|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-27-09 | | Knight13: <Honza Cervenka> Staunton went in for the "Poison Pawn" variation and came out burned to crisp. White sacced a pawn for initiave and Staunton sucked at equalizing. Then he falls into a pathetic "I'm Better Than Morphy Screw You!" X-ray trick on move twenty, then his center fell apart, and died. |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: wait 2...g6 is normal?? |
|
| Aug-02-09 | | Knight13: <WhiteRook48: wait 2...g6 is normal??> Yes. The main problem is Staunton ignoring the center and going pawn grabbing on the flanks. |
|
| Aug-02-09 | | YoungEd: I'm kind of surprised that Staunton just didn't resign on move 38. Maybe it was chivalric to let the beautiful finish run its full course. |
|
Aug-14-09
 | | keypusher: <YoungEd: I'm kind of surprised that Staunton just didn't resign on move 38. Maybe it was chivalric to let the beautiful finish run its full course.> Staunton doesn't give the last few moves in his tournament book. I suspect Anderssen announced mate, in which case Staunton didn't get to resign. Does anyone know? |
|
| Sep-27-09 | | centercounter: Staunton was just bad, probably no more than an 1800 player in today's world - even given infinite pre-clock time. Staunton was in his prime with his theories against the three-century tradition of throwing everything against against one another's King, but against any well-studied and well-balanced player (which there were only a couple in those days), he was toast. |
|
Dec-04-10
| | keypusher: <centercounter: Staunton was just bad, probably no more than an 1800 player in today's world > You are such an idiot, amazing you can breathe, to say nothing of typing or playing chess. |
|
| Dec-04-10 | | nimh: <You are such an idiot, amazing you can breathe, to say nothing of typing or playing chess.> How good was Staunton's play by nowadays standards in your opinion? And what makes you think so? |
|
Dec-04-10
 | | ketchuplover: 28.Nd4 exd4 29.e5 Qxe5 30.Bxg6+ Ke7 31.Re1 Qxe1+ 32.Qxe1+ Kd8 33.Rxd7+ Kxd7 34.Qe6+ Kc7 35.Qe7+ Kb8 36.Qxd6+ Ka7 37.h3 h4 38.Kh2 Rf1 39.Qe7 Rcc1 40.Qxh4 Rh1+ 41.Kg3 Rc3+ 42.Kf4 Rf1+ 43.Ke4 Rd1 44.d6 Rc8 45.d7 1-0 |
|
Dec-04-10
| | keypusher: <nimh: <You are such an idiot, amazing you can breathe, to say nothing of typing or playing chess.>
How good was Staunton's play by nowadays standards in your opinion? And what makes you think so?> 1. Better than 1800.
2. Looking at his games. |
|
| Dec-05-10 | | nimh: <keypusher>
Too vague, I was hoping for more concrete answers.
As for my opinion, you have seen the comparison of his playing accuracy to modern low-rated players and the greats of 19th century: on the page six
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/su...
It's hard to make an assesment confident enough by comparing to modern 2150 and 2300 rated players, but it looks very likely that Staunton must have been below 2000. |
|
Dec-05-10
| | keypusher: <nimh: <keypusher>
Too vague, I was hoping for more concrete answers.
As for my opinion, you have seen the comparison of his playing accuracy to modern low-rated players and the greats of 19th century: on the page six
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/su...
It's hard to make an assesment confident enough by comparing to modern 2150 and 2300 rated players, but it looks very likely that Staunton must have been below 2000.> I don't believe he was strong by modern standards, certainly. But I myself am around 1900-2000, and it seems obvious to me when I look at his games that he is better than I am. |
|
| Jul-06-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Anderssen vs Staunton, 1851.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF ANDERSSEN.
