| Aug-23-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: 38.dxc7 Rxc7 39.Rd7 Rxc5 40.Rxb7 looks like it wins as Morphy has a protected passed a-pawn. |
|
| Aug-23-04 | | IMDONE4: inspiredbymorphy, the rook+knight against the passed pawn is more than enough 2 stop it, excluding the fact that paulsen can create counterthreats by exchanging the pawns on the kingside |
|
| Aug-23-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <IMDONE4> >the rook+knight against the passed
pawn is more than enough 2 stop it> This statement implies the task of stopping the a-pawn is not difficult and maybe even easy. If this is the case, why you wouldnt describe how its done. Im interested if your willing to do so. |
|
| Aug-23-04 | | rover: <IMB>Why not simply 38.dxc7 Rxc7 39.Rd7 Rxd7? Rxc5 leaves black with an annoying pin on e7. After Rxd7 40.Nxd7 black could play 40...Nd5 threatening Nxf4+ and Nc3+. After 41.Kf3 Ke6 42.Nb6 Here Black could simply play f5! with the threat of a Nd5-b4-a6 manouvere picking up the c-pawn. In my opinion black is winning but in any case holding the draw can't be a problem. I guess white could try 41.c6 as an alternative but 41...bxc6 a4 42.Nxf4+ Ke3 43.Nd5 is not too promising. |
|
Aug-23-04
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Does anyone else think that Morphy might have overstreched in the opening? I refer to 11.c4 and 12.d5. Is it possible that 11.c3 was a better try? |
|
| Aug-24-04 | | Lawrence: <An Englishman> Good Evening. Are you an enginephile like me? Junior 8 says that 11.c4 was spot on, and gives it an eval of +1.25. 11.c3 on the contrary is Junior's 15th candidate move and gets -0.16. (7 min. search) It likes 12.d5, too. |
|
| Aug-24-04 | | rover: I think it's rather Ne5 that deserves criticism. Something like Bd2 or even a3 looks better.
That being said I don't see how black could be better after 11.c3. White is without weaknesses and should be able to finnish development. |
|
| May-26-05 | | a.dehaybe: [White "Genius 7 Engine"]
[Black "Rebel 12 - Rebel"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Opening "C40 QP Counter-Gambit"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. Qe2 Be7 5. Qxe4 Nf6 6. Qa4+ Nbd7 7. c4 O-O 8. Be2 Re8 9. d4
b5 10. Qxb5 Rb8 11. Qa4 Bb4+ 12. Nc3 Bxc3+ 13. bxc3 Nb6 14. Qb5 Bd7 15. Qc5 Rxe2+ 16. Kxe2
Ne4 17. Qa3 Nxc4 18. Qxa7 Ra8 19. Qb7 Bb5 20. Qxb5 Nxc3+ 21. Kd3 Nxb5 0-1 |
|
| May-26-05 | | InspiredByMorphy: <a. dehaybe> Nice game. I cant help but think white's 6.Qa4+ was not a great move.
Morphy's developing move 6.Bb5+ is stronger. |
|
| May-26-05 | | InspiredByMorphy: Did black simply lose a win as a result of poor endgame play? I cant help but think blacks pawn structure is an advantage (especially considering whites 4 remaining pawns are all isolated). After 42. ...Kf5 black can focus on advancing the kingside pawns and using the rook to reinforce while simultaneously guarding the b7 pawn. |
|
| May-26-05 | | InspiredByMorphy: <rover> <I think it's rather Ne5 that deserves criticism. Something like Bd2 or even a3 looks better.> At first i agreed. However, after 13.a3 black has 13. ...Qa4 14.Qxe7 Nc2 15.Ra2 Qb3 winning the exchange. Perhaps then after 16.Qxc7 Qxa2 17.d6 white can achieve compensation with a passed pawn, but this is unclear considering blacks many defensive resources. 13.Bd2 simply loses the exchange after 13. ...Nc2 . I am concluding that Morphy's 13.Ne5 is a good move. Reason being is if you look at where black's queen can effectively move, you'll find that f5 seems to be the only decent (non-retreating) square ( for example - 13. ...Qd6 14.Bf4) . |
|
Sep-17-06
 | | Chessical: <InspiredByMorphy>
If <38.dxc7> Rxc7 39.Rd7 <Rxd7> 40.Nxd7 Nd5 looks good for Black. Your second idea of <42...Kf5> is interesting, but I believe that White may still hold the ending: <43.Kf3> Rd3+ 44.Ke2 Rc3 (or, <44...Rd7> 45.Ke3 Rc7 46.Kd4 Rd7+(*) 47.Rd6 Re7=) <45.Rb5> Kxf4 46.Rb4, and it is difficult for Black to make progress. (*) Not <46...Kxf4?!> 47.Rxf6+ Kg4 48.a5 Kh3 49.c6 bxc6 50.Kc5 Kxh2 51.a6 h5 52.Kb6 Rc8 53.Kb7 winning. |
|
| Apr-24-08 | | heuristic: After some freestyle analysis,
36.a5 Rdxc7 37.dxc7 Rxc7 38.Nd6+ Ke6 39.c6 Nxc6 40.bxc6 bxc6 results in a material advantage for WHT. but is this a win? if so, what is the strategy?- does the K stay on the K side?
