< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
|Nov-13-12|| ||Shams: <Abdel> Well, which is better-- winning a pawn with 6.Bxf7+, or giving Black two crippled e-pawns with your move? I would go for the former line, but if only all such chess decisions were so pleasant...|
|Nov-13-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <Shams>: True; 6. Bxf7† is objectively better, but it's not in the Romantic spirit of the time. |
That he didn't play that pseudo-sacrifice doesn't surprise me at all, while the suggestion I offered would have been very much in keeping with the way chess was played in centuries past.
|Nov-13-12|| ||Poulsen: <The Last Straw><Nowadays we know not to play 6...xf3?!, 7...e6?, 9...c8?!, 10...b6?, or 19...xf4??> These 2 guys were properly among the very first bricklayers of knowledge about how to play the game in accordance with modern rules, but it seems obvious to me, that they are both experienced players.|
Blacks problem may simply be, that he was accustomed to the old rules - missing castling and moving the Queen 2 squares diagonal from d8 to f6 etc. - like the old fers/counsellor from around 1300.
Considering that they did not have something to learn from, I think they did remarkable well in this game. Granted, they did not find the best moves - certainly not black - but almost every move - even most errors (not all though) - makes sense.
Very unlike the way that total noobs play.
|Nov-13-12|| ||Cibator: Regarding all the comments on how poorly this game was played: I doubt whether many (any?) of us would do a lot better if we were to try playing that recent chess variant which uses a 10x8 board and new pieces combining the powers of rook+knight and bishop+knight. That's roughly the situation these guys were in, having to get accustomed to a new set of rules.|
|Nov-13-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <Cibator> and others are correct in saying that we have to look at this game in the context of history.|
|Nov-13-12|| ||Major Dude: When did castling made a part of the game of chess?|
|Nov-13-12|| ||Castleinthesky: The lack of 537 years of chess knowledge is no excuse! Black should have at least looked at Chessgames.com (10 games at the time) before playing.|
|Nov-13-12|| ||kevin86: The first game on the database!|
|Nov-13-12|| ||Maatalkko: I don't think this game is a good reflection of chess knowledge at the time any more than a randomly selected game among U1000 players is a good reflection of chess knowledge today. Neither player was especially noted for his chess skills; there are plenty of completely unschooled modern players who are much stronger than Black. The game itself was recorded not for its intrinsic quality, but for the fact that it was set to a poem:|
Given that the game served a poetic purpose, it's quite possible that the moves were composed in whole or in part to suit the verses. At the least, a relatively short game was selected because writing a stanza in response to each move is a difficult task. Some games of the time surely went well into the endgame, however; the Lucena position was examined in print only 20 years later.
It's highly unlikely that any ancient players could even compare to 19th century opposition (IMO MacDonnell vs Labourdonnais were the first documented master level games). I just don't think that this 1100 vs 800 encounter is a fair example of the state of the art back then.
|Nov-13-12|| ||zakkzheng: 1475!|
|Nov-14-12|| ||himadri: ^^^^ I agree, atleast tactically these players must have done better if they had been anything but patzers back then. only difference would be the chess rules and opening theory that we have added to chess over these centuries.|
|Nov-16-12|| ||Conrad93: Patzers? This game is 500 years old.
In their day they were the best of the best.
|Dec-13-12|| ||profK: Was castling invented by 1475 ???|
|Dec-13-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <profk> Probably not as we know it. |
The current powers of the pieces began to evolve around the time of this game. In particular, the queen and bishop had been much weaker pieces. As a result, castling was not needed to safeguard the king.
However, with the "new" pieces, everybody kept falling for Scholar's Mate and it became apparent that some method of keeping the king alive was required to keep the game interesting. Various methods began to appear, but castling as we know it seems to be a 17th century innovation in England and France. Italy, in particular, still used a different method well into the 19th century.
|Dec-20-12|| ||master of defence: This game isn´t the most oldest that exist. See it: Carlos Magno-Garin de Montaigne, 1297: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Bc5 6.Bg5 Nxe4 7.Bxd8 Bxf2+ 8.Ke2 Bg4# 0-1.|
|Dec-20-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <master of defence> That game from 1297 is probably a fake. For one thing, the pawn didn't receive the option of moving two squares on the first move before the 15th century.|
There was a bit of a discussion starting here.
It does seem that Garin de Montaigne was a Grandmaster, but...
|Dec-20-12|| ||master of defence: Ok, <Phony Benoni>. I will speak on portuguese at this time, cause i don´t know very well some words in english. After it, you can put it in the google translate.
" Eu vi isso em um livro de xadrez que eu tinha, realmente nessa época os peões andavam só uma casa por vez, portanto podemos supor que os movimentos reais foram 1.e3 e6 2.e4 e5, e a rainha só andava uma casa por vez. Este jogo ocorreu por causa de uma possível disputa amorosa entre a rainha(esposa de Carlos Magno), Carlos Magno, e Garin de Montaigne( que era um cavaleiro a serviço de Carlos Magno). Se é realmente verdade eu não sei ao certo."|
|Dec-20-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <master of defence> Certainly your English is far better than my Portuguese!|
I understand your explanation, but it just makes it even more likely the game is not genuine. Charlemagne lived from 742-814, or about five hundred years before this game was supposed to have been played.
It's quite possible the game was actually played; the moves are very natural. But not by Charlemagne or as early as 1297. Had it been, you can be sure it would be much more famous.
And I'll let you in on a secret: the game on this page may not be a real game either. It first showed up in a book published around this time, and there is no firm evidence whether it was actually played or composed as an illustation in the book. Its interest lies in being the first recorded game using the new rules devised in the late 15th century; only castling seems to be missing.
|Dec-20-12|| ||master of defence: Thanks by the explanation, <Phony>. With some prattice, you can improve your portuguese. And I am good in english, but sometimes i forgot some words in english that looks easy. Do you could help me?|
|Dec-20-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <master of defence> You need to find somebody else for that. I do a lot of work around here, and don't really have a lot of time to spare.|
|Dec-20-12|| ||master of defence: You´re an employee of the chessgames.com?|
|Dec-20-12|| ||Phony Benoni: Goodness, no. If I was actually an employee, I'd spend a lot less time around here.|
Chess history is my true love, and the site gives me endless opportunities to explore. Much better than getting paid.
|Jan-25-13|| ||SirChrislov: Wow, people are still analysing this game? (12 pages!) and some are even attacking each other.
What's to over-analyze? Modern chess was in its beginning stage, the game is shown for historical purpose. Just enjoy it, drop a funny comment and move on.|
<Bobsterman3000: Korchnoi has a + record against both of these guys...> LOL! still, classic comment!
|Jan-30-13|| ||Phony Benoni: First!|
|Jan-31-13|| ||SirChrislov: Segundo!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·