Marmaduke Wyvill vs Adolf Anderssen (1851)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Marmaduke Wyvill vs Adolf Anderssen
London (1851), London ENG, rd 4, Jul-??
English Opening: Anglo-Dutch Defense (A10) · 1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Given 1 time; par: 52 [what's this?]

Annotations by Stockfish (Computer). [35434 more games annotated by Stockfish]

explore this opening	find similar games	6 more M Wyvill/Anderssen games
sac: 36.Rxc7	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

THIS IS A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE. [CLICK HERE] FOR ORIGINAL.

Aug-28-02		refutor: i can't help but think that mr. wyvill was very lucky to win this game

Apr-10-04		Kenkaku: 2. f4 is an incredibly odd move here.

Dec-10-04		percyblakeney: Speaking of odd moves, to play 24. h3 and still win against Anderssen is kind of impressive...

Jul-30-06		waddayaplay: to play 34...Rh6 and then ..g6 can hardly be recommended. 36.Rxc7! was a great sac. In fact, white had quite decent counterplay on the c-file.

Jul-30-06		keypusher: Wyvill had the black pieces in every game in this mini-match.

Jul-30-06		waddayaplay: Why do you think so?

Jul-30-06		sneaky pete: <waddayaplay> Fate would have it that way, the colours were decided by drawing lots. Game IV Fourth game between the same players. [Irregular Opening] BLACK. (Mr. W.) WHITE. (Mr. A.) 1.P. to Q.B's 4th 1.P. to K.B's 4th 2.P. to K's 3rd 2.Kt. to K.B's 3rd etc Wyvill sat behind the black pieces in all the games of the match, but made the first move in the even games. During most of the 19th century this procedure (division of colours separated from the first move right) was customary in match play. This peculiarity is highly confusing for both younger visitors to and the administrators of this site, so, being a kind of 19th century person myself, on behalf of our silly chessical forefathers I beg them for some understanding.

Jul-30-06		waddayaplay: Aha. It makes sense. Just didn't know...

Jul-31-06		keypusher: It's interesting (and surprisingly difficult!) to play over the game with Wyvill having the black pieces (but still moving first). The game has a very different feel somehow. It's easier using the original notation (rather than algebraic) from the tournament book, as given by <sneaky pete> above. Anderssen had the white pieces against both Wyvill and Staunton in this tournament. I wonder if anyone's ever tried to figure out if having the same color pieces in every game in a match affected a player's opening choices or performance rating. Staunton's play against Anderssen did not impress -- having to use the black pieces in every game seems to be the only excuse for poor play he didn't offer. At London 1851 the players seem to have a choice whether to play with pieces of one color -- if I remember right Anderssen and Szen alternated colors in the modern way in their mini-match.

Jul-31-06		sneaky pete: A correction af my earlier post: this is game 6, not 4, of the match. The move order given by Staunton in the tournament book is 1.c5 f4 2.e6 Nf3 (as in game 4) 3.f5 e3 4.Nf6 Be7 and the rest as given here. Sitting behind the black pieces does change your outlook. Anderssen played the black pieces in all his 1858 match games against Morphy. In game 6, after 3 consecutive losses, he first played 1.a6 .. which is now (as 1.a3 ..) known as the Anderssen Opening. Apparently convinced that, playing black against the invincible genius, there was no option but to defend from the very first move. I doubt if the idea would have been born, had he played the white pieces. Only 19 years later, in Anderssen vs Paulsen, 1877, did Anderssen return to 1.a3 .., but not because he feared his opponent. He commented: I chose this "crazy" move because I wanted to win at all cost and had to avoid the "drawish" French Defence or Queen's Gambit.

Jul-27-09		Knight13: <refutor: i can't help but think that mr. wyvill was very lucky to win this game > There is no luck in chess, and Wyvill played well on Anderssen's mistakes and he deserved the win. Anderssen's the guy who made the last mistake, not Wyvill. Wyvill's the guy who made the first mistake.

Mar-05-22		NM JRousselle: Anderssen went astray with 25... Bh4. The side with the safer king / attacking chances (Anderssen, in this case) generally does not wish to trade queens.

Jan-13-23		keypusher: <NM JRousselle: Anderssen went astray with 25... Bh4. The side with the safer king / attacking chances (Anderssen, in this case) generally does not wish to trade queens.> SF finds the killer after 25.Qf2: click for larger view 25....Nxd4!! 26.exd4 Bh4! 27.Kf1 Bxf2 28.gxh3 e3 and Black threatens mate. After 29.Bh5 exd2 30.Rd1 Rh6 Black has a winning ending. Not easy to find, even for Adolf Anderssen. Speaking of not easy to see, I suspect Anderssen missed 25.Kf1! in the game. (25.Qf1 would have lost at once to ...Nxd4.) Anderssen seemed to play uncertainly after that. Kudos to Wyvill for not falling apart after 24.h3??. Wyvill's 36.Rxc7 was indeed a great sac as waddyaplay pointed out long ago. But it was still anybody's game. Anderssen had two blunders in the late going: 44....g5, clearly overlooking White's reply, and the shocking 47....Rxb5, allowing f4-f5 after the exchange of rooks. After 47....Nf5 he's very much in it. Wyvill would have done better to play 46.fxg5. Not a model game, but a tremendous seesaw battle, and a monument to the fighting spirit of Marmaduke Wyvill, M.P.

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.