< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> 
Oct1407
  Pawn and Two: At move 17, Fritz indicates an advantage for White: (1.06) (18 ply) 17.Bd2 Qb8 18.b4 Rg6 19.Rac1 c6 20.Qa4. Instead Staunton played 17.b4, which Fritz evaluates as: (.76) (18 ply) 17.b4 f4 18.Ne1. On his 18th move, Anderssen should have played: (.70) (17 ply) 18...Qd7 19.f3 Ng5 20.Nd3 Rc6 34.Qb2 Rg6, or (.82) (17 ply) 18...Ng5 19.Qa4 Qc8 20.Ra2. Instead, Anderssen made a serious error by playing 18...Rh6?. Fritz now indicates: (1.39) (17 ply) 18...Rh6? 19.Nd3! Rh4 20.f3 Ng5 21.Qa4 Ne6 22.Qxa7. At this point White has strong winning chances with either: (1.52) (18 ply) 23.Nf2, or (1.52) (18 ply) 23.Ra2. However, on his very next move, Staunton returned the favor by playing 19.f3?, instead of playing the strong 19.Nd3!. 

Oct1407
  nimh: <At move 17, Fritz indicates an advantage for White: (1.06) (18 ply) 17.Bd2 Qb8 18.b4 Rg6 19.Rac1 c6 20.Qa4.> In blunder check mode my machine reached 21 plies deep at that move. One should also note that Rybka is some 150 ELO points higher than Fritz, therefore I assume that my analysis is more trustworthy. 

Oct1407
  whiteshark: <nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp> fyi rybkaforum.net says this version is a fake:
<Vasik Rajlich <Those are fakes. :) Vas>> http://www.rybkaforum.net/cgibin/r... 

Oct1407
  nimh: It is stronger than Fritz anyway. 

Oct1407
  whiteshark: LOL, <nimh> for sure, but the implicit question being behind is where did you get it from ?? No need to answer if it wasn't in a proper form. :D 

Oct1407
  nimh: I downloaded it from eMule. :) 

Oct1607
  Pawn and Two: Staunton was critical of his move 22.Rac1, stating that his Rook was badly posted on the c1 square. However, he did not offer any alternative suggestion to 22.Rac1. Fritz found 22.Rac1 to be an acceptable move, however, it led to a clearly equal position in a few moves. After 22.Rac1 Qh5 23.h3 Ng5 24.Nf2 (no other 24th move for White has better than an .00 evaluation); (.04) (21 ply) 24...Nxf3+ 25.gxf3 Qxf3 26.Ng4 Qg3+ 27.Qg2 Rxh3. At this point Fritz showed the position to be completely equal: (.00) (17 ply) 28.Rc3 f3 29.Nh6+ Kh8 30.Qxg3 Rxg3+ 31.Kh2 Bh4 32.Ng4 Rf4 33.Rxc7 Rg2+; or (.00) (17 ply) 28.Rxc7 f3 29.Qxg3 Rxg3 30.Kh2 Rxg4 31.Rxe7 Rf5 32.Kh3 Rg6 33.Kh4 Rf4+. At move 22, Fritz indicated White's best move, with some advantage, was: (.71) (18 ply) 22.Nf2 a5. 

Oct2207
  Pawn and Two: Fritz shows (see my post of 10/16/07), that Anderssen would have an equal game had he played 23...Ng5. However, after 23...Rg6, it is White who has the advantage: (.66) (20 ply) 24.Nf2 Bh4 25.b5. On his 25th move, Fritz indicates Black's best try was: (.71) (20 ply) 25...Rg6 26.Ng4 Qg5 27.Kg1 Rb8 28.Rg2. Instead of playing (.71) (20 ply) 25...Rg6, or (.98) (20 ply) 25...Qh4, Anderssen made a serious error with 25...Rf5?. Now White could have obtained strong winning chances with 26.Rg1!, (1.55) (21 ply) 26...Rfg5 27.Nh1 Qh6 28.b5. Fritz then suggested the following continuation with a strong advantage for White: (1.56) (18 ply) 28...Bxa3 29.Rcd1 Be7 30.Bc1 (1.38) (17 ply) 30...Qh4 31.Nxg3 Qxg3 32.Kh1 (1.51) (19 ply) 32...Rh5 33.Rgf1 Ng5 34.Qf2 Nxh3 35.Qxg3 Nf2+ 36.Kg1 fxg3 37.Rxf2 gxf2 38.Kxf2. After 25...Rf5?, Staunton missed 26.Rg1!, and played 26.Qc6?. After 26.Qc6?, Fritz shows the position to be equal: (.00) (18 ply) 26.Qc6 Qg6 27.Ng4 h5 28.Qxd5 hxg4 29.fxg4 Rf7. In his notes, Staunton stated that his move 26.Qc6 was incorrect, <This counterattack, although successful, was unwise. With his own King so beset by foes, White's best plan was to keep his Queen at hand.> 

