|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-07-07
 | | nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.33. Anderssen 7 mistakes:
31.Ra8+ 1.60 (31.c5 2.47)
37.cxb6 1.07 (37.d5+ 2.30)
41.Bf8 1.25 (41.d5 2.06)
42.Kf2 0.25 (42.Kf1 1.43)
47.Bf1 0.02 (47.Ra7 0.96)
50.Bg8 0.55 (50.Bg7+ 1.11)
57.Ke2 0.59 (57.Rc1 2.81)
Morphy 14 mistakes:
29...g5 2.52 (29...Rc8 0.62)
32...Rxa8 2.35 (32...Qc7 1.42)
38...Bc7 2.04 (38...Nd6 1.07)
44...Rh4 1.01 (44...f4 0.28)
47...Rg3+ 0.36 (47...Rh4 0.02)
49...Rh4 1.11 (49...f4 0.37)
50...Bd6 1.89 (50...f4 0.55)
52...Ne8 2.59 (52...Nb5 1.71)
53...Kg5 3.28 (53...Rh3 2.61)
58...Nf3 2.07 (58...f4 0.59)
59...Kg6 4.33 (59...f4 2.07)
61...e3 6.69 (61...Nd4 4.30)
65...Nxe2 10.51 (65...Kg7 6.92)
67...Re1+ 44.24 (67...Kf8 10.44) |
 |
| Mar-19-08 | | addiction to chess: The Anderssen Opening characterized by 1. a3 is an overlooked opening since it is like you just switched the your colors and it becomes useful when playing a reversed Sicilian Defence since that move is part of the procedure already. |
|
| Dec-21-08 | | WhiteRook48: Anderssen- making trash openings like 1. a3 go successful |
|
| Jan-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: well, he did beat Morphy with 1. a3. So the opening can't be that bad. (He also lost to Morphy with 1. a3 and drew against Morphy with 1. a3.) It's a weird Anderssen Opening. |
|
| Jan-10-09 | | WhiteRook48: 1. a3 is an interesting way to open. |
|
| Jan-18-09 | | WhiteRook48: One can only imagine what Morphy's face looked like after this game... |
|
| Jan-31-09 | | WhiteRook48: what's Rybka's positional analysis after 1. a3? |
|
| Feb-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: Morphy's longest game in the database |
|
| Feb-06-09 | | WhiteRook48: funny game, nice endgame |
|
| Feb-15-09 | | WhiteRook48: and obviously queens the f pawn |
|
| Mar-07-09 | | WeakSquare: Wow, Adolf sez: 1.a3!!!  |
|
| Mar-07-09 | | WhiteRook48: Seems rather bad to give up the bishop pair |
|
| Mar-07-09 | | MaxxLange: he actually almost gets a reversed main line Sicilian |
|
| Mar-07-09 | | whitebeach: I believe there was a contemporary report from a British chess publication, whose correspondent claimed actually to have helped Morphy from his sickbed to the game, that Morphy was very ill, apparently with something fluish--hardly unexpected in international travel at the time--which might explain a lot about his play here. Morphy was, quite simply, the best chess player who ever lived. True, he played in the style of his time. What great player doesn't? But at his best he would have dominated in any time, in any style. Unfortunately, he would probably also have succumbed to his mental fragility in any era, just as Fischer did. It's worth remembering that, even though Morphy's many wealthy American fans would have made it very lucrative for a challenger, no one ever took up his offer of pawn and move versus all comers after he returned from Europe. |
|
| Aug-14-09 | | Knight13: <AlexanderMorphy: Anderssen really liked this opening...most of his opponents of that time probably didn't know how to counter it!> Well, not really, he only played it a few times in competitive chess. |
|
| Jun-21-10 | | Mostolesdude: What a grinding game by Anderssen. Very tough win. |
|
| Aug-03-10 | | Petrosianic: <I believe there was a contemporary report from a British chess publication, whose correspondent claimed actually to have helped Morphy from his sickbed to the game, that Morphy was very ill, apparently with something fluish--hardly unexpected in international travel at the time--which might explain a lot about his play here.> There seem to be excuses for most great player's defeats, and most of them are dubious. So many people just have a hard time conceiving of one of the greats being truly beaten. That's why in pro wrestling they have such a wealth of ways for a Face to lose without losing cleanly. Outside interference, a distraction, some kind of deus ex machina. Hulk Hogan lost his first title after 4 years, because the bad guys bribed the referee's twin brother, and had him switch places just before the match. That way the audience could think "Okay, he lost, but he didn't REALLY lose," because it's just so hard for them to accept that. Same thing in chess. It's just one game in a match that he won +7-2=2, but it seems to have disturbed you so much that you went on this long litany of Morphy's lifetime achievements rather than just accept that once in a while he lost one. It's a long, protracted struggle, in a closed game, of the type that he performed less well in than open ones, against the strongest opponent in the world. No special explanation for his defeat is needed, and there are no moves that make you think "Wow, I can't believe he played that." It's worth remembering that, even though Morphy's many wealthy American fans would have made it very lucrative for a challenger, <no one ever took up his offer of pawn and move versus all comers after he returned from Europe.> Why should they? What would be the value of beating him that way? Everyone would say that Morphy was better and they only won because of the handicap. And they'd probably be right. |
|
| Sep-24-10 | | morphy2010: Morphy was, quite simply, the best chess player who ever lived. True, he played in the style of his time. What great player doesn't? But at his best he would have dominated in any time, in any style. Unfortunately, he would probably also have succumbed to his mental fragility in any era, just as Fischer did. It's worth remembering that, even though Morphy's many wealthy American fans would have made it very lucrative for a challenger, no one ever took up his offer of pawn and move versus all comers after he returned from Europe. |
|
| Feb-25-11 | | Llawdogg: I'm as big a Morphy fan as there is. But the match was over. Morphy was clearly better. It's nice that Anderssen was able to get a win in this tenth game after a long, hard fought endgame. He hadn't had any success since the first game. It must have been terribly humiliating. So, this win was some small consolation. Let's not begrudge him it. |
|
Mar-05-11
 | | ketchuplover: 13...g5 looks interesting imo. |
|
| Sep-28-11 | | skcin: I think as much as is in me is, I might make this one of my mantras, like the game of the century. Like the game vs the allies. I am taking my own medicine. Live long and prosper my fellow chessplayers |
|
Jan-01-12
 | | playground player: Did Anderssen invent this opening for his match with Morphy, or had he used it before? |
|
Jan-31-12
 | | keypusher: <playground player> The games against Morphy are Anderssen's oldest with 1.a3 in the database. Someone with access to old periodicals could tell you if there were any earlier. In any case, Anderssen maneuvered into a Sicilian Reversed inspired (I think) by this defeat: Anderssen vs Wyvill, 1851 |
|
| Apr-20-12 | | Rook e2: Hm, is Anderssens opening a sign of underestimation? Has no one ever thought this might have contributed to his big loss against Morphy? |
|
Apr-20-12
| | keypusher: <Rook e2: Hm, is Anderssens opening a sign of underestimation? Has no one ever thought this might have contributed to his big loss against Morphy?> No and no. Anderssen started playing 1.a3 when (i) he was well behind in the match and (ii) he had gotten some relatively poor positions with 1.e4 e5. See benzol's index of the match.
Game Collection: WCC Index [ Morphy - Anderssen 1858 ] And we know 1.a3 didn't contribute to his defeat because he got good positions with it and scored relatively well with it. (+1-1=1) |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 62.Re7
