| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |              | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Alexander Cunningham of Block (1655–1730) was a Scottish jurist and chess player. As a classical critic, he was known as an opponent ofRichard Bentley.[1]
The son of the Rev. John Cunningham, minister ofCumnock inAyrshire, and proprietor of the small estate Block, was born there between 1655 and 1660. He was probably educated both in the Netherlands and at Edinburgh, and was selected byWilliam Douglas, 1st Duke of Queensberry to be tutor to his son, Lord George Douglas. Through the Queensberry influence he was appointed by the Crown to be professor of civil law in the university of Edinburgh about 1698.[2]
In 1710, when the Duke of Queensberry was out of favour with the other Whig leaders, the magistrates of Edinburgh asserted their ancient right and ousted Cunningham from the professorship to make way for their own nominee. He then left Scotland, and established himself atThe Hague, where he lived on a pension granted him by the Duke of Queensberry, devoting himself to chess and the study of the classical authors and of civil law.[2]
Cunningham became a friend ofPieter Burman the Elder. In 1711 he discovered from Thomas Johnson, a Scottish bookseller and publisher at The Hague, that Richard Bentley was the author of the criticism inflicted on his friendJean Leclerc for his edition of the fragments ofMenander. In 1721 he published a malevolentAlexandri Cuninghamii Animadversiones in Richardi Bentleii Notas et Emendationes ad Q. Horatium Flaccum. In the same year he published his own critical edition ofHorace, asQ. Horatii Flacci Poemata. He also worked at his editions of Virgil and Phædrus, published at Edinburgh after his death, and projected books on thePandects and the evidences of Christianity. His posthumous works, published in Edinburgh, were:[2]
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | 8 | |
| 7 |  |  | | | | | | | 7 | |
| 6 | | | | | |  | | | 6 | |
| 5 | | | | | | | | | 5 | |
| 4 | | | |  |  | |  |  | 4 | |
| 3 | | | | | |  | | | 3 | |
| 2 | | | |  |  | | | | 2 | |
| 1 |  | |  | | |  | |  | 1 | |
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
It was as a chess-player that Alexander Cunningham was famous at the Hague. He was visited by players from all parts of Europe, and was on good terms with the English ambassadors at The Hague, especially withLord Sunderland.[2]
In his 1847Chess Player's Handbook,Howard Staunton published 5 sample lines in theCunningham Gambit:Kings Gambit Accepted (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4),King's Knight's Gambit (3.Nf3),3...Be7.[3] The e7 Black bishop threatens a check on h4 that can permanently prevent White from castling.
A sample line is 4.Nc3 Bh4+ 5.Ke2 d5 6.Nxd5 Nf6 7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.d4 Bg4 9.Qd2 (diagram). White has strong central control with pawns on d4 and e4, while Black is relying on the white king's discomfort to compensate. White did not develop his f1king's bishop immediately and was forced to play Ke2, which hems the bishop in.
Now more commonly known as theCunningham Defence (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7) is tabulated asC35 King's Gambit Accepted, Cunningham Defense in theEncyclopaedia of Chess Openings.[4]
To avoid having to play Ke2, 4.Bc4 is White's most popular response.[5][6] In modern practice, it is more common for Black to simply develop instead with 4...Nf6 5.e5 Ng4, known as theModern Cunningham.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Stephen, Leslie, ed. (1888). "Cunningham, Alexander (1655?-1730)".Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 13. London:Smith, Elder & Co.