Oct2307
  Pawn and Two: At his 27th move Staunton missed 27.Ng4, which would give him an equal game, and instead played 27.Rg1?. After 27.Rg1? Rfg5 28.Ng4 h5, Black has very good winning chances: (1.72) (19 ply) 29.Rh1 hxg4 30.hxg4 R5xg4 31.fxg4 Qxg4 32.Qxd5 f3 33.Qxe6 Qxe6 34.Kxg3. At this point Black can force the win of the Bishop: (3.47) (18 ply) 34...fxg2 35.Kxg2 Qg4+ 36.Kf2 Qf4+ 37.Kg2 Qd2+ 38.Kf3 Qxb2. Additional analysis by Fritz, indicates Black to be winning this ending. Staunton again missed his best chance by not playing 29.Rh1. After 29.Nf6+?, Anderssen could have obtained a winning game by: 29...Bxf6 30.Qc2 (best) Be7 31.Qxg6 Rxg6. Instead, Anderssen missed the mate threat and it was all over. In his notes, Staunton commented regarding 29...Kf7: <A palpable slip; he should have taken the Knight with his Bishop, and he would then have had the better game.> 

Oct2807
  Pawn and Two: <nihm> Fritz's and Rybka's analysis and evaluations were fairly similar except for move 17 for White and at moves 22/23. Rybka showed (.62) for 22.Rac1 and (.65) for 23...Ng5. Fritz showed 22.Rac1 Qh5 23.h3 Ng5 leads to an equal (.00) position. I am guessing that with a search deeper than 21 ply, Rybka would have also shown an equal (.00) position. My original analysis at move 17 was at 18 ply showing an advantage for White of (1.06) for the move 17.Bd2. Rybka indicated 17.Ne1 (.92) (21 ply) was White's best move. I had Fritz do a deeper analysis and found: (1.13) (21 ply) 17.Bd2 Qb8 18.b4 Rg6 19.Bf4. Fritz also reviewed 17.Ne1 and found: (.73) (21 ply) 17.Ne1 f4 18.b4 Qd7 19.f3 Ng5 20.Nd3. What continuations does Rybka propose after 17.Bd2 and 17.Ne1? Assuming Rybka agrees the position is equal after 23...Ng5, the only significant difference in the programs was regarding White's 17th move. It would be interesting to do additional analysis to determine which program is correct. 

Oct2907
  nimh: <Fritz showed 22.Rac1 Qh5 23.h3 Ng5 leads to an equal (.00) position. I am guessing that with a search deeper than 21 ply, Rybka would have also shown an equal (.00) position.> Rybka shows 0.67 at 16 ply. Then I moved on:
23...Ng5 24.Kf2 Rg6 25.Qb3 c6 26.Ke1 Nf7
Again, at the same depth Rybka sees that white is still better. Let's move on one more time:
27.Rc2 Qf5 28.Bc1 Bh4+ 29. Kd1 Bg3 30. Rc5
Rybka nevertheless sees no draw: (0.90/18)
White is clearly better.
<What continuations does Rybka propose after 17.Bd2 and 17.Ne1? > 17.Bd2 Qb8 18.b4 Re6 19.h4
17.Ne1 f4 18.f3 Ng5 19.b4 Rh6 20.Qa4 

