| Aug-23-04 | | fgh: 5 sacrifices! |
 |
Apr-12-05
 | | Eric Schiller: The capture with the knight at move 4 is very rare in the Evans, but why? Of course it can transpose to normal lines, as in this game, but Black has some interesting options, for example 5...d5!?
I'm amazed that the knight capture isn't even mentioned in books, which should at least point out 4...Nxb4 5.Nxe5 Qf6!
If anyone cares to discuss the knight capture, this brilliant game is as good a place as any! |
|
| Apr-12-05 | | SBC: <Eric Schiller>
<I'm amazed that the knight capture isn't even mentioned in book..> and I'm even more amazed at how well János Jakab Löwenthal played considering he'd been dead for 22 years. |
|
| Apr-12-05 | | dbquintillion: 31. I'm amazed that Qxb6 is + instead of # |
|
Apr-13-05
| | Eric Schiller: Databases often have wrong information. Someone sees a last name and "corrects" the other names to make it consistent. There are mnay problems with Reti/Rethy, and quite a few dead people pop up. This particular game shows up in many databases. Since it is spectacular, it is likely in magazines from the era, but I don't have time to search. Maybe someone with a good library can help us out here? |
|
| Apr-14-05 | | SBC: <chessgames.com>
Either the date of this game is wrong or Blackburne's has the wrong opponent listed. I don't know what you do with such a questionable score, but this game, however wonderful it might be, can't stand as is. |
|
Jul-25-06
 | | gauer: if 4 ...Nxb4, and 5 Nxe5!? I'm more inclined to try the 5 ... d5 lines to get a Hein CounterGambit type of position, but 5 ... Qf6 also looks okay and independent. Is there any theory for when to try and transpose back to the Hein lines, and how does the line (independent ones of the 5 c3 lines, transposing back to the Evans lines) compare for black and/or white)? |
|
Nov-01-07
 | | Infohunter: <gauer: if 4 ...Nxb4, and 5 Nxe5!? I'm more inclined to try the 5 ... d5 lines to get a Hein CounterGambit type of position, but 5 ... Qf6 also looks okay and independent.> Your opinion of 5...Qf6 is a bit on the reserved side. It is more than "okay and independent": It wins at least a piece by force, thanks to (a) the attack on the exposed Knight at e5; (b) the x-ray attack on the Rook at a1 and (c) the mate threat at f2. It is the immediate and unmistakable refutation of 5 Nxe5. None of these threats could have obtained had White played the normal 5 c3. |
|
Nov-16-07
| | gauer: <Infohunter>: Didn't look at the mate threats much with a computer, but wasn't sure that black "wins at least a piece" immediately: Captain Evans vs McDonnell, 1829 . |
|
Dec-02-07
| | Infohunter: <gauer> I saw your comment at the game Captain Evans vs McDonnell, 1829. See my response at that page. I would repeat it here, but that would run afoul of the <cg> rule against duplicating posts. Suffice it to say here that the aforementioned comment reaffirms the fact that Black wins decisive material with 5...Qf6. |
|
Dec-27-08
 | | KingG: <Eric Schiller> After 4...Nxb4 5.c3 Nc6 6.d4, play has just transposed into a favourable variation of the mainline Evans Gambit. |
|
May-24-10
 | | Bishoprick: I don't understand the nature of this discussion. The game was played as part of a "simul" and is ascribed to Blackburne playing against NN, and NN never won against anyone. In this case NN played rather well, but went down to defeat, as usual. |
|
sac: 27.Rd7+