< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-06-08|| ||Xeroxx: London Chess Club vs Paris Chess Club, 1836|
|Nov-24-09|| ||kingscrusher: I have done a youtube video on this game:
|Dec-26-10|| ||al wazir: Why didn't white play 11. Nxc6 ? Black is busted.|
|Dec-26-10|| ||Sastre: If 11.Nxc6, 11...Qb6 12.Nd4 (12.O-O bxc6 13.Bd3 d4) Bg4 13.Nf3 d4 .|
|Dec-26-10|| ||Elsinore: I saw <chessgames> underpants|
|Dec-26-10|| ||Once: I think we have just discovered a parallel universe. |
As <Xeroxx> has pointed out, this game is in the database twice. There's this one, and then there's this one: London Chess Club vs Paris, 1836
In the other Paris vs London, the date is given as 1836 (not 1834) and white resigns after 27. Kf8. But other than that, they look to be exactly the same game.
Perhaps 1834 was the year they started the game and 1836 was when they finished it?
And it is always possible that London did resign after 27. Kf8 and that the finish we have is analysis that was added after the game.
But now, chessgames.com has a little problem. They could merge the two games or delete one, but then what would they do about all the kibitzing? If you simply merged all the kibitzing into one game then it wouldn't make much sense. And if you deleted one set of kibitzing we would be playing the censor, which CG.com doesn't like to do. So maybe CG has no choice except to allow the two parallel games to co-exist - they have each acquired a separate "life". Weird Star Trek type stuff, n'est ce pas?
BTW, I remember reading somewhere that the French defence came about as a reaction to all those swashbuckling attacks that white seems to get in 1. e4 e5 games. In many of those games, something nasty and tactical happened on f7, particularly when white plays Bc4-f7 in conjunction with 0-0 and f4.
So the French defence blocks the c4-f7 diagonal by arranging a line of pawns along f7-e6-d5.
I have no idea if this is true (and sadly can't remember where I read it), but it's an interesting theory...
|Dec-26-10|| ||Penguincw: Paris was up a rook so London had to resign.|
|Dec-26-10|| ||Chessmensch: A Tale of Two Cities. Paris Chess Club cheated--Madame Defarge knitted the Fritz moves. (Yes, I know it's an anachronism--book was written in 1859.)|
|Dec-26-10|| ||al wazir: <Sastre: If 11.Nxc6, 11...Qb6> 12. Nxa7.|
If 12...Bxe3, 12...Rxa7, or 12...Qxa7, then 13. Bxe8. If, say, 12...Re7, then 13. O-O Rxa7 14. Bxc5 Qxc5 15. Qd3 Ra5 16. c4.
|Dec-26-10|| ||al wazir: Chess in essentially its current form has been played since ca. 1500. Does anyone seriously doubt that 1. e4 e6 occurred thousands of times --perhaps millions -- prior to 1836?|
|Dec-26-10|| ||Sastre: <al wazir: <Sastre: If 11.Nxc6, 11...Qb6> 12. Nxa7> 12...Bg4 .|
|Dec-26-10|| ||al wazir: <Sastre>: That's rather convincing. Thanks.|
|Dec-26-10|| ||weisyschwarz: "Can't see London,
Can't see France,
'Til we see
|Dec-26-10|| ||Once: <al wazir: Chess in essentially its current form has been played since ca. 1500. Does anyone seriously doubt that 1. e4 e6 occurred thousands of times --perhaps millions -- prior to 1836?>|
You can say the same thing about just about any opening. But we have got to call openings something, and so a name tends to stick at some point. It may not relate to the very first time that the opening was played, but it could be the first time that the opening was noticed by serious players or was played at the highest level with any success.
Here we have a high profile game between two of the most pre-eminent capital cities at the time. And the French team wheel out an opening that may have been played before by patzers but which wasn't taken seriously by anyone else. That fount of all knowledge Wikipedia says that one of the French players came up with idea of 1...e6:
"The French Defence is named after a match played by correspondence between the cities of London and Paris in 1834 (although earlier examples of games with the opening do exist). It was Chamouillet, one of the players of the Paris team, who convinced the others to adopt this defense"
And what is more, the Parisian team wins quite handily with their "new" opening.
I'd say that is reason enough to name a chess opening. We should be grateful for small "merci"s. If fate had been unkind, we might now be calling it the Chamouillet defence, and imagine how hard that would be to spell!
|Dec-26-10|| ||Phony Benoni: There is a PGN file of historic correspondence games at http://www.endgame.nl/cc-history.htm, which includes the two "London-Paris" games. These include some notes, apparently by Jan van Reek:|
"Cercle de Philidor of Paris had sent a challenge to London in 1822 but no match occurred. A new challenge was made on 29 i 1834. The Westminster Chess Club accepted and each side entered 50 pounds. London mailed the first move in February 1834. The Channel could be crossed by a steamboat. Paris' team met at 48, Rue Neuve Vivienne and had to answer in a fortnight. Pierre de Saint Amant led the Frenchmen."
"The name French Defence was given after Paris had won this game. Actually, the first move had been applied in Antwerp - Amsterdam 1827-9 (in which Black won), but the name Dutch Defence was used for another opening later."
This file gives the 27-move version, by the way.
The notes for the other game in the match (Paris vs London, 1834) indicate that it ended in October, 1836, which confirms <Once>'s speculation about the differing dates.
As for the other version of the game (which was also used as a GOTD!), I'm more of a database purist myself and would rather see just one version. What might work would be to take the posts from the deleted version and put them at the beginning of the kibitzing of the remaining version, perhaps indicating that they are from a deleted version of the game.
|Dec-26-10|| ||al wazir: <Once>: I don't object to the name; as you say, we have to call it something. (Though the importance of that can be overstated. As the Gnat said to Alice, do they answer to their names?) But I doubt your conjecture that serious players had never thought seriously about the opening before 1836.|
|Dec-26-10|| ||theodor: allez, gaules!<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galati...;|
|Dec-26-10|| ||AylerKupp: I remember reading a beginner's chess book (I think it was by I.A.Horowitz) in which the French defense was described as "King's pawn sneaks one". An apt description.|
|Dec-27-10|| ||kevin86: A great finish by black! White's pawns can be stopped.|
|Jan-27-11|| ||David2009: |
click for larger view
5...c5! has just been played. A quick trawl of the data base reveals 6 dxc5 Bxc5 7 0-0 is White's best chance of making something out of nothing, since if 6 0-0 then 6...c4! gives Black good play.
|Feb-05-11|| ||Penguincw: The black is going to approach the white s and black is going to be winning.|
|Jan-02-13|| ||perfidious: <Once> We may be thankful that Dame Fate did not bestow Mr Chamouillet's name upon 1.e4 e6.|
|Aug-20-13|| ||SBC: I know the more important members of the Cercle des Panoramas. Does anyone happen to know, or know where to find, the members of the Westminster Club on Bedford street in 1834 who might have participated in the correspondence match?|
|Aug-20-13|| ||whiteshark: <SBC: I know the more important members of the Cercle des Panoramas. Does anyone happen to know, or know where to find, the members of the Westminster Club on Bedford street in 1834 who might have participated in the correspondence match?> |
UltraCorr database refers to <"The Write Move"> by Tim Harding. Hopefully you'll hit paydirt there.
|Aug-21-13|| ||SBC: |
Thanks. I'm not sure "The Write Move" has what I'm looking for, but Tim Harding is definitely the go-to guy on early UK chess. You also made me think of the Streatham and Brixton C.C. which has marvelous historical resources.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·