< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-31-10 | | dzhafner: why not 8... d6?
if 9 Qg4 ... 0-0
and if 10 Bh6?? ... Ng6 (the hanging bishop, knight, and threat of e5 seem difficult to meet)
11 Bg5 ... Qb6 (11 Be3 .. e5)
Black should be able to get in 9 ...Nf6 and possibly continue with ...e5, ...Nd4 à la Adams vs Hydra, 2005 as jaymthetactician pointed out. |
|
May-04-12
 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Anderssen vs Staunton, 1851.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF ANDERSSEN.
Your score: 63 (par = 56)
LTJ |
|
Nov-27-14 | | Knight13: The way Black developed his pieces... There's a lesson to be learned. |
|
Dec-17-14 | | Ziryab: 13...Nc6 leads to an interesting training position. What is White's best reply? |
|
Dec-18-14 | | Knight13: <Ziryab: 13...Nc6 leads to an interesting training position. What is White's best reply?> 14. Ng5: ... h6 15. Nxf7, etc. |
|
Dec-18-14
 | | Penguincw: If I were to travel to the 19th century (pre-Steinitz) and face a strong player (ex. Anderseen), in response to 1.e4, I'd probably play 1...c5 or something to try to get them offtrack. Unfortunately, this game proves otherwise... http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|
Dec-18-14 | | Knight13: <Penguincw> Keep in mind that they didn't know how to "properly" play Black's side of Sicilian in pre-Steinitz times, either.... |
|
Dec-18-14
 | | keypusher: <Penguincw> The Sicilian was probably more in vogue in 1851 (to Morphy's disgust) than it would be for 90 years after. Anderssen was particularly good with it, I think. Steinitz vs Anderssen, 1866 |
|
Apr-10-15 | | rwbean: 15. c3 is +1.00 (Stockfish 6, 36 ply).
18. f5 is +2.67 (Stockfish 6, 37 ply). PV is like 18. f5 ♕xe5 19. ♗g2 ♕xb2 20. Bg5 ♖d7 21. fxg6 hxg6 22. ♕h4. This means 17... c5 was a serious error - better 17 ... ♗xe3. Then it seems the final error is 19... ♕a4 instead of 19... ♕b4. 28. ♕f6+ is mate in 10. |
|
Aug-15-15 | | saturn2: <Knight13 the strange move is 4...Bc5, which is not a good one.>
Bc5 is more common after black has already played a6 and white has already played Nc3. The reason seems as follows: White could play 5.Nb3 and develope the other knight via d2 to c4 later on and whites e4-e5 is looming. Black can prevent this by d6 but then the d file gets opened and after Qd1xQd8 the castling is spoiled. Actually e5 happened also in the game but white could have exploited the move ..4 Bc4 even better |
|
Sep-22-15
 | | Sally Simpson: In the tournament book at the end of this game Staunton states: "Let the reader compare this game, which would be discreditable to two third-rate players of a coffee-house, with any of the match game in which Black has taken part heretofore, and say how far the result of this mere mockery of Chess is a proof of the absolute powers of two men who are called proficients." I've copied it word for word. I think he is saying in his own sweet way that Black [Staunton] played an awful game of chess. (adding to the confusion this note actually appears in the middle of the next game but it's marker '*' refers the reader back to the last move of the previous game. - this game.) page 111 here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id... |
|
Jun-08-16 | | zanzibar: <Sally> yes, I was just about to add the same passage that you have done. But, I think Staunton is also putting a knock on Anderssen as well as himself, when he uses phraseology like: <discreditable to two third-rate players of a coffee-house ... mockery ... of two men who are called proficients.> in reference to the game, and not just Black's play. Of course parsing his writing is laborious in this matter. Still, I've read in more than one place the opinion that Staunton was rather unfair and unkind to Anderssen in the London (1851) TB. |
|
Jun-08-16
 | | keypusher: <But, I think Staunton is also putting a knock on Anderssen as well as himself, when he uses phraseology like:
