|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-06-05 | | ughaibu: I believe this the reason why players like <fgh> call me a patzer; This kind of games is beyond their understanding. Anyway, a great game, much better than some garbage like this: A Gibaud vs F Lazard, 1924 |
|
May-06-05
 | | keypusher: You couldn't be more wrong. Gibaud v. Lazard 1924 is quite profound -- marred only by its absence of existence. Better start with this and work your way up gradually to the 1924 encounter. F Lazard vs A Gibaud, 1909 |
|
| May-06-05 | | ughaibu: "absence of existence", I wonder if Fgh suspects The Immortal Game of having been pre-arranged? |
|
May-20-05
| | keypusher: <ughaibu> I am ashamed to say I always wondered myself. Kieseritzsky could make astonishing blunders in "serious" games (as could Anderssen: Staunton vs Adolf Anderssen, 1851), but he was really quite strong, and I always thought he would have seen the mate after 20...Na6. But I have read that Kierseritzsky resigned after 20 Ke2 (as <aw1988> says), which seems plausible. |
|
| Jun-07-05 | | Jaymthetactician: 20...Nc6 and black win's |
|
| Jun-07-05 | | sneaky pete: 20... Nc6 21.Nxg7+ Kd8 22.Bc7# |
|
| Jun-07-05 | | Catfriend: <Jaym> Your claims would be <much> more convincing if you'd support them with lines. Half of the world's GMS analysed this game, naming the position after 20..Nc6 an unclear one. You come, post your "Black win's (sic)" with no proof, no support, no explanation... |
|
| Jun-07-05 | | Catfriend: Oh, and it's even wrong after all this confidence! 20..Nc6 21.Nxg7+ Kd8 22.Bc7 mate. Please, if you post such a statement, explaining it would help both you and the readers. |
|
Jun-07-05
 | | TheAlchemist: <Catfriend> 20...Ba6! is the absolutely only move. I think Kasparov in his volume 1 of the predecessors annotates this game very thoroughly. |
|
| Jun-07-05 | | Catfriend: Yeah, I know about this way out of the mate. But ALAIK this is still unclear, or did Kasparov prove it's winning for black? |
|
Jun-07-05
| | TheAlchemist: <Catfriend> I don't really know, I just vaguely remember, but I think the verdict was unclear. I loaned the book to a friend of mine some time ago. |
|
| Jun-07-05 | | ughaibu: Look at Sneaky's post on page 1 and the follow ups. |
|
Jun-07-05
| | TheAlchemist: Thanks you, omnipresent <ughaibu>! :-) |
|
| Jun-07-05 | | SBC: <EmperorAtahualpa>
<"Alekhine also refers to this game in his infamous anti-Semitic article...
(in the first round of the tournament, Anderssen crushed the Polish Jew Kieseritzky)"> Yes, in the London tournament held at St. George Chess Club, Anderssen beat Kieseritzky in May, 1851 2.5-0.5 No, it wasn't the Immortal Game, which was a casual game played in July, 1851 at Simpson's - after the tournament ended. |
|
| Jul-24-05 | | Orbitkind: I have "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games" and the score from move 18 onwards is given as: 18...♕xa1+ 19.♔e2 ♗xg1 20.e5 ♘a6 21.♘xg7 ♔d8 22.♕f6+ ♘xf6 23.♗e7#. I've just checked Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors, volume I" and the score is different to that in the mammoth book of chess games: 18...♗xg1 19.e5 ♕xa1 20.♔e2 and at this point Kieseritzky resigned, but Kasparov gives the finish as: 20...♘a6 21.♘g7+ [in fact Kasparov wrote this down incorrectly as it should be ♘xg7+] ♔d8 22.♕f6+ ♘xf6 23.♗e7. So the version of the game score given on chessgames.com is the same as that in Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors", but the game score in Emms' annotation in "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games" is different. |
|
| Aug-05-05 | | Chessbrain: This game is an example of the moves that seperate the amatuers from the grandmasters. Who would sacrifice a rook or a pawn? An amatuer would never do that. Why is this true? Grandmasters look ahead into a game. They know what the best move is at any given moment. If we amatuers could learn to reconize the best move, even by black, and look ahead 5 or more moves, we may increase our chess play dramatically. |
|
| Aug-06-05 | | aw1988: Sure, but it may pain you to learn the combination is incorrect. |
|
| Aug-31-05 | | romeok1f: Aug-31-05 romeok1f:The"ward"Immortal,for definite this game,is possible translate throgth 2 different point of wiew:the first as a spettacolar attak(for novice and some medium players);the second a tragedy!for very mutch error(for expert player). |
|
| Aug-31-05 | | EmperorAtahualpa: oh thanks for pointing that out <SBC> |
|
| Sep-03-05 | | Nightwalk: Exemplary play by Anderssen. Perhaps as Dr. S. Tartakower and J. du Mont poignantly stated, the game "is still without a peer in the annals of Chess". |
|
| Sep-18-05 | | Zyqwux: I love this game. |
|
| Oct-11-05 | | AlexanderMorphy: yes this is a quite extraordinary game, but i do feel that Anderssen could have won without losing so much material, he in a way made it over-dramatic! |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | Nightwalk: Hello AlexanderMorphy. I don't think Anderssen was over-dramatic, he sacrificed pieces to maintain the tempo of his attack. He never gave Kieseritsky the chance to defend properly, the sacrifices probably luring the latter to a false sense of advantage and security. His sound and deep calculations were borne out by the result of the game. |
|
| Nov-01-05 | | DeepBlade: White's developement was extraterrestial better than Black's.
An punishment for the material-addicts amongst us. Ive seen many games like this, the developent-above-all Hero, and the evil material-addict badguy, but this one is very special, because it pushes the limit to the extreme. White totaly neglects the piece-predator, and waves an mate web.
I have to admit, White has 2 Knights, 1 Queen, 1 Bishop and a pawn inside Blacks settlement, Black is permitting this, so it seems like suicide to me. |
|
| Nov-07-05 | | Averageguy: <DeepBlade> In the romantic era, players would often let the opponent win in the most beautiful way if they knew that there position was lost. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 11.Rg1