| Aug-15-05 | | Knight13: Very nice play by White, man. Totally. This game is totally White's game. Jump in.... Crash crash... WIN! |
|
| Aug-15-05 | | sharpnova: ya uhm.. 14. h4 was a mistake
16. Qg3 was a big mistake allowing Rxe6 and a win of a piece for nothing.in the final position black is completely winning.
17. ... Bxf4 18. Qxh5+ Kg8 19. Nc3 Rxe6 20. Qxd5 Qxd5 21. Nxd5 etc. look. black is a piece up.
so my god <knight13> what in the world are you talking about? |
|
| Aug-15-05 | | Knight13: <sharpnova> I'm not sure about that. Would a totally blunder-killing game be recorded for over 150 years? |
|
Aug-15-05
 | | beatgiant: <sharpnova, Knight13>
17. ... Bxf4 18. Qxh5+ Kg8 and now 19. Nc3? is not forced. Simply 19. Qf5 looks like it avoids losing a piece. Black would be a pawn ahead and favored to win, but the game could go on for some time. Maybe something is wrong with the game record or result? |
|
| Aug-16-05 | | sharpnova: ok i fired up fritz. i'm getting tired of this.
it says black is winning by 3.0 that's the value of a knight or a bishop. it prefers Qf5 like u said but i'm still right. the game is completely over and black won and knight13's first post is still ridiculously wrong.. |
|
| Aug-16-05 | | sneaky pete: White gave odds of QKt (Nb1), so in the final position Re1 is protected by Ra1. After 17... Bxf4 18.Qxh5+ Kg8 19.Nxf4 .. is possible, followed by N or Qxd5 with material balance. Still, black should keep an advantage after 17... Rxe6 18.Qxh5+ Kg8 19.Qxd5 Bxf4. This game stems from the notebooks of George Walker and may have been played in London, 1834. It's hard to imagine black resigned at this point. Apparently La Bourdonnais did win, but the final moves were not recorded. |
|
| Feb-22-08 | | wolfmaster: <sneaky pete> Premature resignation was very uncommon in those days, so Pelling probably played on for a bit and succumbed to La Bourdonnais' superior play. |
|
| Jun-24-08 | | Noflaps: Sneaky Pete's astute observation that this game was played at knight odds took me by surprise, but it appears to me to be correct. This game may be found on page 66 of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, volume 1 (I know of no second volume).
Therefore, shouldn't this game be shown with white's queen's knight missing from the very first move? Or, if the site's technology will not permit that, shouldn't the odds have been noted somewhere in the game score, or perhaps in the first annotation? The possible need to make such a notation should be kept in mind when transcribing very old games, since playing at odds was once fairly common. I will suggest to the website's management that an indication of odds play be given here, so perhaps a correction can prevent confusion in the future, and make black's resignation seem slightly less puzzling. |
|
| May-20-12 | | Oliveira: As pointed out by <sneaky pete> below this game was played giving Knight odds for Black. It's hard to understand why Pelling resigned at this point. Maybe he overlooked his Queen was protected by the Nb8 and was afraid of ♘g5+. |
|
Nov-21-20
 | | Bishoprick: If you go back to the beginning of the game (not where it starts in "Openings"), you will note that the N on b1 is missing. And it is a White win with the simple Qh5, when material equality has been restored, and it can be assumed that with equal material, de LaBourdonnais would win. |
|
Kibitzing
