|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-16-17 | | kevin86: A great game by Anderssen- the attack is unsprung quickly! |
|
Oct-16-17
 | | chessgames.com: For the next few weeks going to be running games features from our Thematic Challenge Voting Page to create discussion and interest in our new team-chess game starting on November 1st. About the Evergreen, we've done a very thorough analysis of this game: Anderssen vs Dufresne, 1852 [analysis] Stockfish agreed with Taidanii's statement that White could have easily won with <17.Ng3 Qh6 18.Rad1 O-O 19.Bc1 Qe6 20.Ng5 Qh6 21.Bxh7+ +- +6.87 (37 ply)> but instead 17.Nf6+? gxf6 <⩲ +0.57 (36 ply)>. Furthermore Black ultimately lost because he "took the bait" with 19...Qxf3? whereas <19...Qh3 20.Bf1 Qf5 21.Kh1 Qxf6 22.Bxe7 Nxe7 23.Rxd7 Kf8 = 0.00 (48 ply)> in which case the attack fizzles out and we doubtfully would be talking about it today. It's been said that the best way to appreciate a masterpiece is not to dissect it; Anderssen was amazingly creative and pulled off his trickery in brilliant style. I'm not so sure modern GMs would find defenses like Stockfish prattles off so easily. Hats off to Anderssen and this gem. |
|
| Oct-16-17 | | bachiller: Good point <offramp>, but I think you have chosen the wrong tree: frène (fresne) in french corresponds to "ash" in english, latin "fraxinus" and spanish "fresno". The town in California named Fresno, presumably ows its name to the presence of those trees. |
|
| Feb-09-18 | | kishore4u: The evergreen party |
|
| Feb-09-18 | | morfishine: Surely, if Black wastes a tempo with 7...d3, then the capture <7...dxc3> is at least as good, possibly better |
|
| Sep-28-18 | | sallyx: According to the book Common sense in chess by Emanuel Lasker, move 12. was Bxb5 and move 22. ... Kc6 23. Sd7# |
|
Sep-28-18
 | | keypusher: <sallyx > Scroll to phony benoni’s post from 2017. No one is ever going to know precisely what moves were played in this game, and Lasker writing 40+ years after the fact seems like a decidedly unreliable source. |
|
Dec-09-18
 | | MDKnight: Since Black is threatening mate, why not the Black King dodge the rook? 20...Kd8 21. Rd7 Kc8 |
|
| Dec-25-18 | | HarryP: So 19. Rad1 is not White's best move? Great Mariah. Lasker said 19. Rad1 was "one of the most subtle and profound moves on record." |
|
| Apr-23-19 | | Chessmusings: A forest of complications deeply analyzed here: https://chessmusings.wordpress.com/... |
|
Apr-23-19
| | keypusher: <MDKnight: Since Black is threatening mate, why not the Black King dodge the rook? 20...Kd8 21. Rd7 Kc8> 22.Rd8+ and:
a) 22....Rxd8 23.gxf3
b) 22...Nxd8 23.Qd7+ Kxd7 24.Bf5+ Kc6 25.Bd7#
c) 22....Kxd8 23.Bf5+ Ke8 24.Bd6+ Kd8 25.Bxc6+ Qxd1+ 26.Qxd1+ Kc8 27.Qd7# |
|
| Mar-04-20 | | MordimerChess: Following Anderssen's death in 1879, Wilhelm Steinitz published a tribute in The Field magazine. He published Anderssen's two most famous games, the Immortal Game and the Evergreen Game. Annotating the famous move 19.Rad1, Steinitz wrote "An evergreen in the laurel crown of the departed chess hero", and from that time it became the name of this incredible game. But Wilhelm Steinitz couldn't predict how good name he just created. The game became probably the most analyzed one in chess history. Howard Staunton started in 1853 and one of the last serious contributors Garry Kasparov ended in 2003. That's 150 years of crazy game analysis - real EVERGREEN GAME! :) And I created Evergreen Game Ultimate Analysis! Of course joking, I got headache from that game. The players, Anderssen and Dufresne also got headache, check out by yourself:
https://youtu.be/Kjj6HrXPwdw
Anybody's dare to find the final solution? |
|
| Sep-11-21 | | kereru: @Phony Benoni This is a very late reply to your question, but going back to the original source (Deutsche Schachzeitung, Sep & Oct 1852) the moves were not given, it simply said "White mates in 4" after 20...Nxe7. See pages 338 & 383. So it's quite likely Anderssen did simply "announce mate". https://books.google.com/books?id=U... |
|
| Feb-07-22 | | Southernrun: What a nice and amazing game |
|
| Feb-07-22 | | andrewjsacks: Quite a fine game, still and always. |
|
| Dec-26-22 | | Messiah: Not bad! |
|
| Feb-04-23 | | generror: <<HarryP:> So 19. Rad1 is not White's best move? Great Mariah. Lasker said 19. Rad1 was "one of the most subtle and profound moves on record."> He said that in his 1895 <Common Sense in Chess> lectures. In his 1925 <Manual of Chess> (which I recommend to anyone and his Grandma), he says: "It can now be determined that against correct defense it does not work, that defense being <1...Qh3!>, threatening mate. [...] From here, try as he might, White must either allow a draw or force one himself. [...] Hence, the aesthetic value of Anderssen's move is debatable, even dubious." To my knowledge, Lasker was the first to discover that Anderssen's combination, as beautiful as it is, is unsound. And although his analyses in that book are nearly a century old, Stockfish hasn't got much to add to them. |
|
| Feb-04-23 | | generror: People often say, and I often think, that analyzing these old classics with engines takes all the fun out of them. However, when Stockfish shows you such awesome variations as (D) <20...Kd8! 21.Rxd7+! Kc8! 22.Rd8+!>, I realize that it just makes me enjoy the games more.
