|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-16-07 | | Dr.Lecter: <Archives> I don't know myself anymore! I never heard about either of those games! I think I go kill myself in shame or run around the park wearing the dunce hat or something. |
|
Apr-30-07
 | | LIFE Master AJ: Of course - you should check out my analysis of this game. (The links were given earlier.) |
|
| May-05-07 | | cdupree: My guess is the reason this game hasn't been chosen as game of the day is that it's too famous---everyone knows The Immortal Game. |
|
| Jul-04-07 | | rayyan: Bryne vs fishcer and this game, which one is more famous? |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | Confuse: lol, and here it is ladies and gentlemen - game of the day. as you requested : P |
|
Sep-05-07
 | | sleepyirv: Hmm... I think I've seen this game before, but I'm not sure. |
|
Sep-05-07
 | | Sneaky: As much as I love D Byrne vs Fischer, 1956 I think this game is even more famous, partially because of it's incredible age. We've only had 50 years to study young Fischer's masterpiece--this one has over 150 years under its belt! |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | CapablancaFan: I've seen this game many times. Played during a period when trying to hold on to material was seen as "cowardly". Still a classic though. The ultimate mind over matter game. |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | Themofro: Ah, the Immortal Game, finally made GOTD!
Good to see =) |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | saillsha: Chess games don't get much better than this. |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | syracrophy: <Sneaky: As much as I love D Byrne vs Fischer, 1956 I think this game is even more famous, partially because of it's incredible age. We've only had 50 years to study young Fischer's masterpiece--this one has over 150 years under its belt!> But Fischer's masterpiece is undoubtely better |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | chesstrippin: This game is insane. |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | brankat: <syracrophy> <But Fischer's masterpiece is undoubtely better> Some may consider Fischer's game "better" (a relative concept), but not UNDOUBTEDLY better. Nothing is above/beyond Doubt. |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | ahmadov: I think I would not post this game as Game of the Day, as this game can be considered to be one of the best games ever played... |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | Zzyw: This is a nice spectacular game, but it's not good by any means. The "brilliancy" 18. ♗d6?? could have been refuted by 18...♕xa1 19. ♔e2 ♕b2!  |
|
Sep-05-07
 | | Honza Cervenka: Despite of some flaws this game is true gem. But of all Anderssen's brilliancies I love more a bit less famous J Rosanes vs Anderssen, 1863. |
|
Sep-05-07
| | Honza Cervenka: <The "brilliancy" 18. ♗d6?? could have been refuted by 18...♕xa1 19. ♔e2 ♕b2! > It is not so easy. After 18...Qxa1 19. Ke2 Qb2 20.Bxc5 Qxc2+ 21.Kf1 Qxc5 22.Qf4 (diagram) black still faces serious problems.
click for larger viewFor example, 22...f6 23.Nd6+ Kf8 24.g5 Qd4 25.gxf6 gxf6 26.Qg3 (diagram) and white wins. 
click for larger view |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | BishopofBlunder: How many of us can claim to have won a game in which we were down a Queen, two Rooks, and a Bishop? |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | Sularus: Haven't seen this game in years!
Breathtaking!
I think I was only 10 when i first saw this. aawwww memories ! |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | realbrob: Well, nice game, tactical fireworks all over the place! Though I have to say I prefer Byrne vs. Fischer, I think it makes more sense. Fischer sacrificed his queen to get a position in which he was objectively (or almost objectively) better. These 19th century games were based on wild tactical combinations usually followed by a blunder of the weaker player (and I don't mean that they were stupid - those are terribly complicated positions and it's very difficult to understand them, especially if you didn't study the openings, and they couldn't, because theory almost didn't exist).
But I always have the feeling that if Morphy or Anderssen tried to play those sacrifices against Rybka, it would have kicked their ***. I don't think they're completely good. Just an example - Kieseritsky put his queen in a very bad position and then neglected development to gain material. |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | ahmadov: <But I always have the feeling that if Morphy or Anderssen tried to play those sacrifices against Rybka, it would have kicked their ***.> Rybka is not something good to compare the mentioned players' strength. If you compared their opponents with someone like, say, Jan Timman or a player with similar strength that would sound more logical... |
|
Sep-05-07
 | | keypusher: <How many of us can claim to have won a game in which we were down a Queen, two Rooks, and a Bishop?> Me! |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | ahmadov: <keypusher: <How many of us can claim to have won a game in which we were down a Queen, two Rooks, and a Bishop?>
Me!> I think you just forgot to add "... but it depends on the position on the board" ;) |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | realbrob: <ahmadov: Rybka is not something good to compare the mentioned players' strength> This might sound naive, I know, but when you play a move, either there is a clear refutation (the move can be classified as "weak") or there isn't. So, if we're talking about the solidity of a sacrifice, it shouldn't matter whether it's played against Timman or Rybka, but only if it gives White an advantage. |
|
| Sep-05-07 | | zb2cr: <realbrob>,
"So, if we're talking about the solidity of a sacrifice, it shouldn't matter whether it's played against Timman or Rybka...". Hmmm. Well, some players (Spielmann comes to mind) made a career out out of playing sacrifices that were right on the edge of soundness. In fact, I recall 2 quotes from Spielmann: "In a game over the board, with a time limit of 18 moves per hour, the sacrifice will almost always win through." "I feel that the idea of calculating each sacrifice through to a forced win is fundamentally wrong." Bronstein, too, played like this. To say nothing of Tal. It's not quite psychological play, but counting on the opponent to not find the best defense over the board under time pressure. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 11.Rg1