|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-23-05 | | Daodejing: Maybe the first game with 100 moves in chesshistory. DDJ |
 |
Jan-04-06
 | | kevin86: <Daodejing>Yes,at least for this database:In fact there is not another 100 plus mover until 1870. |
|
| Jan-12-06 | | blingice: Great endgame. Very fragile... |
|
May-07-06
 | | sneaky pete: 93... Rg4+ 94.Kh3 Rh4+ draws (Staunton). |
|
| Mar-24-07 | | FHBradley: 84. Rf4?! almost throws the game away; 84. h6 would have been better. 90 Rg4?? does throw it away after 90... Kh6! How wonderfully easy life has become with the help of Nalimov! As Sneaky Pete points out, the final double blunder is 93 Re7?? Rh1??, instead of which 93... Rg4+! draws. |
|
Sep-27-07
 | | nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.25. De La Bourdonnais 16 mistakes:
11.Bb2 -0.30 (11.e6 0.41)
30.Rhe4 3.16 (30.Qf6 310.00)
32.Re7 2.33 (32.Rh4 3.16)
35.Qxg5 1.08 (35.Qf3 2.46)
36.Ree7 0.49 (36.Re3 1.30)
44.Kg3 0.94 (44.h4 1.30)
47.Re3 1.75 (47.h5 2.83)
49.Re7 1.85 (49.Rh8 3.84)
52.f4 1.35 (52.Re8 3.44)
55.Rf3 3.14 (55.Ree7 7.29)
62.Rd7 6.01 (62.g5 12.21)
64.g6 3.24 (64.gxh6 6.04)
82.Kg3 6.86 (82.Rc7 23.10)
84.Rf4 6.85 (84.h6 #16)
86.Kh4 3.24 (86.Kf3 5.75)
93.Re7 0.07 (93.Re8 3.24)
McDonnell 26 mistakes:
10...Ng6 0.41 (10...dxe5 -0.05)
19...Nf4 0.43 (19...Bxd3 0.00)
21...Qg4 2.22 (21...Bd6 0.42)
29...Qb5 310.00 (29...Qd8 2.75)
33...Qd8 2.91 (33...Rxg3+ 1.95)
41...Kg6 0.91 (41...h5 0.39)
43...Ra4 1.30 (43...h5 0.94)
44...Rb4 1.99 (44...h5 0.94)
45...Ra4 2.60 (45...Kg7 1.99)
47...Ra6 4.38 (47...h5 1.75)
49...Kf6 3.41 (49...Ra3 1.85)
52...Rh7 2.60 (52...h5 1.35)
53...Rg7 3.87 (53...Rh8 2.73)
54...Ra6 7.29 (54...Rg8 3.83)
55...Rb6 4.88 (55...Rg8 3.14)
58...Ke6 7.29 (58...d5 4.97)
60...Rc8 12.41 (60...Kf4 7.82)
74...Rg4 4.41 (74...Ra7 3.24)
77...Kg8 6.88 (77...Kf6 4.74)
81...Rb4 23.10 (81...Rc4 6.87)
82...Ra4 10.68 (82...Rb5 6.86)
83...Rb4 #16 (83...Ra1 6.85)
93...Rh1+ 6.83 (93...Rg4+ 0.07)
94...Rg1+ 18.32 (94...Rxh5 6.83)
95...Rf1+ 18.32 (95...Rg5+ 9.03)
96...Kxh5 17.69 (96...Re1+ 11.91) |
|
Sep-27-07
 | | kellmano: <Nimh> I enjoy your computer assisted analysis of classic games. Keep it up! |
|
| Feb-07-09 | | WhiteRook48: funny game |
|
Sep-18-09
 | | whiteshark: <49.Rh8!> 
click for larger view or <55.Ree7!> 
click for larger view |
|
Sep-18-09
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: La Bourdonnais' play from moves 40-60 compares favorably with the best of Rubinstein, Capablanca and Aronian. This is esp. remarkable given that back in 1834, no rook endgame theory existed. The lack of theory becomes apparent during the last 20 moves, but during 40-60 White drives the Black Rooks into increasingly passive positions, activates his King, and sets his King side pawns on a roll. |
|
Sep-18-09
 | | Boomie: Morphy learned by studying the long matches between these two. He considered LaBourdonnais a great player and annotated some of their games for a newspaper. His annotations give insights into his views of the openings. Here's a collection of all their match games. Game Collection: WCC Index [La Bourdonnais-McDonnell 1834] |
|
| Nov-05-11 | | asianwarrior: this game is for the books of rook & pawns. this will be a basis for future play. |
|
| Dec-09-11 | | Penguincw: First game in the database with at least 100 moves. Endgame Statistics
   vs.
The superior side (white) wins 46.7% of the time. This game is the first example. The most recent example,
O Johannesson vs D Calder, 2011. The draw is awarded 51.3% of the time starting with Hanstein vs Von Der Lasa, 1841 and most recently Ponomariov vs Shirov, 2011. The inferior side wins a mere 2.0% of the time starting with E Delmar vs J A Congdon, 1880 and most recently J Eric vs M Degrande, 2011. -Based on 8,684 games from 1834-2011. |
|
| Feb-01-12 | | Knight13: I wonder if this game is featured in Fine's <Basic Chess Endings>? |
|
Jun-16-13
 | | rasputin 777: neither side played the opening accurately. 6d4 is considered necessary to get attacking chances. since black gave up the center anyway, they broke even on mistakes. |
|
Jun-16-13
 | | Abdel Irada: <rasputin 777: neither side played the opening accurately. 6d4 is considered necessary to get attacking chances.> I'm not sure this is a fair criticism.
