< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Apr-03-07|| ||Silverstrike: In Vladimir Vukovic's book "art of attack in chess" he gives this game as finishing 15.g4 Qf2 (rather than 15...Rxh5+) 0-1 . Could anyone help?|
|Apr-03-07|| ||tamar: <Silverstrike> See previous notes by <Ziggurat> and <Calli> |
If indeed this was analysis rather than a real result, it gives an insight into Anderssen's training methods.
He was more an investigator than player, and perhaps this is just the tip of the iceberg in games that he allowed to be played out from positions unfavorable to him to discover the truth about a combination.
|Dec-05-07|| ||sneaky pete: This game was published by Nimzowitsch in the Baltischen Zeitung, Riga, June 5, 1918, as played (at an unknown date) by Anderssen vs Dufresne. Nimzowitsch states the game was shown to him in 1902 by the Berlin master Harmonist and gives the finishing moves 15.g4 Qf2 16.g3 Qxg3 17.Qf1 Qxg4 0-1.|
After 12... Qg5! he comments: Auch an alten Partien lassen sich moderne Prinzipien erläutern: der weiße Bauer g4 bildet die "Angriffsmarke" zur Oeffnung der h-Linie mittels h7-h5. Die Angriffsmarke soll aber zuerst u n b e w e g l i c h gemacht werden.
|Mar-03-08|| ||Amarande: I have only ever seen the ending given as <sneaky pete> indicates.|
The last time I saw this game was in Renaud & Kahn's <The Art of the Checkmate>, pp. 79-80, where the authors give the variation cited by <sneaky pete> as the actual game variation, and after move 17 there is an annotation that ends with "but one century ago the fight was carried on to the bitter end."
Given that so many of the other memorable games of the time were also carried on to mate (including Anderssen's own two most famous wins) I see no reason to believe that Anderssen himself would have resigned in this game, and am inclined to regard Renaud & Kahn's annotation as true. I have also never seen the ... Rxh5+ variation published in any major book (and I do recall seeing this game in a second book as well but cannot recall the title offhand), which also inclines me to believe that the variation given by Renaud & Kahn and cited by <sneaky pete> as the correct score.
|Mar-03-08|| ||Calli: Again, this is analysis, not a game. Read the Chess Note 3888 which is linked in my post of Oct 23, 2006.|
|May-14-08|| ||sfairat: Brilliant! It's hard to see where white went wrong. I think white had to accept it can't win a piece and play to equalize. Attack the knight with one more pawn, which I think leads to check and an exchange of two minor pieces for the rook.|
|Aug-04-08|| ||chessqueenie: why doesn't white take bishop when its forked on move 9???|
|Aug-04-08|| ||Octal: <chessqueenie>: Analyze the position after 9. fxg4? Qh4+.|
|Aug-16-08|| ||ravel5184: 9. fxg4? Qh4+ 10. Ke2 d3+! 11. Ke3 (Kxd3 Nf2+, cxd3?? Qf2#) Bc5+ 12. Kf4 g5+ 13. Kf5 Qh6 and mates next.|
|Aug-19-08|| ||macphearsome: I think white wasted too many moves with its white bishop! most notably|
just allows black to advance his queen-pawn, developing a bishop and forcing white to play the retreat.
|Jan-01-09|| ||YoungEd: Great game by Black, who was on the wrong side of some famous games. To my mind, 9. ...d3 is the star move, clearing the way for the bishop and leaving the pawn fork unaltered. Nice touch at the end, too--the queen move to g5 is to block the g4 pawn, so that it can't avoid a charging Black h5!|
|Feb-25-09|| ||Bears092: I don't think white should be in any hurry here to take one of the pieces. Maybe 10. Qe1 to cover the f2 square after the king has to move away. (10....Bc5+ 11. Kh1). I don't see a convincing reply.|
|Feb-25-09|| ||solskytz: Actually the attack is not quite sound. I find ...Ne4 outrageous. This can't work. |
White castles in the next move, but after that, if he plays Qe1 on the next move rather than taking on g4, he escapes the pin, puts power into the fork, and covers the squares that later become critical, g3 and h4. He should win big material after this.
|Mar-02-09|| ||Honza Cervenka: <It's hard to see where white went wrong.> Well, it is not so hard I think. 6.e5 is dubious at first glance and 10.fxg4 is a blunder. Instead of that 10.Qe1 leaves black in troubles.|
|Apr-04-09|| ||FSR: Yeah, what Honza Cervenka said - 10.Qe1 is a known refutation. Black has nothing besides 10...Bc5+ 11.Kh1 Nf2+ 12.Rxf2, when White wins two pieces for a rook. Iakov Neishtadt, Catastrophe in the Opening, p. 170.|
What sneaky pete said, too. Neishtadt, like every other source I've seen, gives this game as Anderssen-Lange, 1859. Some other sources say that White played on with 14.gxh5 Qxf5 15.g4 Rxh5+! 16.gxh5 Qe4! 17.Qf3 Qh4+ 18.Qh3 Qe1+ 19.Kh2 Bg1+ 20.Kh1 Bf2+ 21.Kh2 Qg1#.
|Apr-19-09|| ||zdiddy: <FSR> Thanks for posting that alternate finish. I was wondering why white wouldn't just play on, but now its obvious that it was a losing scenario no matter what happened.|
Why did White delay fxg4 until after the 0-0? To me, that's where things began to go sour.
|Apr-27-09|| ||FSR: <zdiddy> White didn't want to see 9.fxg4 Qh4+ 10.g3 (10.Ke2? Qf2+ 11.Kd3 Nc5#) Nxg3 11.hxg3 Qxh1+ 12.Ke2 Qg2+ followed by 13...Qxg3+.|
|Oct-11-09|| ||jon01: It is a really lovely game. I discovered it after researching the theme of Greco's mate.|
click for larger view
1. Bc4+ Kh8 2. Ng6+! hxg6 3. Rh1#
|Jan-23-10|| ||jejlchess: Why not, after 16.Gxh5...QxH5
|Jan-23-10|| ||xiko9: lol jejlchess look forward to white's queen...just 17. Qxh5|
|Aug-01-15|| ||Sho: Eastbound 'n down|
|Jan-15-16|| ||Martin Riggs: I call this 1 "Keine Langeweile (No Boredom)." ;0]|
|May-08-17|| ||zanzibar: Compare this game to
A Odebrecht vs J Carra, 1985
|May-08-17|| ||zanzibar: <CG> doesn't seem to have the game, but White wins one with 10.Qe1 being played:|
(White to move after 9...d3)
click for larger view
r2qkb1r /ppp2ppp/8/3pP3/4n1b1/1B1p1P2/PPPP2PP/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 10
<Breja, Stanislav (2230) -- Oprea, Erik
Slovan Open (1) Slovan open
1993 1-0 C61e>
There's no hurry on the fork once the queen unpins the pawn.
|May-08-17|| ||zanzibar: <As regards the twentieth-century publication of the game, Mr Anderberg suggests the following as the likely historical sequence:|
‘1. In old age Dufresne showed Harmonist this game, around 1890 – “an Anderssen loss”.
2. In 1902 Harmonist showed the game to Nimzowitsch (a student in Berlin) – “an Anderssen loss, handed down by Dufresne”.
3. Nimzowitsch published the game with the proviso that the players’ names were dubious.
4. Lasker removed all trace of doubt about the game’s authenticity.
5. Finally, Bachmann made up “Berlin, 1851?”.’
Toni Preziuso (Chur, Switzerland) also draws attention to Max Lange’s book Der Meister im Schachspiel and provides the relevant text from page 217:>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·