| Aug-23-06 | | sneaky pete: "Contrary to all expectation, Black (=White; Staunton played with the black pieces in all match games against Williams, in this 4th game he had the first move) was enabled to bear up against the intolerable tedium of his adversary to the end of this trying game, but the effect of his exertions was painfully evident in the after parties." Staunton in the tournament book. On 38... Qe4 he writes "The sacrifice of the Knight for the purpose of gaining so fine an attack, although it turned out unsuccesful, was a highly creditable conception." There seems nothing wrong with 38... dxc3 when Williams will have, in effect, two bishops for a rook, not counting the sad figure on h5. |
|
Apr-22-12
 | | offramp: A fascinating game. It is from the days of no-time-limits.
I hope to provide a really good analysis of this superb game, which Williams really should have won, fairly soon. |
|
Apr-23-12
| | offramp: Staunton has just played 34.Ne5.
click for larger view
Williams plays the most obvious move of all time, 34...Rxe5, and he gets a pretty stonking attack out of it.
After 37.Qd1...
click for larger view
...Williams is clever enough to realise that his superbly-placed knight at e4, which radiates power, is actually in the way - so he gets rid of it. But, tragically, after 39.Bb2, and despite having all the time in the world, he misses the winning move.
click for larger viewThe winning move is by no means obvious, even with unlimited time: 39...d3. |
|
Apr-23-12
 | | tamar: Would have liked to see Elijah Williams win this one; his concept deserved a better fate. Did he move quickly at the critical moment because of Staunton's appending him with the appellation of the "Bristol Sloth"? http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinr... |
|
Apr-23-12
 | | Pawn and Two: This was game four from the final series of matches at the London 1851 tournament. Williams lost this game, but eventually he won the match, and 3rd place in the tournament, with a match victory over Staunton, by a score of +4 -3 =1. In the tournament book, Staunton noted in his loss to Anderssen, <"....he had succumbed to an acknowledged master of the art">, while in his later loss to Williams, he stated, <"....he lost by the odd game to Mr. Williams, a player to whom, in ordinary play and under other circumstances, he has been in the habit of giving, with success, the odds of the Pawn and two moves!"> After the tournament, a series of matches were arranged. Staunton challenged Anderssen, but Anderssen was unable to remain in England. It was hoped that this contest could take place in Germany at a later date. One of the after tournament matches that did occur was between Staunton and Williams. Victory in this match would go to the player to first win seven games. Staunton stated that Williams requested modification to the normal match terms, and therefore he granted Williams, a start of three games, before the beginning of the match. The terms then for this match made for an exciting contest. How would you have bet on the outcome? Staunton won the first, third and fifth games, Williams won games two and four, and games six and seven were drawn. Williams therefore, was leading the match by a score of 5 to 3. Staunton won the next three games, and the match odds then were clearly in his favor. However, Williams was not finished, he won game eleven, and after a draw, he also won the next game, and the match by a score of +7 -6 =3! The last game of the match lasted 79 moves! It would have been great to have watched this match, especially so the concluding games, and to have listened in on the post-mortem discussions. |
|
| Jun-19-15 | | Gottschalk: Beforw Zukertort and Rubinstein, Staunton the original creator of the Rubinstein scheme. Brilliant win. |
|
| Jun-04-16 | | zanzibar: As <sneaky pete> has noted, this game belongs to the <London (1851)> international tournament, being the missing R4.4 game. Somehow it was orphaned.
(Z-base followed <CG> very closely for this tournament, and didn't crosscheck with other sources. Therefore it needs patching as well). |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
