Hi Nok,

22...Rg2 would have been the perfect wrap up to this 'look out world here I come' game.

It's the iced cake without the cherry on top and I want my cake and eat it.

Apparently it was Zukertort who first pointed out the quicker mate(s) in 1880, not to detract Morphy more to take a poke at those who missed it when noting up Morphy's games.

Later Steinitz took the credit. He rated the game quite highly, the position after 17...Qxf3 appeared on the cover on his 'Chess Instructor.'

Picture here. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Eward Winter article here: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Why I do think this doesn't really qualify as a Saturday is the lack of alternatives for White: after Qxf3 Black picks up the bishop and places the pieces for a devastating attack. White can't counter with a desperado: 18.Qxb6? cxb6 19.gxf3 Rg6+ 20.Kh1 Bh3 -+ is curtains, and all other alternatives seem to run into Rg6 with Bh3 with the Black queen still on the board. Not a good idea.

So <18.gxf3 Rg6+ 19.Kh1 Bh3>. This is probably the key position. What can White do to prevent 20....Bg2+ 21.Kg1 Bxf3#? A few tries:

20.Rg1, the obvious counter to such intrusion, fails on 20....Rxg1+ 21.Kxg1 Re1+ and Black reloads 22.Qf1 Rxf1#.

Simply moving out of the way with 21.Rd1 almost allows White to escape, but Black ensnares the king with 21....Bg2+ 22.Kg1 Bxf3+ 23.Kf1 Rg2 and White can't protect both f2 and h2: anything but 24.Qd3 runs into Rxh2 with Rh1#, and that into 24....Rxf2+ 25.Kg1 Rg2+ 26.Kh1 Rg1#.

click for larger view

Analysis by Houdini 4 d 24 dpa done

1. = (-0.12): 14.Re1 Rxe1+ 15.Qxe1 Bd7 16.Qf1 Qxf1+ 17.Kxf1 a5 18.Bb2 axb4 19.cxb4 Ra4 20.a3 c5 21.Be4 g6 22.Bc2 Ra7 23.Be4 Kf8 24.Ke2 cxb4 25.axb4 Ra4 26.Bc3 Ke7 27.Re1 Kd6 28.h3 Be6 29.f4 f5 30.Bb7 c6 31.Kf3 Bd5+ 32.Kg3

click for larger view

Stockfish_19062709_x64_modern:

A bit puzzled by this comment. Bilguer's "Handbuch" and Staunton's "Chess Player's Handbook" were both around by then. And the magazine "La Palamede" had been and gone - wonder if PCM ever saw old copies of it? He'd have been able to understand them all right, with his French heritage.

Morphy certainly read some chess literature, but according to the following item he usually gave stuff away once he'd mastered the contents:

< A bit puzzled by this comment. Bilguer's "Handbuch" and Staunton's "Chess Player's Handbook" were both around by then. >

I can’t speak for FSR, but I have Staunton’s book, and I think it’s worthless. After teaching you how the pieces move, it devotes the bulk of its pages to shallow and swiftly superseded opening analysis. There’s a short list of precepts and a short and superficial section on endings, if memory serves. I don’t think it would have been of any use to Morphy. I understand the Handbuch was similar — indeed that Staunton had plagiarized the Handbuch, though I don’t know that to be true.

I would say it illustrates the power of inertia and the pointlessness (from the author’s perspective) of writing good chess books. :-)

I pulled down my copy of the Handbook, printed in 1878 but otherwise unchanged from 1847 as far as I know. It is arranged in six “books.”

Book I teaches how the pieces move, chess notation, value of pieces, a list of terms, general laws and observations, and “maxims” for the inexperienced player. That’s the first 60 pages.

The next four books are all openings, and take us to page 400 or so. Book II is the King’s Knight’s Opening (the Giuoco Piano, Evans, Ruy Lopez, Scotch, Damiano, etc.). Book III is the King’s Bishop’s Opening (yes, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 gets its own “book”)). Book IV is the King’s Gambit. Book V covers everything else in fewer than 50 pages — the Queen’s Gambit, and “Irregular Openings” like the French and Sicilian.

All these books contain unannotated illustrative games.

Anyway, here it is so that you can judge for yourself. Sorry, should have done that sooner.

I have a first edition of Staunton's Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) in fine binding. One of my most prized books.

For the time, it was an important book. But for modern players it's close to worthless. (Ditto for Philidor's acclaimed Analyse du jeu des Échecs.) There are some interesting bits, though. For example, Staunton analyzes, in addition to his eponymous gambit, 1.d4 f5 2.h3 (intending 3.g4), which much later became known as the "Korchnoi Gambit." He also gives what was (re)discovered as the best defense over 130 years later, namely 2...Nf6 3.g4 d5!

You may say it's pretty much worthless for serious study of modern chess, in that I would completely agree. But as a historical work by one of the strongest players and analysts of its time, it's priceless. (Now if you're a sophist you could argue that being "priceless" and "worthless" is indistinguishable :D)

I found it very interesting that Stockfish found <12.c3?> only dubious, at best (the evaluation goes from +0.4 to 0.0). But as the immediate punishment <12...Qd3!> shows, it completely blocks White's further development, which actually wasn't that hot anyway -- the position after Black's 10th move is nearly comical, and typical Morphy; one thing he was good at was not just developing his own pieces, but also hindering his opponent's development. Although mostly the opponents did it by themselves, viz. <7.Nxc6?>.

Also, I'm not sure if many players back then would have played that <12...Qd3>. Naively, it just seems wrong to use a mighty fat queen just to block an insignificant little pawn, but Morphy really had a great positional feel and was ready to play unconventional moves if they are good. (I'd probably think a while about playing it and then go "nah, that can't be good" and play something stupid.)

However, he stumbled with <15...Bd7?> because now White could have actually equalized with <16.Qa6!>, forcing Black to free that d-pawn. <16...Ra2??> instead is actually losing, because it gives Black the opportunity to double his rooks, and that makes all the difference -- for example, it allows that awesome queen sacrifice, which, by the way, and unlike many combinations of its era, is completely sound.

After <20.Rd1?> it's mate in 6, and I was a bit amazed that Morphy doesn't execute it in his usual precision. His 22nd to 24th move are all weak, and afterwards, there's no clear mate in sight. If Paulsen would have played <27.Rb2> followed by <28.d4>, Morphy's biggest asset would essentially have been his free f-pawn.

Ironically, when Paulsen finally can play his poor d-pawn, this turns out to be actually losing the game -- <28.d4?> is a forced mate 23 moves :) (Maybe he just wanted to finally move that bloody pawn once before resigning anyway.)