- is a6,Nc5,Nb7 a good idea?
- does the R stay on the d file or is Rb3,Nc5,Rb7 a good idea? and i assume that BLK should :
- keep the R
- push the K pawns whenever possible
|
|
| Aug-30-14 | | Xeroxx: Paul Paulsen. |
|
| Jun-23-15 | | MindCtrol9: This is a good game.Paulsen was a good player and one who contributed to improve chess like in the Paulsen variation in the Sicilian Defense which is good.People in that era did not have a long life dying early like Murphy at 47 and Paulsen at 58, and so on. |
|
| Jul-19-16 | | talhal20: Morphy was equally good at endgame technique. |
|
| Jan-15-19 | | Ironmanth: Impressive for a blindfold game! Thanks, chessgames. |
|
Mar-13-20
 | | MissScarlett: Anyone know a source for this game? Some time ago I changed the game header from <New York blind> to <Double blindfold game> on the assumption that it was the second of two games that Morphy and Paulsen are known to have played simultaneously on the occasion of an excursion taken during the 1st American Chess Congress (1857). Morphy vs Paulsen, 1857 was published in the <Chess Monthly> in November 1858, but <the other game was not finished and, very unfortunately, not recorded> (Fiske). |
|
| Sep-09-21 | | Fragan: The game was probably played on Oct 9:
"The second game between Messrs. Paulsen and Morphy resulted in a draw, after six hours hard struggling on both sides. Mr. Morphy had the first move and played the king's knight opening, to which Mr. Paulsen replied with an new an original defense." [New York Daily Tribune, 10 Oct 1859] So it's not from the blindfold exhibition on Oct 20. (First game between Paulsen and Morphy was on Oct 8. Morphy won. The game was not recorded.) |
|
Dec-13-24
 | | jnpope: <MissScarlett: Anyone know a source for this game?> The first publication would appear to be in the New York <Albion>, 1866.06.02, which states "Game played between Messrs. Morphy and Paulsen in 1857 (hitherto unpublished)." It was then published in the Philadelphia <Daily Evening Bulletin>, 1867.05.03, which gives "Chess In New York." and "Played between Messrs. Morphy and L. Paulsen, in 1857." And eventually appeared in <Brentano's Chess Monthly>, v2 n1, July 1882, pp60-61, which stated "A great off-hand battle fought between Morphy and Louis Paulsen, during the sessions of the first American Chess Congress." None of which indicate it was the second blindfold game played on October 20, 1857. However, when the game was printed in <Paul Morphy>, Maroczy, Leipzig 1909, pp92-93, Maroczy presents it as the missing game from the trip to High Bridge: "Diese und die vorhergehende Partie sind gelegentlich eines Ausfluges nach High Bridge von beiden Meistern blindlings gespielt worden." Which is probably the source Shibut used for his claim of "Both players blindfold" when giving the game in <Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory>, Shibut, Yorklyn 1993, p221. I'm with <Fragan> that this was the second casual game played between Paulsen and Morphy played on October 9, 1857. |
|
Kibitzing
