"White is now so tied up that the black pieces just have to find something to do and the game seems won. Having entered the white position Stean's rook was described, at the time of the game, as free to roam while Byrne fiddled."

Shame, but I think this one is busted. Either of 13. ... Qe7 or 13. ... Qd7 seems to lead to a fairly level game. Chessmaster evaluates the position after 13. ... Qd7 as virtually level (-0.03).

Earlier still, After 11. Ng5? Chessmaster wants to win the d pawn with 11. ... h6 12 Nf3 ed. And then it is black who is attacking and not white. Evaluation is -1.6.

It's probably no bad thing that this is not given as a daily puzzle. With the deep analysis that some of the experts do, they would surely complain that there was no clear winning line.

One thing I have spotted from the research I do for my column is that many of the early swashbuckling games are full of similar errors. The sacrifices are much more speculative than a modern master would play. And with proper defence, games like this would be drawn or even a win for the other guy.

Don't get me wrong - I love these old games. But we need to see them for what they are. They are a snapshot in history and great entertainment. Some of the combinations are wonderful. But on the whole they are not great chess. Think of them as "sports entertainment". And definitely don't try this at home.

But it is all too easy to rewrite history in favour of the victorious. There is a tendency to think that every move that the winner makes is brilliant and every move that the loser makes is poor. And just because the game ends in a flashy combination, it is too easy to think that every move leading up to the conclusion was equally brilliant.

For me, this game is marred by too many simple oversights. 11. Ng5 should lose to 11. ... h6. The queen sacrifice should be no more than a draw with 13. Qd7.

Is this perfectionism? I don't think so. You generally don't have such problems with the games of Morphy, Steinitz or Pillsbury. Their combinations generally stand the test of time.

Some players, such as Alkhine, Lasker and Tal set their opponents so many complex problems that you can forgive them for not finding the best defensive move. But the errors here are so simple that I cannot see this as a great game. Great fun, to be sure, but a flawed gem. Burn played some dodgy moves and got lucky. In my book, this is good theatre, but not great chess.

I am not saying that we should go over the classics with modern chess programs to find all the errors. That would be unfair because the world has moved on since these games were played. But we should see these games for what they are.

There is also a serious learning point here. One of my biggest weaknesses as a player is that I sometimes play "hope chess". I play a combination that looks good, but I have not analysed every possible defence. In other word I am too lazy!