Oct3107
  Pawn and Two: <nimh> Fritz and Rybka certainly disagree about the evaluation of the position after 23.h3 Ng5 24.Kf2, and also about what is White's best 17th move. Here is Fritz's evaluation after 23.h3 Ng5 24.Kf2: (.00) (19 ply) 24...Qh4+ 25.Ke2 Ne6 26.Rfd1 Qg3 27.Kf1 Bh4 28.Qf2 Qg6. Fritz also indicates an equal position after 23.h3 Ng5 24.Kf2 Rg6 25.Qb3 (if 25.Qxc7 Ne4+ 26.fxe4 Qh4+ is .00) 25...c6 26.Ke1, (.00) (20 ply) 26...Kh8 27.Qc2 Ne6. My conclusion is that after 23.h3 Ng5, Fritz's evaluation of an equal position is correct. Also, at move 17, Fritz and Rybka disagree about White's best move. Fritz strongly favored 17.Bd2 over Rybka's choice of 17.Ne1. After 17.Bd2, both Fritz and Rybka agree on the moves 17...Qb8 18.b4. At this point Rybka indicated 18...Re6 was best for Black. After 18...Re6, Fritz continued with: (1.18) (19 ply) 19.Rfc1 c6 20.Rab1 f4 21.Qd3 Rg6 22.b5 Qc8 23.Rxc6 Rxc6 24.bxc6, and now after, (1.53) (19 ply) 24...Qxc6 25.Qb5 Qe6 26.Qb7 Bxa3 27.Qxa7, White has good winning chances. Rybka indicated White's best choice was 17.Ne1. Both Fritz and Rybka agree that 17...f4 is Black's best response to 17.Ne1. Rybka then gave the continuation: 18.f3 Ng5 19.b4 Rh6 20.Qa4. In this line Fritz found White's advantage to be: 20...Ne6 (.29) (19 ply) 21.Qxa7 Rf7. At this point, my opinion is that 17.Bd2 is a stronger move for White than 17.Ne1. After you review, let me know Rybka's updated evaluation for these positions, and of any lines that you would like to do further analysis on. Does Rybka's still consider 17.Ne1 to be stronger than 17.Bd2? Does Rybka still see an advantage for White after 23.h3 Ng5? I enjoy your analysis of these old games. I hope you have the time to continue your work from the old masters to the more modern ones. 

Oct3107
  keypusher: <nimh> <pawn and two> have you considered unleashing your computers on other games from this minimatch? They're better. :) 

Nov0107
  Pawn and Two: <keypusher> Thanks for the suggestion. I do plan on reviewing all of the AnderssenStaunton games from London 1851. This match between the tournament winner and the player most considered the pretournament favorite, in the 1st international masters tournament, is worthy of a detailed review. 

Nov0107
  Pawn and Two: <nimh> I had Fritz do a deeper search on Rybka's suggested line 17.Ne1 f4 18.f3 Ng5 19.b4 Rh6 20.Qa4. At this point Fritz suggests 20...Ne6, and if 21.Qxa7, then 21...Rf7. Fritz now indicates: (.00) (21 ply) 22.Qa4 Nxd4 23.Qd1 c5 24.Nd3 Ne6 25.bxc5 Bxc5+ 26.Nxc5 Nxc5; or (.00) (21 ply) 22.g4 c6 23.Qa5 Qxa5 24.bxa5 Nxd4 25.Nd3 c5 26.Rb1 Ne2+ 27.Kg2 c4 28.Rb8+ Rf8 29.Rxf8+ Kxf8 30.Nxf4 Nxc1 31.Rxc1 Bg5; or (.00) (21 ply) 22.Bb2 Bf8 23.Rc1 Qh4 24.h3 Rg6 25.b5 Ng5 26.Kh1 Nxh3; or (.00) (21 ply) 22.g3 Bg5 23.Ng2 fxg3 24.f4 gxh2+ 25.Kh1 Rg6 26.f5 Bxc1 27.Rac1 Rxg2. Unless you can have an improvement, I believe Rybka's recommended move 17.Ne1, and subsequent line lead only to a draw. 

