Notes by S. TinsleyIn a very similar position recently (Steinitz v. Lasker, St. Petersburg, January 9, 1896) the first player proceeds with c5, which is doubtless generally regarded with distrust. It is curious that White seems to have no better move than the text, which appears to amount to nothing if the Bishop has to take the Pawn subsequently. Ne5 has points, supported later by f4, and that may eventually turn out to be the strongest continuation.Rd1 suggests itself at once as a more vigorous line of play. e4 would be good now, but for the reply b4.The question naturally occurs, what is the future of this Piece? Nb1 was probably superior, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary. Afterwards Nbd2, and then to c4, or f1, as circumstances suggest.By first playing Bc2, a good deal might be threatened later, and the disagreeable counter-attack by Black would have been at least deferred.The exchange, not generally favourable in such positions, is here evidently in Black’s favour. He makes a doubled Pawn at once, and has many good prospects of a King’s side attack.White has already drifted into a most unsatisfactory position, and this is one of the best of a number of poor defences. It will be noted that White’s Rook is in a line with Black’s King’s Bishop, and that some means must be found to prevent a fatal attack by Black?s Qh4, etc. later.A very charming resource, the point of which is not at first sight apparent, but is disclosed in the following moves.We have indicated a few weak points in White’s play in our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th notes. We are informed, and the game bears out the statement, that White was short of time at one or two points. In such a difficult game it is no wonder White went astray under those circumstances. In the latter part of this game we can suggest no variation satisfactory to him. On the other hand, Herr Bardeleben, if by no means enterprising, conducts his attack with deadly accuracy and force.Leading up to a very pretty winning move,...Qc4.If 41 Bg3 Rf2+ 42 Kh1 or Kg1 43 Qd1+. Or if 41 Kh1 at once then Rf1+ and mate next move.0-1
Light Squares
Dark Squares
Invert Board
Labels
Shrink
Grow
Copy
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
fred lennox: A fine specimen of Bardeleben's artistry. He can be liken to Botvinnik in spirit. Primary positional and assertive, he can be bold and brilliant. His approach is analytical and exact rather than intuitive.
Knight13: <12. Rd1 suggests itself at once as a more vigorous line of play. e4 would be good now, but for the reply b4.> It doesn't matter. Bd2 Rd1, as played in the game, gets the same result.
poorthylacine: TO FRED LENNOX:
Your comparison seems very interesting and convincing about he styles of these two masters;
but at opposite, the difference is enormous when you include the personality: the weak point of von Bardeleben was his dramatic psychological fragility; in the Hastings tournament for instance he could not "digest" his defeat of Steinitz, the quality of his playing after their game declined much;
as long I know well, von Bardeleben later in his life became even insane at last; whereas Botvinnnik was like a man made of iron, a hard woker in openings preparation but too a player who could resist the most terrible pressure and stress in a dangerous situation, and fought always bitter on without sign of discouragement: his matches against Bronstein and Tahl are showing that; maybe the only exception was his match against Petrossian, when he began to feel really helpless facing such a kind of opponent... But his defense against Fischer in 1962 was so tough and bitter that even Fischer had to renounce to victory, unlike when he was facing Tahl one year before at Bled.
That's why personally I would compare Botvinnik rather with Tarrasch, but maybe I am wrong, of course...
AlekhineSyndrome: i find it rather peculiar that von Bardeleben decided to play 35..rf4 instead of picking the pawn with rxf3 they both do the same job but atleast with the latter you get pawn on the way, or it shows that he was not such a good calculator to calculate the rook sac
NOTE:Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.
This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip
to help us improve the quality of our content.
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
