Unusual oversight by two great players
Offramp
In two of the games Anderssen played the same 6th move in a Spanish:
8...Nxf2.
These are the two games.
[Event "Breslau m"]
[Site "Breslau"]
[Date "1864.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Zukertort, Johannes Hermann"]
[Black "Anderssen, Adolf"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C65"]
[PlyCount "53"]
[EventDate "1864.??.??"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "GER"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Qe2 Nxf2 7.
Rxf2 Bxf2+
8. Kxf2 f6 9. Qc4 Ne7 10. Ba4 c6 11. Bb3 d5 12. Qe2 O-O 13. d4 Kh8 14.
dxe5
fxe5 15. Qxe5 Bg4 16. Bg5 Bxf3 17. Bxe7 Bg4+ 18. Bxf8 Qxf8+ 19. Kg1
Re8 20. Qg3
Qc5+ 21. Kh1 d4 22. Nd2 h5 23. cxd4 Qxd4 24. Nf3 Qxb2 25. Re1 Rf8 26.
Ne5 Bf5
27. Qg5 1-0
[Event "Breslau m"]
[Site "Breslau"]
[Date "1864.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Zukertort, Johannes Hermann"]
[Black "Anderssen, Adolf"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C65"]
[PlyCount "43"]
[EventDate "1864.??.??"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "GER"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Qe2 Nxf2 7.
Rxf2 Bxf2+
8. Kxf2 f6 9. d4 O-O 10. Bxc6 dxc6 11. dxe5 fxe5 12. Qxe5 Bg4 13. Nbd2
Qd7 14.
b3 Rae8 15. Qd4 Qe7 16. Qc4+ Kh8 17. Bb2 Qe3+ 18. Kf1 Bxf3 19. Nxf3
Rxf3+ 20.
gxf3 Qxf3+ 21. Kg1 Re2 22. Qxe2 0-1
140 years later a German junior showed Zukertort how he should have
played
[Event "Baden-ch U16"]
[Site "Eppingen"]
[Date "2004.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Stiefel, Michael"]
[Black "Schultis, Julia"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C65"]
[PlyCount "59"]
[EventDate "2004.01.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "GER"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2004.11.15"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Bc5 5. c3 Nxe4 6. Qe2 Nxf2 7. d4
O-O 8.
dxc5 Ng4 9. h3 Nf6 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Qxe5 Re8 12. Qg3 Ba6 13. Re1
Rxe1+ 14.
Qxe1 h6 15. Bf4 d6 16. cxd6 cxd6 17. Nbd2 Qb6+ 18. Kh1 Qxb2 19. Qc1
Qb8 20. Qa3
Qb6 21. Rb1 Qf2 22. Qxa6 Rd8 23. Qxc6 g5 24. Bxd6 g4 25. Bc5 Qg3 26.
Qxf6 gxf3
27. Qxd8+ Kg7 28. Bd4+ Kg6 29. Qg8+ Kf5 30. Qxg3 1-0
That's it! The clever 7.d4 simply traps the knight and leaves white a
piece up. Perhaps Miss Schultis, as black, was following the great
Anderssen, not realizing that both great players had missed something.
Taylor Kingston
>
> Zukertort and Anderssen played some kind of match in Breslau in 1864.
As far as I've been able to determine, it was not a match per se. Z
& A played innumerable offhand games when Z was a student in Breslau
circa 1861-65, these probably among them. How seriously either player
took them is hard to say.
This was probably very much terra incognita back in 1864. As near as
I can tell, the line is not mentioned in the 1843 edition of Bilguer's
Handbuch; don't know about later editions. Interestingly, the three
games you cite are the only examples of it on my database. I suspect
Zukertort and/or Anderssen figured out the refutation, and so the line
went into limbo until the inexperienced and unwary Fraulein Schultis
tried it 140 years later.
Offramp
....Making 7.d4 possibly the TN with the largest gap since its
previous game in history.
I do agree that the games were probably just a series of offhand games
rather than a match....
Taylor Kingston
By George, you may be right!
The Master
As usual, your commentary makes no sense. In this case, you show
Zuckertort averaging ~25 moves to polish off Anderssen but then insist
he
could have improved by following a line which took considerably longer
to
do in one Julia Schultis-- perhaps a wunderkind of junior high school
age.
Anyway, it is true that winning a piece is superior to nabbing B & N
for
a rook, but then it is also true that 'somehow' that managed to take
even
longer to fetch a resignation, and against a far weaker opponent!
In my games, I generally garner a resignation well before passing
the
'25 moves' marker in such openings. As I recall, my last such
encounter
dissappointed me by (just barely) exceeding twenty moves, but then I
was not relying upon voluntary resignation but rather, checkmate. In
that
particular game I played a sort of Evans' Gambit deferred and my
hapless
victi-- ah, opponent I mean, played in much the same way as in a
typical
Paul Morphy game. Just prior to that game I had miniaturized someone
who tried the interesting (if odd): 1.b4 2.b5 3.Bb2, thus notching
up two
miniatures in a row in tournament play.
But back to your so-called improvement for a moment. Even without
sight of a board it seems clear to me that it was a huge mistake to
go
hopping about with the knight back to f6. For crying out loud, do
you
not see that after d4 there is an the between move ...Nxf2, attacking
the
Queen so carelessly left on d1 as a target? Instead of rescuing the
wayward horse at the expense of an aggressive bishop, why not save
the cleric and give up the horse? Any trouble on the e-file can be
met by
an exchange of center pawns followed by a hasty retreat of the bishop
to Rome, uh, I mean to e7. Of course, Fritz will give us the last
word on
such tactics but I think you will find that in general, bishops are
the more
valuable of the two minor pieces.
SAT W-7
Bishops in the end game over the Knights ....
Andrew B.
> On Apr 10, 2:22 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 140 years later a German junior showed Zukertort how he should have
> > played
>
> Zuckertort averaging ~25 moves to polish off Anderssen
If Zukertort had won both games, you might have a point.
micky
.
> For crying out loud, do
> you
> not see that after d4 there is an the between move ...Nxf2, attacking
> the
> Queen so carelessly left on d1 as a target?
In the three games given by the op - white's sixth is always 6.Qe2 - I'd
have thought a 1600 would not have overseen such a less than innocuous
move... still, stranger things are known - like maybe you're really a
1200 .....
m.
Taylor Kingston
> On Apr 10, 2:22 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 140 years later a German junior showed Zukertort how he should have
> > played
>
> > O-O 8.
> > dxc5 Ng4 9. h3 Nf6 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Qxe5 Re8 12. Qg3 Ba6 13. Re1
> > Rxe1+ 14.
> > Qxe1 h6 15. Bf4 d6 16. cxd6 cxd6 17. Nbd2 Qb6+ 18. Kh1 Qxb2 19. Qc1
> > Qb8 20. Qa3
> > Qb6 21. Rb1 Qf2 22. Qxa6 Rd8 23. Qxc6 g5 24. Bxd6 g4 25. Bc5 Qg3 26.
> > Qxf6 gxf3
> > 27. Qxd8+ Kg7 28. Bd4+ Kg6 29. Qg8+ Kf5 30. Qxg3 1-0
> For crying out loud, do you
> not see that after d4 there is an the between move ...Nxf2, attacking
> the Queen so carelessly left on d1 as a target?
Ahem, Greg: Offramp was referring to the position after 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0–0 Bc5 5.c3 Nxe4 6.Qe2 Nxf2 7.d4!. The queen is
no longer on d1, the move ...Nxf2 has already been played, and it is
not any "an the between move" (your wording) attacking the white
queen.
This is obvious to anyone who can read a gamescore. I thought you
prided yourself on your grasp of the obvious.
> Of course, Fritz will give us the last word ...
Indeed, after 7.d4! Fritz8 rates the position at about +2.64, i.e.
winning for White.