Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Alexander McDonnell vs Louis Charles Mahe De La Bourdonnais
"MacDonnell's Drive Through" (game of the day Oct-06-2005)
London m 20 (1834), rd 20
King's Gambit: Accepted. Bishop's Gambit Cozio Variation (C33)  ·  0-1


Annotations by Jan van Reek.      [1 more game annotated by Jan van Reek]

explore this opening
find similar games 85 more McDonnell/La Bourdonnais games
sac: 9...Nxd4 PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: If we are missing an important game, you can submit it (in PGN format) at our PGN Upload Utility.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Oct-06-05  atrifix: <schnarre> These ARE modern annotations. Here's my favorite one:

"Theory about chess strategy made a leap forward in 1927, when Euwe wrote sagacious articles about pawns in the center and the attack on the King, and Nimzovich published his system of prophylaxis. Van Reek completed, clarified and combined these approaches into a general theory for human and computer chess in 1997."

Oct-06-05  schnarre: <atrifix> Good Point!
Oct-06-05  bishopawn: I am probably a novice compared with the rest of y'all, but would 6...Bh5 be a consideration to prevent the White Bishop's taking the pawn? I guess what I really want to ask is, was castling considered something cissy players do back in the halcyon days of LaBourdonnais, MacDonnell and Morphy?
Oct-06-05  schnarre: <bishopawn> No, castling was not abhorred in those days. 6...Bh5 seems a little weak, since being on the sideline limits its mobility (though it covers the f7 pawn & lets the Queen cover the f4 pawn, White still has Nf3 as an option).
Oct-07-05  Jaymthetactician: "But could Morphy even stand a chance against Kasparov!?"


and regarding Fischerrandom even I would easily defeat Morphy as I defeated the 2000 level of Deep Shredder in shuffle chess (alot of it was tactics training that made me so well in it, I'm not too much of a book player), so imagine what Topolov (perhaps the greatest player of all time) would do to him? And you say "especially the positional players" I highly disagree as Judit Polgar would tear LaBourdonnais, Greco, Morphy, Steinitz, and Botvinnik limb from limb at Fischerrandom.

Though the game played is far from boring as it was so exiting to look over, such is LaBourdonnais style, like a much weaker variation of Kramnik, much like me exept I'm somewhere between LaBourdonnais and Kramnik in skill (though closer to LaBourdonnais)

Oct-07-05  Jaymthetactician: I agree with Jan van Reek, 7.Bxf7+ is too wild, better was what he said.

"black played a wonderful game in the style of Greco" But I don't even think Greco would be any match for MacDonnel.

Oct-07-05  blackjacki2: quicker is 19...qxh1+
Oct-07-05  Jaymthetactician: yeah blackjack but at that point it's irrelavant and LaBourdonnais was just toying with him.
Oct-07-05  Boomie: Fun to speculate about the strengths of the old time players. One important distinction between GMs and patzers is the use of long term memory. GMs work out of long term memory while patzers work out of short term memory. Morphy's memory was described as photographic. He committed the entire Louisiana state law code to memory. He could replay every game he ever played or saw. On this basis alone I believe Morphy would be a load for any GM today.

We kid ourseleves into thinking that today's GMs are somehow mentally more capable than those of the past. Human physical potential has not increased. If anything it has decreased on average with the easing of selection pressures by modern medicine. Of course increased population creates more Super GM minds.

No one in physics would contend that Newton would be unequal to today's science. I believe Morphy would compete successfully today. He probably wouldn't dominate but he would be in the top ten.

Oct-07-05  schnarre: <Boomie> I'm inclined to agree.
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Boomie: No one in physics would contend that Newton would be unequal to today's science.> I'm a physicist, and I disagree. If Newton time-travelled to 2005 he would have to spend several years in graduate school or its equivalent before being able to do significant original research. After that he would probably be very successful. He might even go on to win the Nobel prize, but there are a lot of Nobel laureates alive today.

MacDonnell and la Bourdonnais would have to spend years catching up too. Then they might go on to become masters or grandmasters -- but there are many more grandmasters now then in 1834.

Oct-08-05  schnarre: <al wazir> There are many more master players today, in no small part because there are probably many times more chess players today than in those days.
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: I would have to agree with <schnarre> and <Boomie>.
Oct-11-05  schnarre: A great deal to ponder!
Oct-12-05  Jaymthetactician: I was going to say to Boomie that many modern physicist would disagree, but thank god for Al Wazir who, being a physicist (I just have Feynmans 3 volume series lectures on physics, so I also would have a valid argument here, but clearly not as much so as Al Wazir) saved me the trouble. Why all of you disagree with an actual physicist?

And Boomie say's "Our physical level has decreased if anything" I disagree as nowaday's we have sophisticated work-out programs and GNC suppliments (some of which will help with chess, focus factor should put at least 200 rating points on anyone, there are other suppliments of course, but I havent thoroughly researched them). They didnt even have sit-ups before the turn of the 20th century!

