< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing >|
|| ||Blitzed: <keypusher: <Blitzed> Although you quote me, there does not seem to be any contradiction between what I wrote and what you wrote. In fact, there is hardly any relationship. But in case you really think that Anderssen and Morphy are more accurate than modern players, just run the Anderssen-Morphy match games and the Kramnik-Topalov match games through any modern engine. You'll find that Morphy is much more accurate than Anderssen, and that Kramnik and Topalov are much more accurate than Morphy.> |
o really...lets see...Kramnik v Fritz10 Game#2..... errrrrrrr....Fritz doesnt seem to think that 34...Qe3?? is very accurate at all..lets try Kramnik-Topalov Game 2: 31...Bxf8?? doesnt seem to be a winner either..... so wat do u mean i don't get it?
|| ||keypusher: <Blitzed> I won't repeat what I told you what you should do if you believed that Anderssen and Topalov were more accurate than Kramnik and Topalov. Incidentally, one of the few moves in chess history from a top player that are as bad as Kramnik's 34...Qe3 is found in this game: |
Staunton vs Anderssen, 1851
|| ||ganstaman: <Blitzed: o really...lets see...Kramnik v Fritz10 Game#2..... errrrrrrr....Fritz doesnt seem to think that 34...Qe3?? is very accurate at all..lets try Kramnik-Topalov Game 2: 31...Bxf8?? doesnt seem to be a winner either..... so wat do u mean i don't get it?>|
Wow, well you found 2 mistakes. I guess since Morphy and Anderssen were perfect that makes the score 2-0 and so you were right. Oh wait, keypusher just found a mistake in Anderssen's game, so the score is 2-1. Still in your favor, congrats.
|| ||mhelshou: Guys, I think our so much reliance on chess engines and deep analysis is killing chess artistry and imagination. Yes, may be they are not as accurate as today top grandmasters but I bet for us less ranked players we need this kind of imagination and brilliant unexpected moves and not always playing cautious and "accurate" by the book moves.|
|| ||wolfking: 19.Rad1!! must be the most spectacular move ever played on a chessboard. I like it even more than Fischer's queen sac. against Byrne.|
|| ||cornflake: < LawrenceT: I hate when people say that Anderssen and Morphy don't match up to modern players--modern players LEARNED from Anderssen and Morphy!! Modern players have chess engines to hone their skills. Modern players can memorize brilliant games and positions from chess databases and use them as cheat sheets! Modern players can go to any bookstore and buy as many strategy books as they want!! Anderssen and Morphy could compete with modern players if they had access to modern tools. >|
Very true. Also,Paul Morphy was one of the most accurate chess players to ever play the game. Moreover he was arguably the best player of the open game (1.e4 e5) ever. I don't think Morphy would have found it difficult at all to play in this century.
|| ||keypusher: <Also,Paul Morphy was one of the most accurate chess players to ever play the game.>|
I don't think that claim is tenable if you subject modern games and Morphy games to computer analysis. But Morphy was certainly staggeringly accurate by the standards of his time.
|| ||acirce: <We always hear how poorly Anderssen, Morphy et al would fare against today's masters. But how would today's masters perform if you erased from their minds everything that has been learned since Anderssen, wiped out their memory of computer engines, and shipped them back to the 19th century to play? Rather poorly, I suspect... rather poorly indeed.>|
<I hate when people say that Anderssen and Morphy don't match up to modern players--modern players LEARNED from Anderssen and Morphy!! Modern players have chess engines to hone their skills. Modern players can memorize brilliant games and positions from chess databases and use them as cheat sheets! Modern players can go to any bookstore and buy as many strategy books as they want!!>
That is the entire point. Modern players are much better BECAUSE of all this. Nobody is saying that Anderssen and Morphy were stupid or something.
God, how I hate this whole argument.
|| ||newton296: from move 17 to 24 # anderssen plays one great move after another. |
All with the threat of mate in 1 looming against him.
big balls man!!
|| ||chancho: According to David Lemoir (How to Become A Deadly Chess Tactician) This was a casual game. Still, it doesn't diminish the beauty of this great classic.|
|| ||playground player: From move #17 to move #24, he had to--he was about to be mated!|
|| ||nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.33.|
Anderssen 2 mistakes:
17.Nf6+ 0.44 (17.Rad1 3.47)
19.Rad1 0.00 (19.Be4 0.40)
Dufresne 6 mistakes:
11...b5 0.20 (11...d5 -0.35)
13...Bb6 0.60 (13...d2 0.17)
14...Bb7 0.83 (14...0-0 0.29)
15...Qf5 3.47 (15...d2 0.82)
19...Qxf3 2.57 (19...Qh3 0.00)
20...Nxe7 #4 (20...Kd8 2.54)
|| ||ruzon: I would very much like to know why the suggested moves given by <nimh> are better. Specifically:|
1) Why is 17. Rad1 so much more helpful than on move 19 when it was played?
2) Why is 11. ... d5 the best move, when it just seems to clear the e-file for White's Rook?
3) Why is it better to move the pawn to d2 (suggested twice) than moving some other piece (although Qf5 does seem useless), when it's going to get captured either way?
|| ||DukeAlba: Why is it called the "Evergreen game"?|
|| ||Confuse: evergreen is another way of saying immortal i believe. "always green" u know? : )|
|| ||PhilFeeley: If this was a casual game, and the other Morphy immortal, The Opera House game (Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858) was played under informal circumstances, who recorded the moves? Perhaps Morphy could replay it from memory?|
|| ||xrt999: Black played so badly here, I really dont see why people love this game.|
To be honest, I cant find a good move in blacks list, and would even venture to say that black probably played an inferior move on evey turn after 7...d3. I really didnt want to continue, but actually made it through the entire game in the name of science.
|| ||JimmyVermeer: ruzon, here is an answer to the first of your 3 questions: After a brief Chessmaster analysis, this is what I have come up with:
17 Rad1 Rg8 18 Bc2 Bc8 19 Re2 a5 20 Ng3 Qh6 21 Nf5 Nxf5 22 Bxf5
17 Nf6+ gxf6 18 exf6 Rg8 19 Qd1 Qh3 20 Bf1 Ba6 21 Rxe7+ Nxe7 22 Qe1 Qe6 23 Qxe6 dxe6 24 Bxa6
17 Nf6+ gxf6 18 exf6 Rg8 19 Rad1 Qh3 20 Bf1 Qf5 21 Bd3 Qh3 22 Bf1 Qf5 23 Bd3 Qh3
Anderssen's 17th move loses a rook for a bishop and a pawn, so it is slightly worse than Rad1. On his 19th move, Rad1 would have lost a knight for a pawn, which results in a drawn game. Why settle for a draw when you can win? But Dufresne's mistake on the very next move makes Anderssen's mistake moot.|
|| ||just a kid: I got a 42 on G-T-M without knowing this game or cheating.I swear!|
|| ||Knight13: <just a kid: I got a 42 on G-T-M without knowing this game or cheating.I swear!> A future chess master, yes? There's no way a 1200 (based on what you said in your profile) can get 42 on this.|
|| ||just a kid: I think I'm higher than that rating.|
|| ||BishoPair: wow fantastic planning|
|| ||Stryker672: I don't understand why so many people keep giving 19. Rad1 an exclamation point. Although the move leads to one of the most beautiful combinations in chess history, objectively the move loses. A simple check with Fritz shows that 19... Qxf3! wins after 20. Rxe7+ Kd8! 21. Rxd7+ Kc8! and if 22. Rd8+ Black replies with 22... Nxd8! and White is practically forced to play 23. Qd7+ hoping for 23... Kxd7?? 24. Bf5+ and mate next move. But instead Black has 23... Kb8!! and now there is nothing better than 24. Qxd8+ Rxd8 25. gxf3 Bxf3 when White is totally busted. Instead of 19. Rad1? Fritz prefers 19. Be4 or even 19. Qf4 and it appears that White is at least equal if not better.|
|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: <Stryker672: Black replies with 22... Nxd8! and White is practically forced to play 23. Qd7+ hoping for 23... Kxd7?? 24. Bf5+ and mate next move. But instead Black has 23... Kb8!!>|
Well, yes... except that b8 is blocked by his own rook.
|| ||Stryker672: Oops, sorry about that. I accidentally left the rook on a8 when I set up the position with Fritz. I was solving some tactical puzzles when I recognized the position after 19... Qxf3 as the Evergreen game. After correctly finding the game continuation, I decided to use Fritz to figure out the continuation if Black played 20... Kd8 and was surprised to see that it said Black was winning.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing >|