|Aug-28-02|| ||refutor: i can't help but think that mr. wyvill was very lucky to win this game |
|Apr-10-04|| ||Kenkaku: 2. f4 is an incredibly odd move here. |
|Dec-10-04|| ||percyblakeney: Speaking of odd moves, to play 24. h3 and still win against Anderssen is kind of impressive... |
|Jul-30-06|| ||waddayaplay: to play 34...Rh6 and then ..g6 can hardly be recommended. 36.Rxc7! was a great sac.|
In fact, white had quite decent counterplay on the c-file.
|Jul-30-06|| ||keypusher: Wyvill had the black pieces in every game in this mini-match.|
|Jul-30-06|| ||waddayaplay: Why do you think so?|
|Jul-30-06|| ||sneaky pete: <waddayaplay> Fate would have it that way, the colours were decided by drawing lots.|
Fourth game between the same players.
BLACK. (Mr. W.) WHITE. (Mr. A.)
1.P. to Q.B's 4th 1.P. to K.B's 4th
2.P. to K's 3rd 2.Kt. to K.B's 3rd
Wyvill sat behind the black pieces in all the games of the match, but made the first move in the even games. During most of the 19th century this procedure (division of colours separated from the first move right) was customary in match play. This peculiarity is highly confusing for both younger visitors to and the administrators of this site, so, being a kind of 19th century person myself, on behalf of our silly chessical forefathers I beg them for some understanding.
|Jul-30-06|| ||waddayaplay: Aha. It makes sense. Just didn't know...|
|Jul-31-06|| ||keypusher: It's interesting (and surprisingly difficult!) to play over the game with Wyvill having the black pieces (but still moving first). The game has a very different feel somehow. It's easier using the original notation (rather than algebraic) from the tournament book, as given by <sneaky pete> above.|
Anderssen had the white pieces against both Wyvill and Staunton in this tournament. I wonder if anyone's ever tried to figure out if having the same color pieces in every game in a match affected a player's opening choices or performance rating. Staunton's play against Anderssen did not impress -- having to use the black pieces in every game seems to be the only excuse for poor play he didn't offer.
At London 1851 the players seem to have a choice whether to play with pieces of one color -- if I remember right Anderssen and Szen alternated colors in the modern way in their mini-match.
|Jul-31-06|| ||sneaky pete: A correction af my earlier post: this is game 6, not 4, of the match. The move order given by Staunton in the tournament book is 1.c5 f4 2.e6 Nf3 (as in game 4) 3.f5 e3 4.Nf6 Be7 and the rest as given here.|
Sitting behind the black pieces does change your outlook. Anderssen played the black pieces in all his 1858 match games against Morphy. In game 6, after 3 consecutive losses, he first played 1.a6 .. which is now (as 1.a3 ..) known as the Anderssen Opening. Apparently convinced that, playing black against the invincible genius, there was no option but to defend from the very first move. I doubt if the idea would have been born, had he played the white pieces.
Only 19 years later, in Anderssen vs Paulsen, 1877, did Anderssen return to 1.a3 .., but not because he feared his opponent. He commented: I chose this "crazy" move because I wanted to win at all cost and had to avoid the "drawish" French Defence or Queen's Gambit.
|Jul-27-09|| ||Knight13: <refutor: i can't help but think that mr. wyvill was very lucky to win this game > There is no luck in chess, and Wyvill played well on Anderssen's mistakes and he deserved the win. Anderssen's the guy who made the last mistake, not Wyvill. Wyvill's the guy who made the first mistake.|