has been number 1 for some 15 years. This is longer than Short (14 years) and longer than the period given by Roger for Penrose (12 years). Would it be fair to say that Adams has been number one for longer than any of the previous people that could have laid claim to that title? (He certainly looks set to extend that period of dominance for a number of years to come.) Or were there periods in the past when someone else was at the top for longer? Maybe in the 19th century, but is it fair to compare 19th-century chess with 21st-century chess?

Jonathan Bryant wrote:Also, wasn’t it the tradition that if you won the British Championship you got to play board 1 for England?

Anglo-Dutch match perhaps, but not the Olympiad team. Indeed they only sent a five player team in 1958, which could have been a decision to exclude the 1957 British Champion, Fazekas, from selection.

Keene was board 1 in the 1972 Olympiad team and Hartston board 1 in 1974. Miles wasn't selected until 1976 and went straight in as number 1.

Golombek and Alexander were both board 1 in the Olympiads of the 1950s, with Penrose at board 2 or lower.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

John McKenna wrote: David Howell ... is the one to watch.

If he chooses to take it on he has a hard task, but not an impossible mission.

I hope we can agree on that, Jonathan?

Certainly, but then it should be a (very) "hard task". England might not be the force we once were in world chess but we’re still in the top dozen or so chess playing nations - give or take. Becoming our number one should be difficult to achieve.

And, yes, I absolutely reject any claim that Adams’ rating is higher than our other chessers only due to some statistical quirk in the rating system. He has a higher rating because he’s a better player.

(I may have something more to say about that rejected claim at a later date. JM)

In many ways the question of "How do you decide who’s our best player?" is an interesting one, but it’s not particularly important in practice. Most of the time it’s obvious. Right now it’s Mickey Adams. For a long time before that it was Nigel Short. Is there/was there really a need to bring specific data to bear on this question?

... (SNIP)

Like I say, though, I really don’t think there’s much of a need to put a lot of thought into this. Most of the time you just know.

One thing I think we do agree on: it’s a pity that there hasn’t been more competition for the top spot over the last 30 years or so. I suspect English chess would be in a much healthier position in international terms if there had been. Personally it’s quite nice that the older guys are still doing well (my birth year in sandwiched pretty much in the middle of Short’s and Adams), but there does seem to have been a missing generation of top-end strong players in their 30s and 20s. Whether that’s a reversion to the norm after an exceptional period of success or English chess under performing is another question all together. (Jonathan B)

Jonathan, thanks for your reply.

(The start and end of which I have quoted, above, and I hope that I have not removed too much of the meat of the argument in doing so.)

I agree that the harder it is to become the English No. 1 the better.

And, I tentatively agree that Michael Adams "has a higher rating because he’s a better player".
(Not everyone may agree with that as a sufficient definition of a "better player" and may seek other necessary conditions, as a confirmation of sorts, to supplement the definition.)

You, Jonathan, seem to me to be saying - we'll recognise the next Eng. No. 1 when he arrives. That's probably true.
What I was trying to do, though, was to set some quantifiable criteria - for a putative contender, for No. 1, to meet - in order for us to be able to see him coming. (Or to see him going, with hindsight, for that matter... )

Roger, after his illuminating and though-provoking post, above, in answer to your observation -

Jonathan Bryant wrote: but there does seem to have been a missing generation of top-end strong players in their 30s and 20s.

goes on to say (in reply to Chris K) -

Roger de Coverly wrote: Christopher Kreuzer wrote: To set the ball rolling:

(i) Who was the England number one before Nigel Short, and when did Nigel gain the ascendency?

(ii) When did Mickey Adams start to seriously challenge Nigel as number one? How long was the period when they both had claims to be number one? And when did Mickey firmly establish himself as undisputed number one?

Checking the board orders for Olympiads gives a way of solving the problem. The (three) way competition between Adams, Short and Sadler was resolved in Adams' favour by about 2000, Sadler having retired.

Before that, Tony Miles was board 1 from 1976 to 1986, even if Nigel thought he should have been board 1 in 1986...

When I consider Chris K's question (i) in more detail it seems to me that it may be necessary, retrospectively, at times (and therefore also necessary when looking to the future) to start looking at the records in more detail (and hence finer and finer data) viz. -

(i) Who was the England number one before Nigel Short, and when did Nigel gain the ascendency?

In answer to (i) - I'd like to maintain that Jon Speelman was the English No. 1, in the late 1980s - immediately after Tony Miles (1986?) and just prior to Nigel Short (1990?)

Speelman won the British Ch. in 1985 & 1986 then in 1987 he came 3rd in the (Subotica) Interzonal - thereby qualifying for the 1988 Candidates knockout matches (that could lead to a shot at the World Championship).

After winning a prelim 4-1 in Feb. 1988, against Seirawan in Canada, Speelman then defeated Nigel Short in the London quaterfinal by 3.5-1.5 (but later lost 3.5-4.5 to Jan Timman at the London semifinals, in Oct. 1989).

