|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Feb-25-08
 |
| Knight13: So... Every single one of Bird's games in this database to this day has been commented/kibitzed. Four hundred and sixty-seven games. Whoa...! |
 |
Feb-29-08
|
| Knight13: This game, Bird vs J Mason, 1876, beats "The Game of the Century" by a mile. |
|
Mar-11-08
 |
| WannaBe: And this Henry Edward Bird you cannot change!! |
|
Mar-11-08
 |
| Gypsy: <ChessDude33: I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned but what do people think about Henry bird saying Steintz would get trounced by Morphy?
"I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me." ---henry bird
Every since I read this quote it has fascinated me. It does slightly appear that Bird has a harder time against morphy than steinitz (perhaps age is the factor?).
>
What I think about it is that this statement woke up Steintz and, from that point on, he started to pay Bird a little more more atention. Their record after the quoted statement goes Bird-Steinitz +1 -9 =2.
To me, the Bird Steinitz story is analogous to the story of Capablanca and Kostic: Kostic had a tournament record of +0 -0 =5 against Capablanca and decided to challenge Capa to a match. Kostic then resigned the match with the score running +0 -5 =0. |
|
| Mar-12-08 |
| Nightlamp: Henry Bird was perhaps a little overrated, being more of a master then a grandmaster, but one cannot deny he was a much then 2200.
One can see this at his results : in some tournaments he played at equal strength of all time greats as Anderssen, Gunsberg, Lasker, ... He almost drew a match against Steinitz, who wasn't a weak player that year (1866).
Bird was also quite appreciated by many people. Especially amateurs, one has to admit, but even Morphy considered him as the most genial player he ever met.
Bird had his obvious weaknesses : his health, his very rapid play, his optimism, ... which alas make him a less stronger player then he could have been.
To be convinced of his (grand)master strength : look at the Bird-Mason game from the NY Clipper 1876 tournament. Even today, many grandmasters can't play a game like that one.
It is stupendous, in contrast, to see how many (very) bad games Bird played. The reasons for this were his quickness (there are witnesses who write he never stopped talking during offhand games, hardly looking at the board) and his stubborness towards the modern theory by Steinitz, who advocated a more positional form of chess.
To analyse his games with a PC, which uses modern standards, isn't very relevant. If the same program analyses the games of Lasker, I guess he won't rate him over 2400. |
|
Mar-27-08
|
| Knight13: <Henry Bird was perhaps a little overrated, being more of a master then a grandmaster> Who said he was a grandmaster? I've seen his games and he's not playing at GM level. <He almost drew a match against Steinitz, who wasn't a weak player that year (1866)> Yes. Steinitz wiped out Anderssen during that same year. <...and his stubborness towards the modern theory by Steinitz, who advocated a more positional form of chess.> He wasn't the only one who ignored Steinitz's theory, though. Many others did also, some even regarded Steinitz's positional stuff as garbage and stupid. |
|
| Mar-28-08 |
| Nightlamp: The title of grandmaster was used only years after Bird's life, so one can discuss endlessly about it, I think.
If, however, one looks at the tournaments in the 19th century, Bird finished amongst the top 10 in many, many tournaments.
In his best days he was amongst the 10-20 best players in the world.
Nowadays there are more then 1000 GM's. It seems reasonable to me to accept that one who belongs to the top 20 in the world can be seen as a GM. |
|
Mar-28-08
|
| Knight13: <players in the world. Nowadays there are more then 1000 GM's. It seems reasonable to me to accept that one who belongs to the top 20 in the world can be seen as a GM.> You forgot to add "...during that era." Grandmasters of the 19th century, but not necessarily mean they're 2500s though, since the term Grandmaster means highest title in some kind of a game and you can be #1 and be rated 2000 and you're still a "grandmaster" just because you're on the top level. |
|
| Mar-28-08 |
| Nightlamp: Well, there was no rating system indeed.
One can do 2 things :
1. Look at the games and compare them to games from now. We do have a massive amount of opening/middlegame/endgame theory that was unknown then. As I mentioned in an earlier post : if one takes a look at the games of Steinitz : he doesn't play like a modern 2400. So, for me, I think this kind of looking at players from the past isn't right.