<discreditable to two third-rate players of a coffee-house ... mockery ... of two men who are called proficients.> in reference to the game, and not just Black's play.> <zanzibar> Of course that is what Staunton is doing. I've had the London 1851 tournament book for a long time. Staunton's evaluation heuristic is simple: If he wins, it's a good, probably even great game. If he loses, it's a terrible game. If you beat Staunton (Anderssen, Elijah Williams) you're a bad player and a bad person. If you lose to Staunton (Horwitz, Jaenisch) you're a fine master and a prince among men. |
|
Jun-09-16 | | zanzibar: <keypusher> Some more comments by Staunton: Biographer Bistro (kibitz #14371) |
|
Feb-25-19
 | | MissScarlett: The <TB> score ends with <32.Rf2>. Does any source give the extra moves? |
|
Feb-25-19 | | sneaky pete: <MS> Schachzeitung February 1852, page 44. I noticed before that Staunton clipped a lot of games, not only some played by Williams. Anderssen was one of the editors of Schachzeitung. |
|
Feb-25-19
 | | MissScarlett: Games 4 and 5 of this match carry definite dates: June 23rd and 25th, respectively, but I'm a little distrustful without specific sources. Does the <SZ>'s coverage provide any useful information regarding the tournament schedule in general (excluding the first round, that is)? |
|
Feb-26-19 | | sneaky pete: Schachzeitung has no dates or anything useful about the schedule at all. The tournament reports in the May/June and the July issues are a translation of (most of) what Staunton wrote as Introduction in the tournament book. |
|
Apr-22-22 | | rwbean: SF15 - 19. f5 ♕xe5 19. ♗g2 ♕xb2 20. ♗g5 ♖d7 21. ♗e4 ♕c3 22. fxg6 fxg6 23. ♖xf8+ ♔xf8 24. ♕h4 ♔g8 25. ♕f2 c4 26. ♕e2 ♕e5 27. ♗h4 ... +6.34 (54 ply) ... e6 pawn is very weak, Black falls apart. |
|
Oct-07-24
 | | Freelance Assassin: 17...c5? is too calm. That White Bishop on e3 is an important attacking piece, and keeping the Black Bishop open on the a7-g1 diagonal is important for counterplay if he wishes to play ...Re8-Nf8. |
|
Oct-08-24
 | | Dionysius1: Hi <Freelance Assassin>. If keeping Staunton's BSB on the a6 - g1 diagonal is so important, how else do you suggest he does it? Anderssen's B is challenging him along that diagonal. If he moves he can still be taken unless he goes to b8, in which case he's not on the diagonal, open or otherwise. |
|
Oct-10-24
 | | Freelance Assassin: <Dionysius1> I meant only if he didn't want to play ...Bxe3, which I assumed he didn't since he played ...c5 instead of ...Bxe3. That's why I said "That White Bishop on e3 is an important attacking piece," but I just noticed that I didn't clarify by adding "instead of Bxe3" after "...Re8-Nf8" (Rfe8-Nf8). My bad. |
|
Oct-26-24
 | | Dionysius1: Na, you're fine. I get it now. |
|
Jan-17-25
 | | MissScarlett: < Games 4 and 5 of this match carry definite dates: June 23rd and 25th, respectively, but I'm a little distrustful without specific sources.> The <Sun> of Monday, June 16th, p.2: <Messrs. Anderssen and Staunton are to commence their contest to-day.> The <Sun> of Saturday, June 21st, p.4: <Since our notice of the progress of these matches on Wednesday last, the players have taken a little rest from their labours. On Tuesday the course of victory continued to flow in the same channel, Herr Anderssen winning a game of Mr. Staunton; Mr. Williams a third of Mr. Wyvill. On Wednesday and Thursday, there was no play, but yesterday the contest was resumed with new spirit, and the many admirers of England's champion were confident that Caissa, who has so often crowned his efforts, would once more smile on her favourite son. It was not so, however; chess goddesses, it seems, are not less fickle than mere mortal dames.> The dates of all the Staunton - Anderssen games can now be established, it would seem. Game 1: Monday, June 16th
Game 2: Tuesday, June 17st
Game 3: Friday, June 20th
Game 4: Monday, June 23rd
Game 5: Wednesday, June 25th |
|
Jan-20-25 | | Chessist: Game 5 was adjourned and resumed two days later.
Game 1 was played on Friday, June 13th according to La Régence 1851, p. 354. |
|
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |