< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-02-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: 17.Nxg5!! is a superb shot. Anderssen could have played also 18.Ne6 Nf4 19.Nf5+ with decisive advantage instead of 18.Nf5. After 18.Nf5 Kieseritsky's best defence seems to be 18...Qxg5, but 19.Bxg5 fxg5 20.Nxe7+ Kf7 21.Nf5 Bf3 22.Rxg5 Nf4 (forced by threat 23.Nh4 winning a piece) 23.Rg7+ Ke8 (23...Ke6?? 24.Re7#) 24.Nd6+ Kd8 25.Bf5! Be4! 26.e6! Re8! 27.Nxe8 Bxf5 28.Nc7 Nxe6 29.Nxe6 Bxe6 30.Rxh7 gives white decisive advantage too as his Rooks are much better there than disorganized R+B+N of black. Text move 18...fxg5 led to an immediate material disadvantage of black and the game was decided. The rest of it was a fruitless but still quite interesting fight for survival of black. |
|Aug-02-04|| ||OneArmedScissor: I thought this game was played poorly on both sides... |
|Aug-02-04|| ||themindset: 17.Nxg5 was both sound and brilliant. |
|Aug-02-04|| ||kevin86: A perfect line for a cynic could be:all art is made up of mistakes.For instance:|
Mona Lisa:can Leonardo paint a full smile without goofing it up?
Whistler's Mother:Was this painted before color was invented?
Monet:people too good for him?
|Aug-02-04|| ||white pawn: Why do you say that <OneArmedScissor>? |
|Aug-02-04|| ||MoonlitKnight: Good point, kevin86! An immortal chess game also requires mistakes by the losing side. Still, I must disagree with OneArmedScissor. Anderssen and Kieseritsky were two of their time's greatest players, and this game was definitely not played poorly. |
|Aug-02-04|| ||acirce: It's simple - poorly with today's standards, not with their time's. It's not their fault that they couldn't reach higher in 1851. |
|Aug-02-04|| ||Calchexas: <kevin86> But of course mistakes are part of any kind of art! (Well, technically, a 0-move draw and the 'blank canvas' have no mistakes, but those are trivial exceptions.) Without them, it wouldn't be "art." |
|Aug-03-04|| ||acirce: Wouldn't 15..Bg4 have given Black a very big advantage - perhaps already decisive? |
|Aug-03-04|| ||kevin86: <Calchexas> Of course,I mean any kind of art-that's why I brought up painting. Art is in the perception of the beholder;its tastes are more distinct than fingerprints. Zero move draws and blank canvas to some are art and to others a waste of time (or no time). |
|Aug-04-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: <acirce> 15...Bg4 is an interesting move. Black is probably better after 16.exf6 Nxf6 17.Nc3 Qh5, but position is still quite complex. |
|Aug-16-04|| ||OneArmedScissor: <White Pawn>
It just seems like the attacks were way too outlandish, etc. with no regards to position.
Maybe I'm forgetting that this is the time period when positional play didn't exist =P
|Aug-22-04|| ||patzer2: I believe <acirce> is correct in suggesting 15...Bg4! would turn the tables in this game. I played it out with Fritz 8 on infinite analysis, and though the variations are complicated I believe Black has a forced win.|
The initial variation as pointed out by <Honza Cervenka> goes 15...Bg4! 16.exf6 Nxf6 17.Nc3 Qh5!
Forcing play continues 18. Be2 fxg3 19. Rxg3 (19. hxg3 Nbd7 ) 19...Bd6! 20. Ne5 Qxh2 21. Qd3! Bxe2 22. Rxg5+ Kh8 23. Qxe2 Qh1+ 24. Kd2 Nbd7! and now Fritz 8 assesses a win for Black @ -2.06 pawns @ 12 depth & 1276kN/s.
Play could continue 25. Qe1 Qh3 26. Qg3 Qxg3 27. Rxg3 Nxe5 28. dxe5 Bxe5 29. Rh3 Rae8 (-2.87 pawns @ 13 depth & 1298kN/s). The win will require strong technique. However, with more active pieces, the initiative, a space advantage and two potential passed pawns, Black should win.
|Aug-31-05|| ||molle2006: Well, that's the style how they used to play in those days. Start off with Kings Gambit Accepted or maybe Evans Gambit or Vienna and then just throw everything into the battle.