2. One can calculate their rating (more or less) by having a look at their results in tournaments and matches. Then Steinitz will be a 2700 player and Bird, I think, a 2500 player. |
|
Mar-29-08
|
| Knight13: <Nightlamp> I was just using rating to tell strengh, sorry if it mislead you into believing that I was assigning ratings to these players. Yeah, no rating back then. Only way to estimate is let a computer analyze their games and then put up an estimate. <2. One can calculate their rating (more or less) by having a look at their results in tournaments and matches. Then Steinitz will be a 2700 player and Bird, I think, a 2500 player.> How do you know, though? What if they were, say, a bunch of 2300-2500 strengh players sitting in a tournament? Can't just go and say "2700 Steinitz yes because he won. Bird? Nahh didn't do THAT well so yeah he's 2500 for sure." |
|
Mar-31-08
|
| Knight13: You all can download "Chess History and Reminescences" here free: http://manybooks.net/titles/birdhen.... |
|
Apr-04-08
|
| Knight13: And so on this day at 6:30 PM I have gone over every single game played by Henry Edward Bird, and kibitzed on every single one. My journey with this guy is OVER! |
|
Apr-07-08
 |
| biglo: Note on Friday April 11 it is the centenary of Bird's death |
|
May-07-08
 |
| whiteshark: Why does the early Henry Edward Bird get the worm ? |
|
May-16-08
|
| Knight13: Chessmetrics Player Profile: Henry Bird
Born: 1830-Jul
Died: 1908-Apr
Best World Rank: #2 (2 different months between the March 1876 rating list and the April 1876 rating list )
Highest Rating: 2635 on the September 1875 rating list, #3 in world, age 45y2m
Best Individual Performance: 2664 in Bird-Steinitz Match (London), 1866, scoring 7.5/17 (44%) vs 2707-rated opposition |
|
| May-17-08 |
| sneaky pete: <2 different months between the March 1876 rating list and the April 1876 rating list>. Please enlighten me, which months do we have between March and April? |
|
Jul-05-08
|
| Knight13: <sneaky pete> March point 5. |
|
Jul-14-08
 |
| brankat: R.I.P. Master Bird! |
|
Sep-24-08
|
| whiteshark: Quote of the Day
" Chess is so ancient that, by that distinction alone, it seems taken beyond the category of games altogether; and it has been said that it probably would have perished long ago, if it had not been destined to live for ever. " -- Henry Bird |
|
Jan-24-09
 |
| Calli: Bird was apparently an expert on railroads. His books on that business were noted in this advertisement for his "Chess Masterpieces" CHESS MASTERPIECES.
By H. E. BIRD,
Practical Accountant and Statistician, Compiler of " Railway Statistics, 1862, in connexion with Board of Trade, and Parliamentary Committee Inquiries, as to Principles o/ Amalgamation*" Author of " Comprehensive Analysis of Railways in United Kingdom, 1867 ;"* and now preparing for press, " Exhaustive Review of the Progress of Railways to 31st January, 1882, with statements, comparative and otherwise, of their real position." COMPRISING
A collection of 156 Choice Games of the past quarter of a century, with Notes, including the finest Games in the Exhibition of 1851, and in the Vienna Tournament of 1873, with excellent specimens of the styles of Anderssen, Blackburne, Der Lasa, Hanstein, Kolisch, Lowenthal, Morphy, Staunton, Steinitz, and the principal English players. Supplemented by Games of Labourdonnais, Macdonnell, and Cochrane, contested prior to 1849. Compiled by H. E. Bird. Cloth, black lettered, 3s.; or, handsomely bound, gilt and gilt edges, 5s. The entire series will be found full of interest and points of excellence, and can scarcely fail to afford amusement and pleasure, as well as to impart instruction, to all who may avail themselves of the opportunity of examining them; they will be of especial service to amateurs who aspire to preeminence in Chess. * Effingham Wilson, Eoyal Exchange.
|
|
| Feb-25-09 |
| Judah: Bird is probably best known today for the couple of eccentric opening variations that bear his name. Thanks to Google, Bird's long-out-of-print book on "The Chess Openings, Considered Critically and Practically" is now accessible. http://books.google.com/books?id=hC... Some highlights from browsing through it:
Bird hints (quoting Wormald) that he was largely responsible for reviving the Ruy Lopez as an opening for White.
For Black, he advocates the slightly notorious defense that bears his name (3...Nd4). In the King's Gambit, he advocates the Cunningham defense for Black (3...Be7, intending 4...Bh4+, to prevent White from castling). He does not attempt to keep the pawn, however, handing it back with a quick ...d5 for the sake of development. He likes Bird's Opening (of course), thinking From's gambit dangerous but unsound, but concludes that Grob's opening (1.g4) has "little beyond novelty to recommend it". The dedication is also nice: a chess problem composed by Sam Loyd in Bird's honor: White to mate in 4. The pieces on the board are arranged in a letter B. |
|
| Mar-01-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Bird is probably best known for his serious pun potential |
|
Mar-06-09
|
| whiteshark: White-bellied go-away Bird |
|
| Jun-15-09 |
| akapovsky: At what age did Bird learn how to play chess? |
|
Jun-15-09
 |
| keypusher: Judging from this game, around age 40 or so.
Steinitz vs Bird, 1866 |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
|
