< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-04-07|| ||ksadler: I have been playing through Steinitz's games lately and he played a lot of 2. e5 Repertoire Explorer: Wilhelm Steinitz (white)|
|Sep-10-07|| ||keypusher: <offramp><It's quite funny to see someone make a two-rook sacrifice and lose really badly.>|
Perhaps this should be called the Mortal Game.
<Frankly, these two played the game as if drunk.>
They had just finished a 34-round tournament; I hope they were drunk.
|Feb-26-08|| ||Knight13: Steinitz attemps "The Immortal Game" and fails miserably..|
|Sep-21-08|| ||GrahamClayton: <offramp>It's quite funny to see someone make a two-rook sacrifice and lose really badly.|
This is the only game of the 136 games featured in "Take My Rooks" by Yasser Seirawan and Nikolay Minev (International Chess Enterprises, 1991) where the player sacrificing the two Rooks loses.
|Dec-20-08|| ||chocobonbon: <Keypusher> <Perhaps this should be called the Mortal Game.> Funny. You nailed it.|
|Dec-20-08|| ||thebribri8: White gives away two rooks and loses. Go figure.|
|Jan-03-09|| ||GlassCow: 17 Qd4 was a clunker. either Nf5 or Nxc8 preserved the initiative and kept winawer in defense mode.|
|Mar-05-10|| ||Bonifratz: Pretty messy game...|
|Oct-29-10|| ||4tmac: 2. e5?! f6?! wow! lol (17. Ne4! was probably the last chance to draw as Nf5 is met by Ng6)|
|Dec-12-11|| ||master of defence: What happens after 7...Qxb2?|
|Dec-12-11|| ||Shams: <master of defence> 8.Rb1 and 9.Nb5 crushes.|
|Oct-03-12|| ||GrahamClayton: Contemporary analysis suggests 14. exf6, eg 14...gxf6 15. ♗h6+ ♔g8 16. h4 ♕e5 17. ♕xe5 fxe5 18. g4, with a bind.|
|May-11-13|| ||perfidious: <keypusher:....(The players) had just finished a 34-round tournament; I hope they were drunk.>|
Not much of a drinker myself, but after 34 rounds, I could be tempted!
|Nov-16-13|| ||Karpova: According to Krejcik (his source is the 'American Chess Weekly' 1902) on pages 170-171 of the June 1924 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' the following happened:|
Some years after this game, the American Mac Connell claimed that Steinitz handed over 1st place with his 2nd rook sacrifice and so they played the following game against each other (moves 1-13 identical with this game):
[Black "Steinitz, Wilhelm"]
1.e4 e6 2.e5 f6 3.d4 c5 4.dxc5 Bxc5 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Bf4 Qb6 7.Qd2 Bxf2+ 8.Qxf2
Qxb2 9.Kd2 Qxa1 10.Nb5 Na6 11.Nd6+ Kf8 12.Bxa6 bxa6 13.Qc5 Ne7 14.exf6
gxf6 15.Bh6+ Kg8 16.h4 Qe5 17.Qxe5 fxe5 18.g4 Rb8 19.Nh3 Bb7 20.Rf1 Bg2
21.Rf7 Ng6 22.Rg7+ Kf8 23.Rxd7+ Kg8 24.Rg7+ Kf8 25.Rb7+ Kg8 26.Rxb8+ Nf8
|Nov-16-13|| ||thomastonk: <Karpova> The game is already here: J McConnell vs Steinitz, 1886.|
Moreover, the following might be interesting, too: http://www.chessarch.com/archive/00....
PS: You often write 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung', but so far as I can see, the *Neue* has been used only in 1923. What do I miss? Thanks.
|Jan-13-14|| ||yureesystem: 18.Qxf6?? is bad because of 18...Qxd6+ winning the knight and preventing mate, black knight goes to Nf5 and wins.|
|Dec-27-15|| ||Tabanus: The crosstable for Vienna 1882 has 1-0 for Steinitz, and may need some modification. Is this the right game?|
|Dec-27-15|| ||thomastonk: <Tabanus: The crosstable for Vienna 1882 has 1-0 for Steinitz, and may need some modification. Is this the right game?> This is the first game of the play-off.|
|Dec-27-15|| ||Tabanus: <tt> Ah yes, I see now. I wondered why the crosstable has 24 points for =1st, and the standings 23.|
Hmm, I'm still not convinced :)
|Dec-27-15|| ||thomastonk: <Tabanus: Hmm, I'm still not convinced :)> Hmm, you could possibly take a look at the tournament book(*), pages 409-411. Or you believe me that I have taken a look at it.|
<I wondered why the crosstable has 24 points for =1st, and the standings 23.> This is another issue. Noa and Fleissig dropped out at some point, and Steinitz won two games without playing (tournament book, page 405). So, the 23 points in the standings are probably those from the played games.
(*) "Das II. Internationale Schachmeisterturnier Wien 1882" by Ch. M. Bijl, Zurich 1984.
|Dec-27-15|| ||zanzibar: Vienna (1882) (kibitz #3)|
|Dec-27-15|| ||Tabanus: Thanks guys. I suppose it's ok now. Without knowing exactly which games were not played, although that can be figured out perhaps.|
|Dec-27-15|| ||thomastonk: <Tabanus: Without knowing exactly which games were not played ...> The crosstable in the tournament book contains this information, but uploading a picture somewhere is a violation of the copyright. |
The crosstable in the "BCM" 1882 does not help, but fortunately the "DSZ" 1882, page 235 has the crosstable differentiating played and non-played games. A copy can be found at Google books, id zjFCAQAAMAAJ.
|Dec-27-15|| ||zanzibar: <The crosstable in the tournament book contains this information, but uploading a picture somewhere is a violation of the copyright.>|
You're not under US copyright, but I would assert that "quoting" a crosstable, under US law, would fall under "fair use".
Then again, despite some familiarity with US law and courts, I'm not a lawyer, let alone a copyright lawyer.
Here's a direct link to the DSZ write up on the tournament:
https://books.google.com/books?id=z... (Aug 1882 v37 p232)
The xtab can be found on p235.
|Apr-21-17|| ||Saniyat24: Would 21.Qg5+ have helped Steinitz?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·