< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Feb-23-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: I guess after 25. Rh7 Qh7 Von didn't want go through the torture of: 26. Rc8 Rc8 27. Qc8 Qg8 28. Qh3 Kg7 29. Qd7 Kh6 30. Nf7 Kg7 31. Nd6 Kh8 32. Qe7 Qg7 33. Qd8 Kh7 34. Ne8 Qf8 35. Nf6 Kg7 36. Ne8 Kh7 37. Qh4 Kg8 38. Nf6 Kg7 39. Nd5|
Why? Because who wants to play 9 moves with their king for no apparent reason??
|Feb-23-16|| ||The Kings Domain: One of the all-time greats. First came across this in the classic "500 Master Games of Chess" and never forgot it. Love how Steinitz was one step ahead from the start and poor Von Bardeleben never had a chance and yet despite that the game hung precariously in the balance. One for the ages.|
|Feb-23-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: By the way, it's very instructive to study how the White Q+N tackle Black's position after 31. Nd6 in my previous comment. |
Notice what happens at the h4-d8 diagonal and how the Nd6 hops to e8/f6 twice to catch both the f6 and the d5 pawn.
|Feb-23-16|| ||gauer: I realize that C Morales vs W Arencibia, 1989 seems to provide an 8th move alternative.|
Question for User: crafty : 10 Bg5 f6 is now Von Feilitzsch vs Raymond Le Pontois, 1930 - but Steinitz vs Von Bardeleben, 1895 (kibitz #72) has a different solution. How much worse is black, really, on his 16th and 19th move alternatives? Looks like a severe case of getting steamrolled by some sort of correspondence preparation. Thanks for the help!
|Feb-23-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: Naka's step-father wrote a book named <Best Lessons of a Chess Coach>, in which this game appears.|
Well, at least, it is in some chess book or other that I've read; I think it's Sunil's book.
The game is very famous.
|Feb-23-16|| ||kevin86: This was one of the best games in a GREAT tournament. Great GOTD!|
|Feb-23-16|| ||RookFile: This game is a model example of how to conduct an attack.|
But it is also an object lesson for how to play defense.
Had Petrosian, for example, taken the black pieces, I don't have a doubt in the world that he would have played 16.....Kf7 rather than 16....c6. Petrosian was well known for king walks.
After the game ended in a draw, folks would have said: "Gee, that was really an interesting game. Steinitz came close to winning." Meanwhile, Petrosian wouldn't have said anything, but would have prepared for the next game.
Skill in defense tends to be underrated, but it makes all the difference in separating the champions from the also-rans.
|Feb-23-16|| ||RandomVisitor: 16...Kf7 and black has a playable game|
|Feb-23-16|| ||john barleycorn: has not this great game been analysed to death?|
|Feb-23-16|| ||Conrad93: <has not this great game been analysed to death?>|
Yes, to the point that it has lost most of its luster.
|Feb-23-16|| ||WannaBe: Since black lost, I'm surprised no one have analyzed if 2... Nc6 was sound or not.|
|Feb-23-16|| ||Bubo bubo: <Conrad93: <has not this great game been analysed to death?>|
Yes, to the point that it has lost most of its luster.>
I disagree: Of course Black could have done better as early as on move 7 (Nxe4 instead of d5), but nevertheless the well-calculated, deep and spectacular finish (all four white pieces en prise and Black threatening mate from move 22 on) render this game an absolute highlight of 19th-century chess!