Your score: 100 (par = 80)
LTJ |
|
| Sep-18-12 | | Big Pawn: <nimh: <You are such an idiot, amazing you can breathe, to say nothing of typing or playing chess. How good was Staunton's play by nowadays standards in your opinion? And what makes you think so?> I'm around the 1800-2000 range and when I look at Staunton's games I know he is better than 2000. It's not even close. Staunton's play in this game was definitely very poor but is not indicative of his play in general. I loved looking at that PDF that Nimh provided, with all those stats. It's so interesting to see move accuracy comparisons across chess history. However, I would be cautious inferring too much information from these numbers. One would, indeed, get the impression that Staunton was about an 1800 player by looking at Nimh's stats - but I *know* that Staunton was much, much, much better than that because my personal experience tells me so, definitely! Getting back to the stats there's just one thing that bothers me. The "best" move can be easy to find in sometimes situations (like a recapture), but at other times it can be very difficult to find the best move. I think nimh tried to represent this problem with the "complexity" variable. I am not convinced that we can come to any significant conclusions based on the stats precisely because of this. Well, there is one other assumption being made here: the computer. We don't know if rybka is really finding the strongest move. A swing in evaluation of 0.33 could be insignificant in many positions. Indeed a 0.50 swing can sometimes be a matter of taste. |
|
| Jun-23-13 | | newzild: I'm an Elo 2000 player and without a doubt Staunton was stronger than I am. When I play through his games I cringe at some of his opening moves, but he was merely following contemporary theory. Sometimes I notice positional mistakes among his moves. I know that they are positional mistakes because I have learned from the games of Petrosian, Fischer and Karpov, who all came after Staunton. Tactically, however, Staunton was much stronger than myself. |
|
Aug-07-14
 | | Domdaniel: As yet another (former) 2000 player, I must say that Staunton's mastery is not in doubt, as far as I'm concerned. He was certainly much stronger than I am. And his openings could be quite good -- 1.c4 for example -- apart from some horrible experiments like this. |
|
Dec-29-14
 | | Ziryab: Do any printed books contain detailed analysis of this game? |
|
| Oct-09-16 | | Sergio0106: <ketchuplover> I got 30. Re1 pinning the queen |
|
Jul-20-17
| | keypusher: <Ziryab: Do any printed books contain detailed analysis of this game?> Staunton annotated in his tournament book, but not very well or thoroughly as I recall. I'm sure the German magazines spent more time on it. |
|
| Jul-20-17 | | morfishine: Suffice it to say that Staunton's opening was sloppy but Andersssen faltered too, allowing Black to almost wiggle away to safety almost
***** |
|
| Dec-19-19 | | chesslad: Henry Bird gives this game on pages 31 and 32 in his book Chess Masterpieces (1875), where he gives White's 36th move Rxb7, followed by 'Resigns'. However, on page 140, in an addenda added at the back of the book he states: 'Game 29 - Between Anderssen and Staunton being incomplete in the book of the 1851 Tournament, by the kindness of an esteemed Amateur of the Chess circle, I am enabled to supply the moves omitted by Mr. Staunton in recording the game.' Bird then gives the remaining moves of the game, finishing with 44. Qe7 mate. |
|
Mar-05-24
 | | MissScarlett: Stanley in his (New York) <Albion> column of August 14th 1852 proposes that Staunton missed a simple mate with <35...Rf1+>. Or did he mean <36...Rf1+>? https://www.chessarch.com/excavatio... |
|
Mar-05-24
 | | jnpope: To be fair to Stanley's two correspondents, the tournament book, p120, omits the moves 32.h3 g5. So, the game as given in the 1852 tournament book would allow for a mate in one. |
|
Mar-05-24
| | jnpope: The German tournament book, p71, includes 32.h3 g5. |
|
Jul-24-24
| | MissScarlett: Illustrated London News, October 25th 1856, p.433: <SALEM. - No such oversight as that mentioned by "Frank Leslie's Illustrated Paper," as having occurred in a game at the tournament between Messrs. Staunton and Anderssen ever took place. The fact is, in the great hurry of preparing the games for press a move on each side was omitted, and hence the impression that a glaring lapsus had been committed by each player. It was explained and rectified, with many similar errors, in the second edition. The moves omitted were...> |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
icon.