< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Jun-05-10|| ||charmitage: Was no the way he takes the queen in 13. not the coolest thing ever? It's as if Morphy set out in moves 1 to 13 to kill the queen and kill the queen only. I got to that and I couldn't continue on viewing for a while. It was so beautiful. I was shaken by it! Imagine how Anderssen was must have thought!!.|
|Jul-17-10|| ||Julian713: This is the way chess was meant to be played! Even if I lose, I prefer playing this way because I feel like I learn a lot more.|
|Aug-08-10|| ||Grantchamp: OMG!!!!!!!|
|Aug-09-10|| ||Grantchamp: wow amazing|
|Sep-27-10|| ||sevenseaman: Moves keep coming in their utter logical inevitability. <chessamateur> suggests ..8. Qe7+ in lieu of Nx h1. I think Morphy has some arrows to his bow; Be2 Nxh1 Bg5 continue to retain initiative.|
Morphy is like a pesky fly; Anderssen must have felt very exasperated and exhausted at the end of a comparatively short game.
|Oct-25-10|| ||redorc19: its like a ball of tactics, forks and pins was popped and exploded on morphy's side of the board, BLOWING andersson away!!!!!!!!!!|
|Feb-12-11|| ||Llawdogg: Morphy played a brilliant King's Gambit and never once touched his light squared f1 bishop! I didn't even know that was possible. 1 e4 2 f4 3 Nf3 4 Bc4 is almost automatic in the KG. Sometimes, Bc4 is played on the third move, as Anderssen himself did in the Immortal Game. So, how did Morphy win, against Anderssen no less, without that bishop? Amazing! Incredible!|
|Jun-03-11|| ||PolishPentium: As a certified duffer (dismal results at the local Bangkok Chess Club proving it!), i appear devoid of analytical skill, yet it still seems that Anderssen would have benefitted from 18... Be1+ // Both of Morphy's options then seem to be less-than-ideal: 19 Kd1 allows both Nf2+ and Bg4+, developing the Bishop nicely, while 19 Kc1 runs the risk of later walking into a back-rank mate. Or, as usual, is there an effective defence that PP is overlooking? Comments in reply would be appreciated...~|
|Jun-03-11|| ||keypusher: <PolishPentium: As a certified duffer (dismal results at the local Bangkok Chess Club proving it!), i appear devoid of analytical skill, yet it still seems that Anderssen would have benefitted from 18... Be1+ // Both of Morphy's options then seem to be less-than-ideal: 19 Kd1 allows both Nf2+ and Bg4+, developing the Bishop nicely, while 19 Kc1 runs the risk of later walking into a back-rank mate. Or, as usual, is there an effective defence that PP is overlooking? Comments in reply would be appreciated...>|
19.Rxe1 looks pretty good.
|Jul-06-11|| ||Igor Egin: Who has advantage after 16. Qxf7 Rg8 (instead of Bxh4) 17. Qxh7 Ng3 18. Nd2 Bg4 ?|
|Sep-29-11|| ||Cibator: "In addition, in the introductory section to his book “World Chess Championship: Kramnik vs. Lékó” (Hardinge Simpole Publishing 2004), Ray Keene argues that both of these players should be included in a line of world champions that he would start with Labourdonnais (1834-1840). Keene would recognize Anderssen as World Chess Champion from 1851-1858, and Morphy as champion from 1858-1860. The period from 1860-1866 (when Morphy was inactive but still generally regarded as the world’s strongest player) Keene classifies as an interregnum, but he considers Steinitz’s tenure as world champion to have commenced in 1866 (rather than 1886) based upon his victory over Anderssen in a match held in London in that year."|
Though probably the best-known advocate of this thesis, Keene was not the first to advance it. I remember coming across it in "The Chess-Player's Week-end Book" by Romney Coles, published I think in the early 1950s. Coles actually had Philidor first in his line, but he glossed rather rapidly over the 30-odd years that followed the latter's death in 1795. Deschapelles figured there somewhere, and Cochrane got a passing mention too, but I don't recall that he regarded either of them as undisputed champions.
