|Oct-22-07|| ||RookFile: The ultimate Steinitz game: <both> sides send their kings on king walks.|
|Dec-12-07|| ||parmetd: positively gorgeous look at move 40 if Kxc4 then Nd6+ cxc6 Rc1+|
|Jan-04-09|| ||syracrophy: The first real battle I see in a long time. Both sides where attacking strongly and the kings marching to battle at the front. And more credit to the fact that the losing side was Steinitz.|
|Jan-04-09|| ||starkidaway: I'm wondering what would white play after 20...Bb4.
After all, black is up a whole rook!
|Jan-04-09|| ||shr0pshire: kind of ghetto spelling of steinitz on the homepage with two Zs.|
|Jan-04-09|| ||zdigyigy: This guy Plunkett has only two games in the database, both are wins over Steinitz!!|
|Jan-04-09|| ||spikester2848: Very lovely game! Wish more of todays players had as much guts as the romantics did then. This style of chess leads to very wild, fun games.|
|Jan-04-09|| ||Andrijadj: Looks like they had shared a bottle of whisky before the game...|
|Jan-04-09|| ||Samagonka: What a hell of a game!|
|Jan-04-09|| ||cuendillar: 40...Kxc4? 41.Nd6+ cxd6 42.Rc1+ is a neat variation at the very end.|
|Jan-04-09|| ||Honza Cervenka: 25...Qa5 was a grave mistake. Instead of that 25...Qa6 with intention to meet eventual 26.Qg3 with 26...Qh6 was necessary. 26...Bg4+!? 27.Qxg4 Bf8 would have been also significantly better defense than text move though white is already much better here.|
|Jan-04-09|| ||zzzzzzzzzzzz: white sacks a lot|
|Jan-04-09|| ||Honza Cervenka: <white sacks a lot> But these sacs were not sound and white could have lost the game if Steinitz would not have blundered in move 25.|
|Jan-04-09|| ||Chess Carnival: 19th century chess is a joy to play through!|
|Jan-04-09|| ||Blaise99a: Yes, I also enjoyed a game for once, with both sides punching. But I did a cruel thing running the game through a silicon monster (but someone had to do it).......I'll spare everyone the nasty bits, given that it is 19th century and all; but still some of the moves are utterly incomprensible to me. For example, what's up with 20.....Bc5 ??|
20.....Rg2 or Qc5 are so - obvious is not even the word for it. And then what was Steinitz thinking with 22.....Bc8 ?
Even for the 19th century, it is hard to believe best player in the world can be, silicon language: 5.00 to 6.00 up (after 22....Rg2), with a solid position and still lose! If I didn't know better, I would almost think that Steinitz thought it more polite to lose to the Duke. (Was Steinitz the houseguest or something?)
|Jan-04-09|| ||Chessmensch: The "expected" move 4 for black is ...d5. My Deep Fritz 10 supports this by a considerable margin. Why not in this game?|
|Jan-04-09|| ||playground player: Steinitz and his trademark wandering King--when it works, it looks great. But it doesn't always work (especially when I try it).|
|Jan-04-09|| ||WhiteRook48: plus Steinitz lost! what happened?
"Steinitz lost! What a game! The king is not a fighting piece!"
|Jan-04-09|| ||eternaloptimist: Maybe Steinitz fell asleep for a while in this game. Maybe that's why he lost it; he might have gotten into time trouble & made a blunder. I noticed that there are 2 Zs on the end of his name on the home page. zzzzzzzzzz hehe|
|Jan-04-09|| ||jovack: steinitz dropped the ball
i thought he had a considerable advantage at some point in the middle game
|Jan-05-09|| ||Honza Cervenka: <For example, what's up with 20.....Bc5 ??|
20.....Rg2 or Qc5 are so - obvious is not even the word for it.>
Well, 20...Qc5 with intention to trade Queens is quite obvious here if you wants just to score a point in the game. But 20...Bc5 aims for the initiative for a Pawn and doesn't give away the advantage of black (only a part of it in silicon beast's numeric expression). Steinitz undoubtedly saw that but he decided to play the game in more entertaining way.
Also 22...Bc8 is not bad per se, though there were more useful moves than that. As I have written before, 25...Qa5 was a blunder,
|Jan-05-09|| ||kevin86: A great upset-similar to Boston College vs UNC on 1/4/09.|
BC was ranked eleventh IN ITS CONFERENCE,UNC was undefeated.
|Mar-01-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Steinitz loses?!|
|Apr-30-18|| ||steinitzgambit: I would like to endorse Honza Cervenka's analysis. Steinitz could have won with 25...Qa6! instead of 25...Qa5? Then the game would have run as follows: 25. Ke2 Qa6 26. c3 Bf8 27. Ng5+ Kg8 28. Qd5+ Be6 29. Nxe6 Qxe6 30. Qxe6+ Rxe6 31. Kf3 Bd6 32. d4 Kf7 33. f5 Rxe5 34. dxe5 Bxe5 35. Ra1 a6 36. Rd1 Kf6 37. Rd8 Kxf5 38. Rf8+ Ke6 39. Re8+ Kd5 40. Rd8+ Bd6 41. Rb8 b6 42. Rg8 Rh1 43. Rxg7 Rf1+ 44. Ke3 Rb1 45. Rg5+ Ke6 46. Ke4 Rxb2 47. b4 c5 48. Rg6+ Kd7 49. Kd5 Rd2+ 50. Ke4 cxb4 51. cxb4 Re2+ 52. Kd5 Rd2+ 53. Ke4 Kc6 54. Rg8 Rb2 55. g4 Rxb4+ 56. Kf5 Kd5 57. g5 Rf4+ 58. Kg6 a5 59. Ra8 a4 60. Kh7 Rh4+ 61. Kg8 Rg4 62. Kf7 Rxg5 63. Rxa4 b5 64. Ra2 Rf5+ 65. Kg6 Rf1 66. Rd2+ Ke6 67. Rg2 Be5 0-1 with a winning position for Black.|