In the next World Ch. cycle, which commenced in 1990, Speelman lost in the 1st round of matches 4.5-5.5 to Nigel Short. Thus ending, I'd say, Speelman's tenure as England's No. 1. (The title of English No. 1 thereby passing to Nigel.)

Did Speelman's tenure start in 1985/6/7? It would be good to be able to say which of those 3 years, in my view.

So, based on my musings, above (and others' input further above), trying establish a timeline of English No. 1s results in something like -

2000 - 2015 GM Michael Adams
1990 - 2000 GM Nigel Short
1986? - 1989 GM Jon Speelman
1976? - 1986? GM Tony Miles
1971? - 1976? GM Ray Keene/IM Bill Hartston?
1960? - 1970? IM Jonathan Penrose
195?? - 1959? IM Harry Golombek?
193?? - 195?? IM Hugh Alexander
1932? - 193?? - Sultan Khan?
1913? - 1932? - Fred Yates
1905? - 1912? - Henry Atkins
1886 - 1904? - various amateurs? (including H. Atkins)
1868? - 188?? - Joseph H. Blackburne
1866 - 1868? - Valentine Brown (aka Cecil De Vere)

The list above is provisional, particularly before about 1986.

Is there, for example, no place for GM John Nunn on it?

Or, William Steinitz? (Who lived in England for "20 years as a foreigner" before emigrating to the USA in 1883 to become the 1st official World Champion there in 1886.)

Would anyone care to say, or venture to add more detail to timeline?

Roger de Coverly wrote: Miles wasn't selected until 1976 and went straight in as number 1.

I did ask Tony how he failed to be selected in 1974, which seemed extraordinary at the time. He expressed the view that team selection in those days had a lot to do with which university you went to.

Before you people go any further, please read this 2012 Forum thread:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... er#p101759

John McKenna wrote: So, based on my musings, above (and others' input further above), trying establish a timeline of English No. 1s results in something like -

2000 - 2015 GM Michael Adams
1990 - 2000 GM Nigel Short
1986? - 1989 GM Jon Speelman
1976? - 1986? GM Tony Miles
1971? - 1976? GM Ray Keene/IM Bill Hartston?
1960? - 1970? IM Jonathan Penrose
195?? - 1959? IM Harry Golombek?
193?? - 195?? IM Hugh Alexander
1932? - 193?? - Sultan Khan?
1913? - 1932? - Fred Yates
1905? - 1912? - Henry Atkins
1886 - 1904? - various amateurs? (including H. Atkins)
1868? - 188?? - Joseph H. Blackburne
1866 - 1868? - Valentine Brown (aka Cecil De Vere)

The list above is provisional, particularly before about 1986.

Is there, for example, no place for GM John Nunn on it?

Or, William Steinitz? (Who lived in England for "20 years as a foreigner" before emigrating to the USA in 1883 to become the 1st official World Champion there in 1886.)

Would anyone care to say, or venture to add more detail to timeline?

I think you, John, have correctly argued that Miles must be top from 1976 (when he became the first English FIDE GM) until the early 1980s but when he ceased to be the best becomes somewhat unclear. Certainly before 1986 when he left England for a time. In the mid-1980s Short and Nunn (at least) were close; there wasn't a clear number one in my view. You make a good case for Speelman having a brief tenure which ended when Short beat him in their second Candidates match (1991).

For the period between Penrose's last British Championship win (1970) until Miles's GM title there wasn't a clear English number one. He won his first title in 1958 and must be considered number one from that point (if not earlier).

From an historical point of view for the pre-Penrose years, in my reply, below, I have chiefly taken the following into account.
a) for years up to 1916, Professor Rod Edwards's "Edo ratings" which can be seen at http://www.edo.ca
b) top boards of English teams in Olympiads (up to 1964 in Foldeak's book on Chess Olympiads)
c) British Champions list at Britbase (but British Champions were sometimes not English and on several occasions clearly not the English number one.
Requiring (roughly speaking) number one status to be based on more than one result and discounting years when there was no significant activity by leading players, we get something like this.

1958-1970 Penrose

1938-1957 Alexander [I will count him English though he was born in Cork.] Evidence: winner of 1938 Brit Ch, top board 1939 olympiad; top board 1946 radio match v USSR; in Olympiads up to 1958 was always top board when he played. I don't believe Golombek was ever stronger than him, or would have claimed to have been.

Now let's go back to the beginning and work forward. Edwards's figures are very tentative in places because there often is little data, and some years there wasn't really a clear number 1 because no serious chess was played by any of the top players. I am not including any of the continental players who came to Britain, so no Loewenthal (top English resident 1858-1861), Steinitz (resident 1862-1882), Zukertort or Gunsberg. I also exclude Mason who was Irish-American and Mackenzie who was Scottish.