|Oct-19-11|| ||skcin: This game reminds me of a Fischer Reshevsky game where the "rusty" Reshevsky got his queen snagged by a trap Bobby found in an obscure russian chess magazine. I might make a small study of morphy's losses, since there are only 26. If I become wiser I look forward to receiving and giving analysis. Thank you all. Live long and prosper.|
|Mar-15-12|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Igor Egin>, what's protecting the ♖ after 16... ♖g8?|
|Aug-07-13|| ||pericles of athens: A feast for the eyes here, my goodness!|
|Apr-04-14|| ||yureesystem: It is amazing how Morphy destroy Anderssen like a beginner. Truly Morphy is one the greatest master of attack.|
|Apr-04-14|| ||Petrosianic: Thank you for non-specifically assuring us that the game is amazing. Really adds to the conversation.|
|Jun-19-14|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Sorry, <Igor Egin> meant 16... Rf8.
<Garech>/Fritz's idea 8. ... Qe7+ looks good, although Anderssen's move should have been fine.|
|Jul-06-14|| ||Tal1949: Speechless...|
|Jul-14-14|| ||Mudphudder: Classic morphy slaughter.|
|Sep-26-14|| ||Joshka: Can anyone with an engine check for a better move for black on move 18? 18...Na6 can't be that good. Nc2, Bg5+, or something else HAS to be better, no?..thanks in advance!!|
|Sep-26-14|| ||john barleycorn: Fischer in his MSMG mentions this game in his notes to
Spassky vs Fischer, 1960
After 13.Nxe7 Bxe7 he remarks "and Black should win".
18...Na6 costs the game according to Maroczy in his Morphy book. He recommended 18...Ng3 19.Nb5 Be7 20.Qxh7 with an equal game.
|Sep-26-14|| ||nimh: <Nov-13-07
nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.33.
Morphy no mistakes!
Anderssen 2 mistakes:
18...Na6 0.38 (18...Ng3 -0.39)
20...Bxb2 3.04 (20...Bg5+ 0.43)
WhiteRook48: Yikes! Morphy's play is incredible! >
Or perhaps not...
click for larger view
40/80 47:33 29 885 922k 10 473k +0,40 Qf7-h5 Bh4-e7 Qh5xh1 Be7-g5+ Kd2-c3 Bc8-e6 b2-b3 Ra8-c8+ Kc3-b2 Bg5-f6+ d3-d4 Bf6xd4+
40/80 47:33 29 885 922k 10 473k +1,77 Qf7-f4 Bh4-e7 Ra1-e1 Re8-f8 Qf4-h2 Be7-g5+ Kd2-c3 Bc8-d7 d3-d4 Ra8-c8+ Kc3-b3 Rc8-c6 Bf1-b5 Rc6-b6 c2-c4 h7-h6 Re1xh1 Na6-c7 Kb3-c3 Nc7xb5+ Na3xb5 Bd7xb5 c4xb5 Kd8-c7 a2-a4 a7-a6 Kc3-c4 a6xb5+ a4xb5 Rf8-f5 Rh1-b1 Rf5xb5 b2-b4
Looks like Morphy missed a win on move 19.
|Sep-26-14|| ||tranquilsimplicity: <Garech> We can conclude that even the great Bobby Fischer was unable to comprehensively analyse the King's Gambit. In my view, David Bronstein was right when he advised us to play the King's Gambit owing its richness of positions. Even nowadays, super GMs lose to the King's Gambit, notwithstanding software concluding that Black is better in most positions. #|
|Dec-17-14|| ||PolishPentium: To keypusher...: Sorry to be over 3.5 years late, but i now realize that your 19 Rxe1 is eminently reasonable. I foolishly thought it was not possible since in reviewing the moves i absentmindedly failed to allow Morphy's 18th move. D'Oh!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·