|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-02-06
 | | keypusher: Curiously, Anderssen chose the same rotten defense in the last game of his match with Morphy. Morphy vs Anderssen, 1858 |
 |
May-03-06
 | | Honza Cervenka: <keypusher> When I was talking about Staunton's "awful opening play", I did not have in mind uncommon 2...g6 (which is playable but personally I would not recommend it too much), but his pawn-grabbing Queen trip and total lack of development. Look at the position after move 16. I would not believe at first glance that black can survive next five moves. But some weird positions can withstand almost everything.... |
|
May-03-06
 | | tamar: <Honza Cervenka> <Look at the position after move 16. I would not believe at first glance that black can survive next five moves.> Looking for improvements for Anderssen:
18 Qa3 (instead of 18 Bb4) 
click for larger view18...Nc5 19 Bxe5 dxe5 20 Rxc5 Bxc5 21 Qxc5 with a mate threat on f8 and discovered check threats with the knight. 18...Qb6+ 19 Kh1 Bxb5 20 Bxb5 Qxb5 21 Rxf8+! with queen coming in on d6 with check. |
|
May-07-06
| | keypusher: <tamar>, thanks for analyzing this. Fritz 8 agrees with you re 18...Qb6+. Honza's sense that Black should not have survived so long appears to be correct. |
|
Aug-30-06
 | | nasmichael: Was Staunton's queen assault a part of the "chess etiquette" of the times? Part of the chess culture then was to allow the swashbuckling style to present itself on the board, and it was the onus of the opponent to show how he (less likely she, then) to overcome the challenge? "Gentleman's Rules", so to speak.... |
|
Aug-30-06
| | nasmichael: That would make it less horrid than it seems. |
|
Jan-14-08
| | DarthStapler: Wow, did Staunton ever hear of a little thing called "development"? |
|
Jan-14-08
| | keypusher: <Was Staunton's queen assault a part of the "chess etiquette" of the times? Part of the chess culture then was to allow the swashbuckling style to present itself on the board, and it was the onus of the opponent to show how he (less likely she, then) to overcome the challenge? > I would say no. Many of the famous games from romantic times were off-hand encounters where gambit play was more or less expected -- the Immortal and Evergreen games were both off-hand, for example. In most of the serious matches of the 1840s and 1850s, on the other hand, the players tended to keep it pretty close to the vest. Look up the Staunton-St. Amant games, or Morphy's matches against Lowenthal, Harrwitz and Anderssen. When compared with the "romantics," modern players tend to get a bum rap, I think, for their caution, because we are comparing serious modern games with casual historical ones. Later in the 19th century leading masters tended to be a little more "out there." Steinitz and Anderssen relied on the King's Gambit and Evans Gambit, respectively, in their 1866 match. Chigorin played the Evans Gambit against anyone and everyone. And Steinitz, as his style evolved, played crazy gambits with his king in the center, or else took his queen on dangerous excursions to grab pawns, as Staunton did here. Steinitz vs Paulsen, 1870
Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1876 |
|
| Jan-14-08 | | Riverbeast: Mind boggling that Staunton was considered one of the best players of his day...and he could make moves like he did in this game. |
|
Jan-14-08
| | keypusher: <Riverbeast> Well, he had earned his reputation, beating St. Amant and Horwitz in matches and beating Harrwitz in a 21-game match, conceding pawn and move in seven games and pawn and two moves in seven more. But he did not show to advantage against Anderssen or Elijah Williams in this tournament. To give him his due, he was the chief organizer of this, the first international tournament, which was quite an undertaking. |
|
Jun-25-09
 | | heuristic: mo' better moves:
10...Ne7 11.d5 Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Qb6 13.Qa4
13.dxe6 Bxe6 14.Nf4 Nf6 15.Bd4 Qd8
16...dexe5 17.d6 Be6 18.Qa4 Bd7 19.Ba5
18.Qa3 N5 19.Bxe5 dxe5 20.Rxc5 Nf6
18...Nf6 19.Qa3 Nxe4 20.Ned4 Nec5 21.Nxd6+
19.Rxf8+ Kxf8 20.Bxd6+ Kf7 21.Rf1+ Kg8
20...Rb8 21.Ng1 Nxb4 22.Qxb4 Rc8 23.Rxc8
32...Rxe6 33.dxe6 Qxe6 34.a3 g5 35.R5 |
|
| Jul-27-09 | | Knight13: <Honza Cervenka> Staunton went in for the "Poison Pawn" variation and came out burned to crisp. White sacced a pawn for initiave and Staunton sucked at equalizing. Then he falls into a pathetic "I'm Better Than Morphy Screw You!" X-ray trick on move twenty, then his center fell apart, and died. |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: wait 2...g6 is normal?? |
|
| Aug-02-09 | | Knight13: <WhiteRook48: wait 2...g6 is normal??> Yes. The main problem is Staunton ignoring the center and going pawn grabbing on the flanks. |