Broadly accepting Edwards's figures gives this list:

1820 John Cochrane (who went to India in 1824)
1821-1829 William Lewis.
1830-1835 Alexander McDonnell. (He was an Ulsterman so if we discount him, and the fact that Lewis became inactive, the strongest Englishman in those years was maybe George Walker. After McDonnell died...)
1836-37 George Walker.
1838-1858 Howard Staunton
1859-1861 nobody clear, Staunton having retired. Samuel Standidge Boden came out top on Edwards's list but by default with almost no rated games in those years. Possibly Rev John Owen was stronger even then. Boden played very little competitive chess but was recognised as very strong by his contemporaries. Bird was obviously quite strong but didn't play much in many years; a biography of him due out next year may clarify whether he can ever be considered the number 1.
1862-65 John Owen (clearly as he had the best result of the English players at the 1862 London Congress and there were no major competitions after that for some years)
1866-7-8 Undoubtedly as you said, Cecil Valentine Brown, aka De Vere
1869 Joseph Henry Blackburne (he won the BCA Gold Cup, defeating De Vere in two games).
1870-1872 less clear. Blackburne did well at Baden-Baden 1870 but flopped in the subsequent BCA Challenge Cup, won by Wisker, who won again in 1872. De Vere was in decline because of his ill health and personality problems. In these years Edwards ranks 1. William Norwood Potter, 2. Blackburne, 3. De Vere or in 1872 3. Wisker. Potter's Edo rating is boosted by wins in Handicaps but he was very strong, as was Wisker and also Bird around this time.

1873-1888 Joseph Henry Blackburne undoubtedly (from his Vienna 1873 result up to New York 1889), with the exception of 1884 when he was very ill and did not play. However at that time he had no real ENGLISH rival. The nearest was Amos Burn who did not play for some long periods.
1889 Amos Burn according to Edwards, though this comes about because of Blackburne's bad result in Breslau later in the year.
1890-91 Burn who then took some time off.
1892-95 Blackburne again
1896-97 H. E. Atkins according to Edwards's statistics, but he did not contend at the highest level. I would argue that the English number 1 was still regarded to be Blackburne up to 1899 (the London international) even if he was not consistently the strongest any more.
1898 Burn according to Edwards, and I agree for this year because of his fine result in Cologne
1899-1901 also Burn (but Burn dropped out of London 1899 at the last minute)
1902-1905 Atkins
1906 Burn (according to Edwards)
1907-1912 Atkins
1913-1914 Fred Dewhirst Yates
1915 George Alan Thomas (probably only because Yates didn't play that year)
1916 Yates, again according to Edwards, the last year of his stats.

Really, I agree with you it would be possible to argue convincingly that Yates was number 1 from 1913 until his death in 1932, except for Atkins's comeback years of 1923-24. In 1930 and 1932 Yates played board 2 for England below Mir Sultan Khan who obviously wasn't really English.

From the death of Yates to the rise of Alexander and his generation there was an interregnum, roughly divided between William Winter and George Thomas.

John McKenna wrote: You, Jonathan, seem to me to be saying - we'll recognise the next Eng. No. 1 when he arrives. That's probably true.
What I was trying to do, though, was to set some quantifiable criteria - for a putative contender, for No. 1, to meet - in order for us to be able to see him coming.

Yes, I realise what you’re trying to do. I"m just saying that the vast majority of the time it’s not necessary. I would go further and suggest it may not be possible even if we wanted to do it. Simply because there’s no objective way of deciding which criteria we should use and therefore we are not likely to come to universal agreement.

E.g. you say that you want to "set some quantifiable criteria" and yet the two obvious measures by which we can directly compare contenders - elo rating and board order on Olympiad teams - you simply ignore when you argue for Speelman being England’s number 1 player

Tim says,

You make a good case for Speelman having a brief tenure which ended when Short beat him in their second Candidates match (1991).

And I think he’s right. The trouble is you achieve that be simply leaving out information that conflicts with your assertion.


So,

1986 Olympiad: Short played on a higher board than Speelman
1988 Olympiad: Short played on a higher board than Speelman
1990 Olympiad: Short played on a higher board than Speelman


With respect to elo, in 1988 Short's was higher. He was world number 3 to Spess’s number 5. I dare say it was higher at other times too, but I can’t be arsed to look it up.

Yes Speelman won the match, as I mentioned earlier this is one of the rare times when it’s difficult to say who was number 1. Obviously winning a match is significant. But so is Olympiad board order and elo rating.

I think that there’s certainly a case to argue that Speelman was England’s number 1 after the match win. There’s also a case to say that match defeat notwithstanding, Nige was still top of the file. I’m not sure I care enough either way to come to a firm view on that one. I’m happy to accept that sometimes things like this are unclear and that every now and then we have to wait for things to resolve themselves.


What I know for sure, though, is that simply ignoring evidence that doesn’t support a particular case it not going to get us anywhere meaningful. You might say, "Well there’s x, y and z, but that’s not so relevant because ...." but outright ignoring inconvenient facts is a real dead end.