click for larger viewThis is by the way the "correct" play according to Lasker, Euwe, Kasparov, Stockfish etc. Then it goes on with <22...Kxd8 23.Bf5+ Qxd1+ 24.Qxd1+ Nd4! 25.Bh3>, which according to Euwe has first been suggested as the winning line in Collijn's <Lärobok>, although he calls it doubtful because of <25...Bd5>. Stockfish prefers <25...Re8 26.cxd4 Bd5> (D), but even that is still at least +5 for White. 
click for larger viewIn fact, the losing move is indeed <19...Qxf3>, after that, it's just a question of not blundering for White, but the way Anderssen does it here it still absolutely beautiful and impressive. However, he could have won easily with <17.Ng3 Qh6 18.Rad1 0-0 19.Bc1 Qe6 20.Ng5>, as Kasparov pointed out (or whoever's analysis that was he used in his book). But as he said, "the treasury of chess art would have lost a major masterpiece", and I agree to him; for me, the fascination in chess does not lie in the objectively best move, but in the human creativity it displays so beautifully -- including in how flawed it can be! In fact, I think one could safely say that it's their unique kind of flaws that defines a player. Tolstoy said: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." I say, perfect chess players do not exist; and each imperfect chess player is imperfect in his own way. |
|
| Feb-15-23 | | kereru: Kasparov was not the first to point out that 17.Nf6+? was in fact a poor move, and 17.Ng3 wins material, with the game to follow. But it was just an informal game between friends and Anderssen probably just wanted to have a little fun. Paul Lipke was the first to bring the soundness of Anderssen's combination into question with his suggestion of 19...Rg4, which is probably good enough to draw though White can retain an edge with 20.Re4! 19...Qh3 and 19....Bd4 are also draws, and probably better than 19...Rg4. 19.Be4, which has sometimes been recommended as superior to 19.Rad1, is also a draw. See the wikipedia article on the Evergreen Game for a fairly accurate summary of the current state of analysis. |
|
| Feb-17-23 | | Sirius69: According to my analysis the much abused 17) Nf6
was not the most precise move, but the most romantic move, which actually leads to a heroic but losing defense by black, leading to checkmate in 78 moves. 1-0 |
|
| Jun-08-23 | | Petrosianic: <kereru: Kasparov was not the first to point out that 17.Nf6+? was in fact a poor move, and 17.Ng3 wins material, with the game to follow. But it was just an informal game between friends and Anderssen probably just wanted to have a little fun.> If you're suggesting he played a bad move deliberately in order to "have fun", that's pretty darn unlikely. Even in informal games, most people enjoy winning more. |
|
Jun-08-23
| | keypusher: < Jun-08-23 Petrosianic: <kereru: Kasparov was not the first to point out that 17.Nf6+? was in fact a poor move, and 17.Ng3 wins material, with the game to follow. But it was just an informal game between friends and Anderssen probably just wanted to have a little fun.>
If you're suggesting he played a bad move deliberately in order to "have fun", that's pretty darn unlikely. Even in informal games, most people enjoy winning more.> No, he is not suggesting that. |
|
| Aug-31-23 | | kereru: Matthew Sadler has recently published the book "Re-engineering the Chess Classics" in which he analyzes 35 well known chess games with modern engines like Stockfish, Leela and Komodo. It's interesting to see his analysis of this game, but there are no startling new revelations. (1) 10.Re1 and 11.Ba3 are inaccuracies; 10.Rd1 and 11.Re3, respectively, are better. White should just get the d3 pawn out of the way. (2) 11...b5? is very poor. 11...d5 gives Black an edge. (3) 17.Nf6+? "might well be the first move one whacks out in a simultaneous display without a second thought" but it throws away a won position. (4) 19.Be4 was "objectively best" and leads to a slightly better but drawn endgame (5) The trappy 19.Rad1 was objectively drawn but certainly worth a try (6) 19...Bd4! is the simplest draw; 19...Qh3 also works; 19...Rg4 leads to a slightly worse endgame. After 19...Qxf3? the game is lost. |
|
| Aug-17-24 | | Rabbinvane: I doubt Black really was trying to fight in this game. He was likely happy to be part of an artistic piece, even as the victim. Any modern player would've castled on move 11. |
|
| Nov-14-24 | | Lugia: Good game. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 17.Nf6+