| May-14-08 | | sfairat: Brilliant! It's hard to see where white went wrong. I think white had to accept it can't win a piece and play to equalize. Attack the knight with one more pawn, which I think leads to check and an exchange of two minor pieces for the rook. |
|
| Aug-19-08 | | macphearsome: I think white wasted too many moves with its white bishop! most notably 5. Bc4?
just allows black to advance his queen-pawn, developing a bishop and forcing white to play the retreat. |
|
| Jan-01-09 | | YoungEd: Great game by Black, who was on the wrong side of some famous games. To my mind, 9. ...d3 is the star move, clearing the way for the bishop and leaving the pawn fork unaltered. Nice touch at the end, too--the queen move to g5 is to block the g4 pawn, so that it can't avoid a charging Black h5! |
|
| Feb-25-09 | | Bears092: I don't think white should be in any hurry here to take one of the pieces. Maybe 10. Qe1 to cover the f2 square after the king has to move away. (10....Bc5+ 11. Kh1). I don't see a convincing reply. |
|
Mar-02-09
 | | Honza Cervenka: <It's hard to see where white went wrong.> Well, it is not so hard I think. 6.e5 is dubious at first glance and 10.fxg4 is a blunder. Instead of that 10.Qe1 leaves black in troubles. |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | sneaky pete: See also Anderssen vs Max Lange, 1859 and decide for yourself which is which and right or wrong and never the twain shall meet. |
|
Apr-04-09
 | | FSR: Yeah, what Honza Cervenka said - 10.Qe1 is a known refutation. Black has nothing besides 10...Bc5+ 11.Kh1 Nf2+ 12.Rxf2, when White wins two pieces for a rook. Iakov Neishtadt, Catastrophe in the Opening, p. 170. What sneaky pete said, too. Neishtadt, like every other source I've seen, gives this game as Anderssen-Lange, 1859. Some other sources say that White played on with 14.gxh5 Qxf5 15.g4 Rxh5+! 16.gxh5 Qe4! 17.Qf3 Qh4+ 18.Qh3 Qe1+ 19.Kh2 Bg1+ 20.Kh1 Bf2+ 21.Kh2 Qg1#. |
|
| Apr-19-09 | | zdiddy: <FSR> Thanks for posting that alternate finish. I was wondering why white wouldn't just play on, but now its obvious that it was a losing scenario no matter what happened. Why did White delay fxg4 until after the 0-0? To me, that's where things began to go sour. |
|
Apr-27-09
| | FSR: <zdiddy> White didn't want to see 9.fxg4 Qh4+ 10.g3 (10.Ke2? Qf2+ 11.Kd3 Nc5#) Nxg3 11.hxg3 Qxh1+ 12.Ke2 Qg2+ followed by 13...Qxg3+. |
|
| Jul-25-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Anderssen vs Dufresne, 1851.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF DUFRESNE.
Your score: 26 (par = 14)
LTJ |
|
Mar-14-19
 | | sea7kenp: By the way, Triple Pawns can't be good for White! |
|
Feb-09-20
 | | fredthebear: Greco's Mate on an open h-file occurs in the final position shown if White ACCEPTS the queen sacrifice with 14.RxQg5 hxg4+ 15.Rh5 RxRh5#. "Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom" by Eric Schiller (This book is typically the source used for Wikipedia checkmate patterns that have spread like vines on the internet; the description wording is a match numerous times, including the "made-up" names that are not internationally recognized.) lists this game as Max Lange's Mate on pages 314-316, played between Anderssen and Lange in Bratislava 1859. <Sneaky pete> has provided the link to that game above. Do read <zanzibar>'s historical post on that game page. Black's queen sacrifice offer is DECLINED in the final position shown after 13...h5!. Following <FSR>'s post <14.gxh5 Qxf5 15.g4 Rxh5+! 16.gxh5 Qe4! 17.Qf3 Qh4+ 18.Qh3 Qe1+ 19.Kh2 Bg1+ 20.Kh1 Bf2+ 21.Kh2 Qg1#> This finish is a Max Lange's Mate, a Bishop-Supports-Queen mating pattern. It would certainly be a chess faux pas if Dufresne played and won the game, but the mating pattern was named after Max Lange. FTB suspects Mr. Schiller got this one right, and Max Lange is the originator. |
|
| Mar-20-20 | | Chesgambit: Max lange analysis this game |
|
| May-02-22 | | Herr Stauffenberg: Great!!! |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 9...d3