|
| Aug-02-09 | | YoungEd: I'm kind of surprised that Staunton just didn't resign on move 38. Maybe it was chivalric to let the beautiful finish run its full course. |
|
Aug-14-09
| | keypusher: <YoungEd: I'm kind of surprised that Staunton just didn't resign on move 38. Maybe it was chivalric to let the beautiful finish run its full course.> Staunton doesn't give the last few moves in his tournament book. I suspect Anderssen announced mate, in which case Staunton didn't get to resign. Does anyone know? |
|
| Sep-27-09 | | centercounter: Staunton was just bad, probably no more than an 1800 player in today's world - even given infinite pre-clock time. Staunton was in his prime with his theories against the three-century tradition of throwing everything against against one another's King, but against any well-studied and well-balanced player (which there were only a couple in those days), he was toast. |
|
Dec-04-10
| | keypusher: <centercounter: Staunton was just bad, probably no more than an 1800 player in today's world > You are such an idiot, amazing you can breathe, to say nothing of typing or playing chess. |
|
Dec-04-10
 | | nimh: <You are such an idiot, amazing you can breathe, to say nothing of typing or playing chess.> How good was Staunton's play by nowadays standards in your opinion? And what makes you think so? |
|
Dec-04-10
 | | ketchuplover: 28.Nd4 exd4 29.e5 Qxe5 30.Bxg6+ Ke7 31.Re1 Qxe1+ 32.Qxe1+ Kd8 33.Rxd7+ Kxd7 34.Qe6+ Kc7 35.Qe7+ Kb8 36.Qxd6+ Ka7 37.h3 h4 38.Kh2 Rf1 39.Qe7 Rcc1 40.Qxh4 Rh1+ 41.Kg3 Rc3+ 42.Kf4 Rf1+ 43.Ke4 Rd1 44.d6 Rc8 45.d7 1-0 |
|
Dec-04-10
| | keypusher: <nimh: <You are such an idiot, amazing you can breathe, to say nothing of typing or playing chess.>
How good was Staunton's play by nowadays standards in your opinion? And what makes you think so?> 1. Better than 1800.
2. Looking at his games. |
|
Dec-05-10
| | nimh: <keypusher>
Too vague, I was hoping for more concrete answers.
As for my opinion, you have seen the comparison of his playing accuracy to modern low-rated players and the greats of 19th century: on the page six
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/su...
It's hard to make an assesment confident enough by comparing to modern 2150 and 2300 rated players, but it looks very likely that Staunton must have been below 2000. |
|
Dec-05-10
| | keypusher: <nimh: <keypusher>
Too vague, I was hoping for more concrete answers.
As for my opinion, you have seen the comparison of his playing accuracy to modern low-rated players and the greats of 19th century: on the page six
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/su...
It's hard to make an assesment confident enough by comparing to modern 2150 and 2300 rated players, but it looks very likely that Staunton must have been below 2000.> I don't believe he was strong by modern standards, certainly. But I myself am around 1900-2000, and it seems obvious to me when I look at his games that he is better than I am. |
|
| Jul-06-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Anderssen vs Staunton, 1851.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF ANDERSSEN.
Your score: 100 (par = 80)
LTJ |
|
Sep-18-12
 | | Big Pawn: <nimh: <You are such an idiot, amazing you can breathe, to say nothing of typing or playing chess. How good was Staunton's play by nowadays standards in your opinion? And what makes you think so?> I'm around the 1800-2000 range and when I look at Staunton's games I know he is better than 2000. It's not even close. Staunton's play in this game was definitely very poor but is not indicative of his play in general. I loved looking at that PDF that Nimh provided, with all those stats. It's so interesting to see move accuracy comparisons across chess history. However, I would be cautious inferring too much information from these numbers. One would, indeed, get the impression that Staunton was about an 1800 player by looking at Nimh's stats - but I *know* that Staunton was much, much, much better than that because my personal experience tells me so, definitely! Getting back to the stats there's just one thing that bothers me. The "best" move can be easy to find in sometimes situations (like a recapture), but at other times it can be very difficult to find the best move. I think nimh tried to represent this problem with the "complexity" variable. I am not convinced that we can come to any significant conclusions based on the stats precisely because of this. Well, there is one other assumption being made here: the computer. We don't know if rybka is really finding the strongest move. A swing in evaluation of 0.33 could be insignificant in many positions. Indeed a 0.50 swing can sometimes be a matter of taste. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