How long has our current opening knowledge in the Evans Gambit encompassed this idea? I haven't checked yet, but I surmise that this game antedated current theory. ∞ |
|
Jun-16-13
| | Boomie: 6. d4 was first played by La Bourdonnais...heh.
La Bourdonnais vs McDonnell, 1834
If you look at their games, you will find a huge variety of openings. La Bourdonnais was a world champion caliber player who commands respect even today. |
|
Jun-16-13
| | Abdel Irada: <Boomie>: You may find this interesting. <The two main sources (La Stratégie, 1876 and Bachmann, Aus Vergangenen Zeiten, 1920) give the move order 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 exd4 etc for this game. That original version (gid=1001166) was here half a year ago, but has been erroneously removed in favour of this duplicate. The second duplicate, with 5... Bc5 (never played by MacDonnell) and dated in 1835, La Bourdonnais vs MacDonnell, 1835, so far escaped that fate.> La Bourdonnais vs McDonnell, 1834
Of course I claim no certainty, but this accords with my own memories of the L-M matches. I don't believe 6. d4 became the preferred move until later. ∞ |
|
Jun-16-13
| | Boomie: <Abdel Irada> Thanks for the reference. I consulted the OE to find the debut for 6. d4 which is the game we both cited. As for the authenticity of the game, perhaps one of our avid chess historians could track it down. Alas, I'm not one of them. |
|
Jun-16-13
| | Abdel Irada: <Alas, I'm not one of them.> I'm afraid that makes two of us.
∞ |
|
| Jun-16-13 | | thomastonk: <sneaky pete> has checked the move order already 6 years ago in William Greenwood Walker's book from 1836, and so I can only confirm that 6.0-0 has been played. There are only very few games with 6.d4 from the 1830s. The move is not mentioned in the German Handbook of 1843 (maybe the most complete book of that time). It seems that it became popular in the United States in 1845 and 1846, where I found 11 games, many of them played by James Thompson, but these games are not contained in the 'usual' databases. Mazukewitsch, in his book on the Evans' Gambit (1991), attributes the move to Staunton, but in his Handbook from 1847 it is not mentioned, though there are many examples with 6.0-0, of course. There is however a game with 6.d4, that Staunton played in a simultaneous exhibition in 1850. Beginning with the third edition of the German Handbook (1858), it is stated that the move became more and more popular by Anderssen. This is - at first sight - based on several games he played in 1851 with Mayet and Dufresne. |
|
| Jun-16-13 | | thomastonk: <Boomie: to find the debut for 6.d4> Well, there is a game in George Walker's "The Philidorian" from April 1838, p 195 with 6.d4 exd4 7. xd4, but without player names. Some years later Walker published it as "G.Walker vs --" in his "Chess Studies", game no. 720.The May issue begins (pp 201-206) with a theoretical outline of a "Mr.B., a distinguished player, and member of the Edinburgh Club". In the text, 6.0-0 is the main line, but the following comment is given: "We may here hint that to deploy the Q.P.two, is also good play, though rarely adopted." It is not clear at this point, whether this remark is due to Walker or Mr.B., because it is Walker who wrote the outline based on Mr.B's analyses. The text continues with "If the K.P. take, you retake with Kt." I have also a hint for an early game with 6.d4 that Walker lost to Frederick Lokes Slous, but I have no early source thereof (and only that is important, I think). In this game, it happened 6.. exd4 7.xd4. So, it could be difficult to find with some certainty the first occurrence of 6.d4, because the move could have been well-known for some time before it appeared in print. But if White intended 7.xd4 in the early days of 6.d4, then the next question arises ... etc. etc. |
|
| Jun-16-13 | | JoergWalter: I think Tartakower called 6.d4 a transatlantic invention.
The first mention and analysis I found was in "The American Chess Magazine" by C.H. Stanley, 1847, p.241ff. <6. Q.P. two (b)
(b) In opposition to the uniform opinion of our more experienced contemporaries, we have always upheld this move, as being far preferable to that of castling; as in the latter case, Black may bring out K.Kt. to B.third...> |
|
| Jun-16-13 | | thomastonk: Hello, <JoergWalter>! I discussed here at cg some weeks ago another 19th century issue, and user <ParisAttack> said it this way: <"Tartakower was known more for his writing being interesting than accurate. :)"> I think, it will be difficult to support the idea of "a transatlantic invention", not only because of G Perigal vs Popert, 1840. The quote from the ACM is nevertheless quite valuable, because it clearly states why 6.d4 is preferable. But, if the writer is Stanley, and I think so, then this is no support for the transatlantic idea, because the "always" refers clearly to Stanley's time in London (according to his cg biography, he emigrated 1842, but according to Wikipedia this happened in 1845). I have 5 games with 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 played in 1845-46 in New York, Brooklyn, Lexington and Philadelphia, but it will take some time to find the original sources, and then to check them for additional information. |
|
| Jun-16-13 | | JoergWalter: <thomastonk> yes, Tartakower is not the most reliable source. Some time ago I took his remark as my starting point for investigating into the Evans and actually, the ACM was the earliest source for a detailed analysis.
However, I would not know who played the move first and with which intentions. And Stanley's comment tells us that the move known but not appreciated very much by the more experienced players. For me it looks like in the Lasker defense of the Evans - Lasker is credited with the theory however, La Bourdonnais played it first when McDonnel confronted him with the Evans in their 26th game. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