|Feb-23-16|| ||imbo2010: I am new to this.How about 22 RE7 KE7?|
|Feb-23-16|| ||chancho: 22.Re7+ Kxe7 23.Re1+ Kd8 24.Nd6+ Ke8 25.Nc5+ looks killer.|
(25...Qe7 26.Rxe7+ Kxe7 27.Nd3)
23.Re1+ Kd6 24.Qb4+ Kc7 25.Ne6+ Kb8 26.Qf4+
|Feb-23-16|| ||Dr. J: <imbo2010> After 22...Kxe7 the critical line is 23 Re1+ Kd6 24 Qb4+ Kc7 25 Rc1+ Kb8 26 Qf4+ Rc7 27 Ne6 winning. There are a number of interesting-but-not-very-complicated side-variations that you should check out.|
|Feb-23-16|| ||psmith: <RandomVisitor> as pointed out by Tarrasch in the tournament book.|
|Feb-27-16|| ||kmet vlado: <sycophante> 26.Nxh7 Ke7 and knight is lost. Must move, for example 26.Ne6 or other. 1-0|
|Jul-09-16|| ||AlicesKnight: 25.Rh7.... "At this point von Bardeleben is reported to have made no comment but to have put on his hat and quietly walked home...." (Abrahams). I love dignity.|
|Nov-07-16|| ||mirkojorgovic: 24... Qxg7 ?? was not good, because this opened attack on squer c8, with check: 25.R:C8+,R:c8 26.Q:c8+,Qf8 27.Q:F8+,K:f8 and white can sacrifice again: 28.N:h7+!,Kg7!?,29.N:F6,K:f6 30.Kf1 and white can bloke d-line pawn,then can easy prepare 3:1(2:1 is inaf) pawn's attack kingside,with 2:2 equal position queenside.|
|Nov-08-16|| ||mirkojorgovic: After 24...Qg7?? more attractive is 25.Qe6+!,25...Kf8 26.R:c8+,R:c8 27.Q:c8+,Ke7 28.Qc7+ Kf8 29.Qd8#(28...Ke8 29.Q:g7 fg5 30.Q:h7 , 1:0 )Some better is 25...Kh8!? 26.R:c8+,R:c8 27.Q:c8+,Qg8 28.Q:g8+,K:g8 29.Ne6 and white can easy realised advantage of piece vs isolated pawn.|
|Jun-10-18|| ||MissScarlett: As others have pointed out, Winter (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...) does a fair job showing that Bardeleben's disappearing act wasn't the egregious transgression of later legend. Yet, it was amusing to read the following from the <Falkirk Herald>'s notice after Bardeleben's death (February 13th 1924, p.3):|
<Mr Woollard notes in the "Yorks. O. Budget" that Bardeleben was almost as notorious a drawing master as Schlechter, and he introduced a method of resigning a lost game by the simple device of walking silently and without explanation from the board and allowing his time to run, which added a new verb "to bardeleben* to the vocabulary of his chess contemporaries.>
|Jul-23-18|| ||Stonehenge: Steinitz on announcing mates:
Ow, announcing mate is only showing off and bluff.
I've only done it once in my life and that's because my opponent treated me unfairly.
I had played a neatly beautiful Giuoco Piano in Hastings against Von Bardeleben.
A correct rook sacrifice gave me a winning game.
Von Bardeleben saw that he had to lose and preferred the loss of the game due to time overrun to an honorable one.
After the break he stayed away and let me wait. Finally his time had passed. I called
one of the members of the committee to claim the win,
which was immediately granted and told him that I has a mate in nine
or queen loss for Von Bardeleben in store. All of the public, the masters
included, flowed to me and burst, after I had shown them the solution,
into loud applause.
In one of the games with Tchigorin in 1892 I could announce a mate in seven
and didn't do it out of respect for my opponent.
After all, it is as if I want to say: "Look! I have seen that mate and
you did not!"
Tijdschrift van den Nederlandschen Schaakbond, nr. 5-6, 01-05-1896
|Nov-06-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: Before the match, Steinitz is purported to have quipped:|
"It will be Curt and it will be Curt!"
|Apr-23-19|| ||Chessmusings: Entire game with deep analysis here: https://chessmusings.wordpress.com/...|
|Aug-11-19|| ||MissScarlett: Newcastle Courant, November 30th 1895, p.2:
<The "New Orleans Tlmes-Democrat" gives a complete translation, by Mr H Ernst of an article by Dr Tarrasch in the Frankfort "General Anzeiger,' in which the eminent German expert criticises the performances of all the competitors (including himself) in the recent Hastings tournament. In the course of his remarks on Bardeleben, Dr Tarrasch says :- To our regret, we have to say that Herr von Bardeleben provoked the indignation of all participants in the tourney by the singular way in which he used to surrender lost games. As soon as he became conscious of having a losing position, he followed the advice given in a well-known humouristic chess oouplet -
Whenever your game is bad and sore, Then sneak out and return no more.
He simply vanished and left it to the committee to declare the game lost by time-limit. Thereby Herr von Bardeleben has at least acquired the merit of adding one more to the many analogies between chess and war - the flight before the enemy.>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·