But I digress, Fischer, who defered the title of greatest american of all time to Morphy (very honorable of Fischer to do so, but I think is incorrect as Fischer is better then Morphy), said no one alive today would defeat him, I even know someone who thinks Morphy is better then Deep Blue! I doubt Morphys that good.

Oct-14-05  schnarre: It's always iffy when seeing how older players would compare to players of today: their ways of thinking were often quite different from our own, not just their playing styles & theory. We can speculate, but in the end that's all.
Aug-15-06  Mendrys: I wonder how <Jaymthetactician>, formerly known as<Jaymthegenius>, formerly <Jaymtheomnipotent> and before that<Jaymthegodlike>, is able to walk without falling over due to his very large head.

Sorry all, that was too easy. While I have no doubt that most of us have a broader understand of chess theory than anyone in the past I think that all but a few of us would be crushed by the likes of Morphy. Think about it. We have modern PC's that can search millions of moves a second to help us. We have volumes of opening books and modern theory to peruse. Most of the top professionals have been dedicated to chess since they were very young. Morphy and his kind had none of this and were still able to produce games that we can marvel at. In the end its board sight and tactics, tactics, and more tactics that win. How many of us are able to play 8 skilled players at the same time blindfolded? The amount of time available to them to study chess was limited compared to today. Don't get me wrong, I understand where <Jaymthetactician> is coming from. However, even though there are 12 year old girl swimmers who would cream Johnny Weissmuller (winner of multiple olympic gold medals in the 1920's) if he were somehow time-travelled to the present we know that if he had the same advantages of modern training techniques that he would be far superiour to any 12 year old girl. Same with Morphy. If he had the advantages of being able to study modern chess theory at a young age he would probably be a top GM today, not just a patzer kibbitzer on CG.COM.

Aug-15-06  bvwp: Chessmetrics gives at least plausible ratings for late-nineteenth century players, compared with modern-day. Morphy is quite a long way down the lists, though this, of course, might only suggest that chessmetrics hasn't got everything right.
Jan-02-07  wolfking: what do you think of capablanca playing chess in 2007?
Aug-10-07  Cactus: He'd be a powerhouse!
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gypsy: <Jaymthetactician: ... and regarding Fischerrandom even I would easily defeat Morphy as I defeated the 2000 level of Deep Shredder in shuffle chess> I am most impressed.
Sep-21-07  nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.25.

McDonnell 3 mistakes:
7.Bxf7+ -2.72 (7.Nc3 -0.46)
11.Na3 -7.10 (11.Nc3 -2.66)
17.Bd2 #12 (17.Qf4 -3.77)

De La Bourdonnais 1 mistake:
15...Nc6 -4.27 (15...f2+ -6.97)

Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: <atrifix: <It always amazes me how terrible Jan van Reek's annotations are.>> Good move!
Feb-02-12  Knight13: <van Reek: Black played a wonderful game in the style of Greco.> More like Anderssen. This game faintly reminds me of the "Immortal Game." Perhaps it was so back in 1834 before 1851 took over.
Feb-18-14  PJs Studio: Caps was so awesome. But I think he might(?) have some trouble with the modern super GMs. Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov(!) and especially madmen like Shirov or Topalov.

Although he would catch up in opening theory and advance rapidly into the FIDE top 100 after a few years. (I'm not dissing the genius of Capa in anyway! I just think the modern players have much more theory & technology to support their genius.) - they'd probably drive him nuts...but I'm not sure. Anyone?

search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
KGA. B's Gambit Cozio Var (C33) 0-1 Bxf7+ eventually beat by f2
from yDecoy To-o, Deflection From, Remove Fredthebear by fredthebear
KGA. B's Gambit Cozio Var (C33) 0-1 Bxf7+ eventually beat by f2
from Black Attacks f2 Annoyed Fredthebear ECO B, C by fredthebear
La Bourdonnais Smashing McDonnell with Black
from Famous King's Gambits. by micahtuhy
Chess Prehistory
by Joe Stanley
The queen's sacred dance in the kingside in the King's Gambit
from The Story of the 1001 Queens. by syracrophy
15.0% - 5.0%
from Blunder Check: Louis Charles De La Bourdonnais by nimh
White played Kings Gambit but in the end black had the attack!!
from alex97's favorite games by alex97
woodenbishop's favorite games #3
by woodenbishop
KGA 0-1 med komm
from xfer's favorite games 2006 by xfer
20 moves
from Chess Miniatures, Collection IV by wwall
Black played a wonderful game in the style of Greco.--Morphy
from Shadowlord's favorites games by Shad0wl0rd16
from KGA- Bishop Gambit by takchess
White's materialism loses to black piece activity (annotated)
from King's Gambit attacking games by Calar
White gets too materialistic while black organizes an attack
from Pre-romantic era of chess by Calar
Anidem's Course to Mastery
by mjmedina
Gambito de rey ganado por las negras
from student0440's favorite games by student0440
s. 29c
from S. Gawlikowski by Sebastian88

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC