< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·
|Mar-23-14|| ||john barleycorn: Or as cannonfodder for 1800's
|Mar-23-14|| ||john barleycorn: <LIFE Master AJ: ...
when you stepped off the time machine, you would be dumb as a brick>
You succeeded without the equipment...
|Mar-23-14|| ||OhioChessFan: Maybe he's from the future?|
|Mar-23-14|| ||john barleycorn: <OhioChessFan: Maybe he's from the future?>|
Actually, it doesn't matter in this specific case:
0-0 = 0+0 = 0
|Jul-01-14|| ||sergeidave: Did you know that it was actually Black who won this amazing game?? :)
|Jul-01-14|| ||sergeidave: Also, from that same source, it appears that the moves ...3 through 5, actually happened in a slightly different order... Then the rest of the games plays as notated above.|
|Jul-25-14|| ||m.okun: To discuss this game from positions of today at least it's ridiculous.|
|Feb-25-15|| ||offramp: Who thought up the brilliant pun for this game? And who voted for it?|
|Apr-04-15|| ||zanzibar: <sergeidave> thank you for pointing that ref out to me. |
<jnpope>, in an older post on another forum, had mentioned that there once was a time when the color who moved first was variable.
Of course I was incredulous. But <jnpope> is both indefatigable and inimitable, and now you've offered proof most incontrovertible.
From <jnpope>'s post I believe that during match play, in days of old, players would have the same color for the entire match, alternating move.
I still would like to see more historical references for when this convention went out of favor, and the modern White-to-move convention became universally adopted.
|Jun-30-15|| ||w7n: The interesting fact is that when this game was analysed by Kieseritsky (in La Regence), the most critical move 18.Bd6 was given the comment 'the coup de grace which proves all black's efforts futile'. Supposedly the line which saves black from being crushed was too hard for chess players to find by then??|
Also, several sources have claimed that black is winning after 18.Bd6 if he plays correctly, but Stockfish 5 evaluates the position after 18.Bd6 Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Qb2 as +0.00, with the next white move as 20. Bxc5, while 20. Kd2 is also evaluated as +0.00. (Which likely means both lines should end in a draw soon)
So while 18.Bd6 is not objectively sound, it's not losing either.
|Sep-06-15|| ||The Kings Domain: One for the ages. Anderssen's combinative skill and foresight are timeless. Kieseritzky sure showed his limitation by going for piece-grabs rather than defending his kingside against whites ominous buildup there.|
|Nov-30-15|| ||roriray35: I keep telling my under twelve team "remember to bring out your queen's bishop and don't leave your rooks standing in the corners"!|
|Dec-31-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <offramp: Who thought up the brilliant pun for this game? And who voted for it?>|
Could it have been you? In a former life?
|Feb-24-16|| ||luftforlife: In his The Middle Game in Chess, GM Dr. Reuben Fine analyzed this game from 18. Bd6 through its conclusion, and followed the moves just as they are iterated here. His annotation (which I've altered only by conversion to one form of modern-day notation and by identifying the cumulative move numbers) diverges from the alternative 1879 Steinitz line provided above (interlarded with the PGN moves), with the following predicted moves and consequences flowing from the alternate move 18. . . . Qxa1:|
"If here, e.g. 18. . . . QxRa1+; 19. Ke2, QxRg1; then 20. Nxg7+, Kd8; 21. Bc7#."
Reuben Fine, The Middle Game in Chess (New York: David McKay Co. 1952, Tartan softcover reprint, September 1972), at 20 (notation converted, cumulative enumeration substituted).
Best to all, ~ lufty
|Feb-24-16|| ||Sally Simpson: "Kieseritzky sure showed his limitation by going for piece-grabs...."|
Kieseritzky had a plus score v Anderssen.
Some chess books actually claim that Kieseritzky was the winner of this game. (it was definitely Anderssen.)
Eliza Campbell Foot (see my post in that thread.)
|Mar-17-16|| ||talhal20: Anderssen was at the top of his chess prowess.|
|Apr-12-16|| ||Gambito23: Kaspárov critica el gambito 4...b5, y analiza 7.Cc3! g5 8.d4 Ab7 9.h4 Tg8 10.Rg1 gh 11.Th4 Dg6 12.De2 Ce4 13.Tf4 f5 14.Ch4 Dg3 15.Ce4 (1-0) Nigel Short-Kaspárov,Londres 1993. Partida exhibición temática.|
|Aug-26-16|| ||nikromos: This final position of this game was used in Mr. Robot for the first game Ray plays with Elliott.|
|Nov-12-16|| ||Inedit2: Very strange game !|
|Mar-29-17|| ||erony: Of course 18.Bd6?! played in the game was not a good move, when 18. d4! is winning, just like 18. Be3! or 18. Re1!. But after all, it is not so bad.|
The line 18.Bd6 Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Qb2 20. Kd2! is critical, but it is not "0,00" like somebody said. After 20...Bxg1 21 e5 Ba6, white wins (I leave you the pleasure to discover how). Better 21...Bb7 but still, it is a white advantage.
|Jul-06-17|| ||ketchuplover: Happy Immortal Birthday young man :)|
|Aug-25-17|| ||Isilimela: Oh alas the death of romanticism at the cold hands of the "silicon monster".|
16 ... Bc5 ?? Blunder
17 Nd5 Blunder (17 d4 Bf8 18. Be5 etc)
18. Bd6 Blunder 18 ... Bxg1 Blunder!
|Aug-25-17|| ||ughaibu: Not every less than best move is a "blunder".|
|Aug-25-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: A blunder is a serious mistake.|
|Aug-25-17|| ||Olavi: There are other definions also. It's very normal for professionals to call a move a blunder if they have overlooked everything. Even if they got lucky and the move didn't lose or anything. OK, that's perhaps an emotional definition.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·