|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-07-02 | | drukenknight: your move: 7 Qxf4? is a blunder, it drops your bishop. Look again at white's 10th. Isnt this a mistake by white? |
|
Oct-07-02
 | | Honza Cervenka: I don't think that 7.Qxf4 is a blunder. In fact it is probably the best move in this variation. 7...Qc5+ 8.d4 Qxc4 9.Qe5+ and 10.Qxh8 is not good for black as well as the line mentioned above. That is why 6...Qf6 is considered by theory as better then 6...Qe7. |
|
| Oct-08-02 | | drukenknight: I admit the sequence you show is beautiful. BUt black simply allows white to develop 3 pieces while he makes 3 pawn moves. So what happens the pawns take the N; a N is 3; 3 black pawns are disconnected okay; and one white pawn is ISO. White is down 1 pt. in material that is fine because he went first. BUt he gained like 3 tempos! You can't give the guy 3 moves w/o getting either tons of material or a mating attack. It just doesnt happen. Blacks entire sequnce is flawed. Probably the game is already lost. SHow me a game where black is three pieces behind in development w/o getting either a lot more material or some sort of tempo/attack on K. No one plays like that we all know better. |
|
Oct-08-02
| | Honza Cervenka: What about this:
[Event "Opatija"]
[Site "Opatija"]
[Date "1912.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Aurbach,Arnold"]
[Black "Lowcki,Moishe Leopoldowicz"] [Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C37"]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qe7 7.Qxf4 Qc5+ 8.d4 Qxc4
9.Qe5+ Ne7 10.Qxh8 Ng6 11.Qf6 Be7 12.Qg7 Bf8 13.Qf6 Nc6 14.Be3 Nd8 15.Nc3 c6 16.e5 d5
17.exd6 Be6 18.Ne4 Kd7 19.Nc5+ Kxd6 20.b3 Qxc2 21.Bf4+ Kd5 22.Bg3 b6 23.Qf3+ Kxd4 24.Nxe6+ fxe6
25.Rfd1+ Kc5 26.Rac1 Qxc1 27.Rxc1+ Kb5 28.Qd3+ Ka5 29.Be1+ Bb4 30.Bxb4+ Kxb4 31.Qc3+ Ka3 32.b4+ Ka4
33.Qc2+ Kxb4 34.Qc3+ Kb5 35.Qc4+ Ka5 36.Rc3 b5 37.Qc5 Ka6 38.a4 Rb8 39.axb5+ Rxb5 40.Ra3+ Kb7
41.Qxa7+ Kc8 42.Qxh7 Ne5 43.Ra7 1-0 |
|
| May-25-05 | | woodenbishop: Interesting miniature. The end game (what little there is) no doubt must have surprised Anderssen, if not amused him. |
|
| May-25-05 | | InspiredByMorphy: Would 16. ...Kh8 have been better? |
|
| Jan-08-06 | | woodenbishop: The more I go over this game the more I am reminded of the magic of Tal (or in this case, Blackburne). Beautiful game!! |
|
| May-19-06 | | ChessPieceFace: what's with 20. ...Qg4? if it was to prevent something, it didn't seem to work. or did anderssen just never have the chance to continue whatever it was he was trying to do there? i'm sure i'm missing something simple. |
|
| May-19-06 | | Marmot PFL: 20...Kg8 21 Rxh7 f6 stops the attack. Now Qg4 works - black's king has f7 if needed. Ponomariov made a similar defensive mistake today against Topalov, in a more complicated position. |
|
Jul-25-07
| | Honza Cervenka: <Marmot PFL> You are absolutely right. 20...Kg8! 21.Rxh7 (21.Bf6 Qg4) 21...f6 is much better defense than my previous suggestion 20...Bxh6. Here black not only stays alive but even has some edge. |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | realbrob: I don't think it was a good idea for Black to castle kingside, where White had all its pieces ready to attack. Anderssen should've moved his LSB and castled queenside, maybe. I don't think White's knight sac was good, he doesn't have enough compensation. One more thing, 18..Nxc4 looks like the usual 19th century move which goes for winning material without realising that it's useless to be up a piece if your opponent has a mating attack. What about 18..Nd6 ? Black looks a bit cramped but maybe his position can hold. |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | karnak64: The note to move one is absolutely precious. "Ivanhoe challenging Bois-Gilbert" indeed! |
|
Jul-25-07
| | Honza Cervenka: <realbrob> There was nothing wrong with taking of the piece in move 18. As it was suggested above, 20...Qg4 was a blunder that lost the game while 20...Kg8! (20...Bxh6 was playable too though not so good) 21.Rxh7 f6 would have stopped the attack with advantage and good winning chances for black. |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | Jack Kerouac: <Honza> You doing time on this page?
Sentence almost up? |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | tatarch: Yes the note to move one is precious indeed-- I know Blackburne's reputation for puffery, but after reading something like that I wonder if it was all just kind of an inside joke to him. |
|
Jul-25-07
 | | kevin86: It was whimsical how the white rook gobbled up the pawns at g7 and h7. Suddenly black's king was dressed in the "emperor's new clothes". Mate is inescapable at h8. |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | zb2cr: <ChessPieceFace>,
As others, notably <Honza Cervenka>, have pointed out, the move 20. ... Qg4 is the game-loser. Anderssen obviously underestimated the power of the sacrifice on h7 and was looking to swap Queens to break White's attack. He may have been overconfident against a young Blackburne, thinking that Blackburne would be content to win a second compensatory Pawn with 21. Rxh7+, Kg8; 22. Be7, Qxh4; 23. Rxh4, Re8; 24. Bg5. |
|
| Sep-13-08 | | Dr. J: <Honza> 20 ... Bxh6 is not playable: 21 Qxh6 threatening both 20 Qxf8# and 20 Bf6+. |
|
| Jul-14-10 | | David2009: <Marmot PFL>: 20...Kg8 21 Rxh7 f6 stops the attack.> Also possible is 20...f6 which transposes to <Marmot PFL>'s line. Nice annotation by Blackburne - of course Anderssen's normal policy was to accept all reasonable gambits against all comers. I have been looking for the games of his 1866 match with Steiniz (lost +6-8=0) and the last game appears to have been Steinitz vs Anderssen, 1866. If this was indeed the final game, then Anderssen played the Kings Gambit Declined for the first time in the match - and lost the game and the match. |
|
| Feb-13-14 | | thomastonk: <London Haringay> as site and event? I don't think so. This was an offhand game played at the St.James's Chess Club (see "The Era", August 8, 1862), and this club resided in the St.James's Hall, Regent's Quadrant. |
|
| Nov-05-19 | | Chesgambit: 19. ? puzzle |
|
Nov-05-19
 | | keypusher: <karnak64: The note to move one is absolutely precious. "Ivanhoe challenging Bois-Gilbert" indeed!> And what happens when they play a serious game? An Exchange French. Anderssen vs Blackburne, 1862 |
|
| Nov-06-19 | | ughaibu: "we were nothing if not daring in those days, and the cautious modern safety-loving youth of today had not yet been evolved" I wonder if every generation says this. |
|
Nov-06-19
| | keypusher: <ughaibu: "we were nothing if not daring in those days, and the cautious modern safety-loving youth of today had not yet been evolved" I wonder if every generation says this.> Yes, and for the most part each is correct. |
|
| Nov-06-19 | | ughaibu: Dear Key P.
I dare say you're correct, I suspect my progeny won't. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 5.O-O