Anderssen didn't care about things like his pawn structure, in many games he didn't even castle. In the base you can also find a couple of games where he was sacrificing one piece after another to end up in a lost endgame.
Remember that in those days many players earned their money by sitting in a café and playing against everybody who is paying enough. OK, Andersson was a professor, but many others like Steinitz did so. And so they wanted to play entertaining chess and not just win by positional means in a 'boring' pawn endgame.|
|Aug-31-05|| ||Boomie: Morphy was the father of positional play, for example driving home the importance of early castling. Although he played the same openings as these two great players and perhaps could not calculate any better or worse than them, his edge was his great feeling for the demands of the position. Plus he worked very hard on his game. See his annotations to the LaBourdennaise-McDonnell match.|
|Nov-07-05|| ||Averageguy: I used to live in Haringay! Actually I live in (on?) Muswell Hill which is in the bourrough (spelling?) of Haringay.|
|Aug-08-06|| ||Honza Cervenka: <Boomie: Morphy was the father of positional play> I don't think so. First of all, chess masters long before Morphy were well aware of different positional factors and some of them were rather positional players than anything else (For example Staunton). If positional play has any single father, then probably Philidor can be the hottest candidate. On the other hand, Morphy was natural genius with acute combinative insight who perfectly handled the play in open positions according to principles which are generally operative even today, but in closed or semi-closed positions he was not so great (though he could have improved with growing experience if he would have continued in his brief chess career after famous tour in France and England) and some of his contamporaries were still better on this field. Btw, also Anderssen had some fine positional performances in his career.|
|Nov-06-07|| ||nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.33.|
Anderssen 7 mistakes:
10.Ne2 0.41 (10.d5 0.90)
11.e5 -0.36 (11.g3 0.28)
14.Ke1 -0.48 (14.g4 0.22)
15.g3 -1.41 (15.g4 0.00)
18.Nf5 0.05 (18.Ne6 1.30)
20.Bxg5 1.27 (20.Nf5+ 3.28)
36.Rg8 5.96 (36.Rgh4 9.04)
Kieseritsky 11 mistakes:
8...d6 0.44 (8...Be7 0.04)
9...Nh5 0.90 (9...Nbd7 0.48)
12...0-0 0.23 (12...g5 -0.12)
14...f6 0.00 (14...g4 -0.48)
15...fxg3 0.00 (15...Bg4 -1.41)
16...Bg4 1.30 (16...Ng7 0.00)
18...fxg5 2.81 (18...Bb4+ 0.05)
25...Rf4 3.91 (25...Nf4 1.35)
33...Bd8+ 5.25 (33...Rxg4 4.10)
35...Bb6 9.04 (35...Bg5 6.17)
37...Nef4 #14 (37...Bc5 6.75)
|Nov-01-08|| ||Fanacas: The first great postitinal player was steinitz and he first introduced it 2 the world it may look that some players before him have positinal play but it also looks that way if you look at a amteurs game(not to compare the old masters 2 a amateur they are much stronger) it looks that way but they had no knowloge about it.|
|Apr-12-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 39. Rxh5+!!|
|Jul-07-09|| ||heuristic: besides 15...Bg4;
15...fxe5 16.Nxe5 f3 17.Nf4 f2+ 18.Kxf2 is good for BLK
|May-04-10|| ||zev22407: One has to be careful ,if 39)e7-e8-Q??
|Jul-12-10|| ||soothsayer8: 17. Nxg5! was definitely a great move, but also a bit mishandled by Kieseritsky with 18...fxg5? giving Anderssen that passed pawn on e5 which ultimately proved fatal for black. 18...Qxg5 would have been advised, though white would still have the superior position.|
About the origin of positional play, I think Steinitz was perhaps the first played to prefer positional play and suggest it as an improved way of playing chess, he was also the best at it in his time, this is why I'd say he was the father of modern, positional chess, even though positional games were clearly already being played, this game, for example. Morphy did not champion positional chess, he preferred quick, attacking chess, but he knew better than anyone when to attack and how to set up an attack (development).
|Jul-13-12|| ||vinidivici: whats up with 21...Kg6 ?|
|Jul-13-12|| ||vinidivici: what about it..?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·