Nov0107
  nimh: <Here is Fritz's evaluation after 23.h3 Ng5 24.Kf2: (.00) (19 ply) 24...Qh4+ 25.Ke2 Ne6 26.Rfd1 Qg3 27.Kf1 Bh4 28.Qf2 Qg6.> Rybka thinks that after 24...Qh4+ white is better by 0.56 (20 ply) 25.Ke2 Ne6 26.Rg1. <Fritz also indicates an equal position after 23.h3 Ng5 24.Kf2 Rg6 25.Qb3 (if 25.Qxc7 Ne4+ 26.fxe4 Qh4+ is .00) 25...c6 26.Ke1, (.00) (20 ply) 26...Kh8 27.Qc2 Ne6.> As it was expected, Rybka still acts stubbornly and refuses to agree with Fritz after 26...Kh8: 0.98 (20 ply)
27.Rf2
<After 17.Bd2, both Fritz and Rybka agree on the moves 17...Qb8 18.b4. At this point Rybka indicated 18...Re6 was best for Black. After 18...Re6, Fritz continued with: (1.18) (19 ply) 19.Rfc1 c6 20.Rab1 f4 21.Qd3 Rg6 22.b5 Qc8 23.Rxc6 Rxc6 24.bxc6> After 20.Rab1 Rybka estimates it 0.80: (20 ply)
20...a6.
<I had Fritz do a deeper search on Rybka's suggested line 17.Ne1 f4 18.f3 Ng5 19.b4 Rh6 20.Qa4.
At this point Fritz suggests 20...Ne6, and if 21.Qxa7, then 21...Rf7.
Fritz now indicates: (.00) (21 ply) 22.Qa4 Nxd4 23.Qd1 c5 24.Nd3 Ne6 25.bxc5 Bxc5+ 26.Nxc5 Nxc5; or (.00) (21 ply) 22.g4 c6 23.Qa5 Qxa5 24.bxa5 Nxd4 25.Nd3 c5 26.Rb1 Ne2+ 27.Kg2 c4 28.Rb8+ Rf8 29.Rxf8+ Kxf8 30.Nxf4 Nxc1 31.Rxc1 Bg5; or (.00) (21 ply) 22.Bb2 Bf8 23.Rc1 Qh4 24.h3 Rg6 25.b5 Ng5 26.Kh1 Nxh3; or (.00) (21 ply) 22.g3 Bg5 23.Ng2 fxg3 24.f4 gxh2+ 25.Kh1 Rg6 26.f5 Bxc1 27.Rac1 Rxg2. > I found an improvement for Rybka's line: 20.Nd3 0.89 (20 ply))
21.Bb2 Qe8 22.Rac1 Qh5 23.h3 Rg6
<I enjoy your analysis of these old games. I hope you have the time to continue your work from the old masters to the more modern ones. > I do plan to analyse notable games of all great chess players throughout the history. 

Nov0507
  Pawn and Two: <nihm> After 23.h3 Ng5 24.Kf2 Qh4+ 25.Ke2 Ne6 26.Rg1, Fritz now agrees White has an advantage: (.42) (22 ply) 26...Qg3 or 26...Rd8. This is close to Rybka's evaluation, so no further analysis should be necessary for this line. After 23.h3 Ng5 24.Kf2 Rg6 25.Qb3 c6 26.Ke1 Kh8 27.Rf2, Fritz still indicates a draw is likely (.33) (21 ply) after 27...Qh4. What continuation does Rybka indicate after 27...Qh4? After 17.Bd2 Qb8 18.b4 Re6 19.Rfc1 c6 20.Rab1 a6, Fritz indicates White's advantage is (1.09) (20 ply) 21.Rb2. As both programs agree White has a similar advantage, no further analysis should be necessary for this line. After 17.Ne1 f4 18.f3 Ng5 19.b4 Rh6 20.Nd3, Fritz indicates White's advantage is (.65) (19 ply) 20...Qe8. Again, as both programs indicate White has the a similar advantage, no further analysis should be required for this line. 

Nov0607
  nimh: Actually I'm tired of all this.
Don't you want to analyse my other blunderchecked games? Thus we might get an overview of which moves exactly cause Rybka and Fritz disagree and also it would help to confirm if my work up to here is reliable. I don't know what proverb is used in english, but in Estonia we say 'kaks pead on ikka kaks pead' (two heads are always two heads). 

Aug0408
  RookFile: It seems like Anderssen had a crushing advantage, and found just about the only way possible to lose this. 

Jan0709   WhiteRook48: ...Kf7?? why did Anderssen even play this? Or was he playing giveaway chess? but then he would've played ...gxf6 or ...Bxf6. 

Feb0409   WhiteRook48: funny game 

Mar2709   WhiteRook48: what a dumb game! 

Jul2709
  Knight13: <...Kf7?? why did Anderssen even play this?> Oversight. If you play enough 2000+ standard players on ICC you'll realize they do the same thing once in a while, too. 

Dec2612   Corry: I Agreed to RookFile who say " It seems like Anderssen had a crushing advantage, and found just about the only way possible to lose this." 

Dec2612   Morphischer: Helpmate 

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> 