|Apr-07-05|| ||RookFile: This is a quite interesting and entertaining game. |
|Apr-07-05|| ||jumperino: I agree...seems like Amant loses a tempo with 52 Ke5 ... if he had played 52 Ke6 directly, he might have been that needed step ahead. |
|Mar-07-08|| ||Knight13: After 29. g4? White got killed. The rest was just a NASCAR race with White a few feet behind Black.|
|Jan-20-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Great game by Staunton.|
|Feb-04-12|| ||Knight13: 10. 0-0 is probably not the best. Judging by the position, 10. Qd2 followed by 0-0-0 would've been best. White can set up a powerful attack on the Kingside. Of course, it would be a bit helpful to not have played 8. a3, which only weakens the b3 square.|
|Dec-05-13|| ||poorthylacine: What gives to the game even more value and interest, is that I believe even 52.Ke6 would not prevent the win of Black after 52...f4!
After 52.Ke5, the win by 52...f4 is still possible but more difficult, Saint-Amant saw it and maybe hoped it, and the choice of Staunton's answer is now the best...|
|Mar-24-14|| ||wwall: The losing move is probably 51.Rg7? Better may be 51.Kd6 or 51.Ke6 and Re8.|
|Jan-19-15|| ||Noflaps: You play the Sicilian. Your opponent responds with 2 c4, creating a nice fat hole for you on d4 but owning d5 like a politician owns excuses. Now what? That's the first study question this old-timey game presents, it seems.|
|Jan-31-15|| ||MariusDaniel: Interesting game,very nice chessplay|
|Apr-30-16|| ||Domdaniel: <Noflaps> - <"You play the Sicilian. Your opponent responds with 2.c4 ...">|
Yes, that's how it would look today. But in 1843, when this game was played, the Sicilian wasn't really a thing - it wasn't a regular opening or a widely understood conceptual system.
Both of these players had to make it up as they went along.
|Apr-30-16|| ||Karposian: There were some Sicilians played in the Bourdonnais - McDonnell Match in 1834. And I think Staunton had already played quite a few Sicilian games before this 1843 match with Saint Amant. So it wasn't exactly uncharted territory.|
|May-03-16|| ||Domdaniel: <Karposian> Yes, of course - I agree that Sicilians were sometimes played in the 1830s and 1840s. Though not often: it was still a borderline 'irregular' opening. And as such it was nothing like the edifice it later became -- that's all I meant by saying it wasn't really a thing.|
But Staunton, in particular, played some very modern-looking Sicilians.
|May-03-16|| ||perfidious: In those days, though, it was considered unchivalrous to respond to 1.e4 with anything but 1....e5.|
|May-12-16|| ||Domdaniel: I played in my first chess competition, an unrated schools event, in 1973. I had consulted one book, a general intro by Golombek. But I knew nada, zip, zilch about openings - I was puzzled by the Caro-Kann (why would anyone play 1...c6?) and I had no idea that 3.d4 was routine in the Sicilian.
So I made it up as I went. Two games began with Sicilian, me playing White (I was already into the French as Black). After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6, I tried 3.c3, and after 2.Nf3 Nc6 went for 3.Bb5.|
And ended up on 3/6.