| Nov-20-02 | | ughaibu: I like this game but I have trouble accepting Anderssen's 28. Kb6. I cant understand how this can be preferable to Ka6? |
|
| Nov-20-02 | | drukenknight: for black, what about 19...d5? instead Anderssen exchanges Rooks when he is at least technically behind in material. (4 connected pawns to 3) I thought white was going to play 19 Bd3 in order to set up Bxd6+ |
|
| Nov-20-02 | | ughaibu: Bd3 would be very dangerous, black could reply Ne3 and Qh5, if white tries Bd6 at some point black has time for Rd6. I think Anderssen's Rfe8 was a good move, Lange had to defend against Re3 but after the exchange of rooks the position of the knight on f3 looks shaky. |
|
Nov-20-02
 | | Honza Cervenka: 28...Kb6 was a blunder. White could win even much quicker playing 31.Qa8+ Kb6 32.Nd5+ Kc6 33.Qc8+ Kd6 34.Qc7#. But 28...Ka6 29.Qa3+ Kb6 30.Kxg1 seems to be also giving decisive advantage to white. |
|
| Nov-20-02 | | Cyphelium: I agree with HC's variation after 28.-Ka6, but would like to point out that white can consider playing 29. Qa3+ Kb6 30. Qa7+ Kc6 31. Qxg1. It's not better than 30.Kxg1! at all(it might even be a little trickier to win after 31.-Bf3+ 32.Kf2), but it's ugly and that's fun. =) |
|
Nov-20-02
 | | chessgames.com: Question for the chess historians out there: are there two Max Lange's? We've got some games from the modern era that we attribute to Maxwell Lange (to avoid confusion). Which one is the "Max Lange" attack named after? Are they related? |
|
Nov-21-02
| | Honza Cervenka: Chessgames.com, the "Max Lange" attack is named after Max Lange (1832 - 1899) who analysed it in 1854. The games H Reinle vs Max Lange, 1936 , Max Lange vs Richter, 1949 , Max Lange vs Heinicke, 1949 and Max Lange vs Steger, 1949 were also played by another player. The name "Lange" is pretty common in Germany and other German speaking countries and so it is possible that not only one or two but much more Langes can appear in the database. |
|
| Jan-11-05 | | molinov: What was wrong with 24.Nd5?. |
|
| Jan-11-05 | | aw1988: <molinov> Nothing at all. |
|
| Apr-03-07 | | Skylark: Wow there are a lot of silly, crazy moves in this. I mean a lot of this game looks incredibly superficial; Some of the tactical zugzwangs were completely unsound. To start with, 17. Nxa7+? was awful. Black should have played 18. .. Nc7 to keep an advantage though. 22. .. Nc7?? is a blunder, pure and simple. Obviously after 23. Nxc7 Kxc7? 24. Bd5 gives white a huge advantage. Instead of 23. Nxc7 Bxd4 24. Na6+?, white should have played 24. Bd5! and black is in a large spot of trouble. However, following this, 24. Na6+? Ka7, white uncorks the magnificent 25. Bc1??????? (As opposed to 25. Nb4) at which stage I close my eyes in horror. White manages to go from a massive advantage to a reasonable disadvantage in a matter of moves.. Black then continues 25. ... d5 26. Nc7?! (Bb5) ... dxc4 27. bxc4 (And now the brilliancy) 27. .. Bxg1??????????? And black can resign without waiting for white's reply. 27. ... Kb8 leaves black with a solid advantage, but 27. .. Bxg1??????? effectively throws the game. Now 28. Nb5+ wins against both 28. ... Ka6 29. Qa3+! and 28. ... Kb6? (losing to mate in 6) 29. Qxd8+ Ka6 30. Nc7+ Ka7 (30. .. Kb6 31. Nd5++ Ka6 32. Nb4+ Ka7 33. Qa5+ Kb8 34. Re8#) 31. Qa8+ Kb6 32. Nd5+ Kc6 33. Qc8+ Kd6 34. Qc7#. I'm incredibly surprised that Lange missed such a mate, too. Not that it matters; black is completely lost anyways. But still, it is pretty simple to look for a mate with a knight, pawn and queen floating around a king with no defenders. This game looks nice on the surface, but is in actual fact horribly inaccurate. |
|
| Apr-03-07 | | Skylark: zwichenzugs, not zugzwangs. Lol. I hope you know what I meant >< |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 26.Nc7