[Event "London 'Immortal game'"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "1851.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Anderssen, Adolf"]
[Black "Kieseritzky, Lionel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C33"]
[WhiteElo "2600"]
[BlackElo "2480"]
[Annotator "Huebner"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[EventDate "1851.??.??"]
[EventType "game"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[SourceTitle ""]
[Source ""]
[SourceDate ""]
[SourceVersion ""]
[SourceVersionDate ""]
[SourceQuality ""]
{The Players Adolf Anderssen (1818–79) was undoubtedly one of the strongest
players of his era and indeed he was crowned unofficial World Champion after
handsomely winning the great London Tournament of 1851, which had the
distinction of being the first international chess tournament ever held. A
teacher of mathematics by profession, Anderssen began to take chess much more
seriously after his London triumph. He kept his status as the world’s
strongest player until 1858, before losing convincingly in a match to the
brilliant young American, Paul Morphy. Morphy’s sudden retirement from the
game, however, meant that Anderssen could once more take up the mantle as the
leading player. Despite his numerous work commitments, he stayed active on the
chess front, playing matches against many of his nearest rivals. In 1870 he
won the strongest ever tournament at that time, in Baden-Baden, ahead of
players such as Steinitz and Blackburne. Anderssen was certainly a chess
player at heart. At London in 1851, he was asked why he had not gone to see
the Great Exhibition. “I came to London to play chess” was his curt reply.
Lionel Kieseritzky (1806–53) was born in Tartu, in what is now Estonia, but
settled in France in 1839. He became a frequent visitor to the Café de la
Régènce in Paris, where he gave chess lessons for five francs an hour, or
played offhand games for the same fee. His main strength was his ability to
win by giving great odds to weaker players. Kieseritzky was also an openings
theoretician, who invented a line in the King’s Gambit which is still
considered a main variation today. However, despite his other achievements, he
is still best remembered for the part he played in this game. The Game Dubbed
the “Immortal Game” by the Austrian player Ernst Falkbeer, this is a game
typical of the “romantic era” of chess, in which sacrifices were offered
in plenty and most were duly accepted. Anderssen’s love of combinations and
his contempt for material are plain to see here. After some imaginative
opening play, the game explodes into life when Anderssen plays a brilliant
(and sound) piece sacrifice. Spurning more mundane winning lines, Anderssen
raises the game onto another plane by a double rook offer, followed by a
dazzling queen sacrifice, finishing with a checkmate using all three of his
remaining minor pieces. In the final analysis it could be claimed that it’s
not all entirely sound, but this is merely a case of brilliance over precision.
} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 b5 $6 {This counter-gambit was named
after the American amateur player Thomas Jefferson Bryan, who was active in
the chess circles around Paris and London in the middle of the nineteenth
century. Kieseritzky also took a shine to it, especially after his pretty win
over Schulten (see below). However, it has always been considered, to put it
mildly, somewhat dubious. That said, it has been utilized by none other than
Garry Kasparov, although the circumstances were hardly normal. After
comfortably defeating Nigel Short for the PCA World Chess Championship in 1993,
the audiences at the Savoy Theatre in London were treated to some exhibition
matches between the two players. Kasparov won the rapidplay games by the
convincing margin of 4-0. Short, however, got some sweet revenge in the theme
games, where the openings were chosen by the organizers. After two draws the
proceedings were “spiced up” when Kasparov was forced to defend with the
Bryan. Clearly disgusted with this choice, Kasparov could only last fifteen
moves before resigning in a totally lost position, and storming off stage to
vent his feelings to the powers-that-be. Still, Kasparov couldn’t complain
too much. Batsford Chess Openings 2, written by Garry Kasparov and Raymond
Keene, only gives White a slight plus in this line!} 5. Bxb5 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 (
6... Qh5 7. Nc3 Bb7 8. e5 (8. Bc4 $1 {Y.B. Estrin} Nxe4 (8... Bb4 9. d3 Bxc3
10. bxc3 g5 11. h4) 9. Nxe4 $1 d5 10. Bb5+ c6 11. Nc3 $1) 8... Nd5 (8... Bxf3
9. Qxf3 Qxf3+ 10. gxf3 Nh5 11. d4 c6 12. Bd3 d5 13. Ne2 g5 14. h4 h6 15. hxg5
hxg5 16. Bf5 $18) (8... Ng4 9. d4 Ne3+ (9... g5 10. h4 $18) 10. Bxe3 fxe3 11.
Qe2 $16) (8... Ne4 9. Nxe4 Bxe4 10. d3 Bxf3 11. Qxf3 Qxf3+ 12. gxf3 g5 13. h4
$18) 9. Ne4 $16 {/\ 10.Qe2}) 7. d3 $6 (7. Nc3 Bb7 (7... g5 8. d4 Bg7 9. e5 Nh5
{Raphael-Morphy (New York 1857), 10.Kg1?} 10. Ne4 g4 11. Nh4 Qb6 12. Be2 $18)
8. Qe2 (8. d4 Nxe4 9. Qe2 Qe6 10. Nxe4 Qxe4 11. Bxf4 Qxe2+ 12. Kxe2 c6 $14 {
/\ 13...Be7}) 8... Bb4 9. e5 Nh5 10. Rg1 O-O 11. d4 Qb6 $16) 7... Nh5 $6 (7...
Bc5 8. d4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Bb7 {Anderssen-Pollmächer (1852)} 10. Bd3 (10. e5 Ne4 (
10... Nh5 11. Ne2 Bxf3 (11... g5 12. Qd3 {/\ 13.g4}) 12. gxf3 $16) (10... Nd5
$2 11. Nxd5 Bxd5 12. c4 {/\13.c5}) 11. Nxe4 Bxe4 12. h4 $16 {/\ 13.Ng5}) 10...
g5 11. h4 Rg8 $17) 8. Nh4 $2 {As one would expect, the Immortal Game has been
subjected to much analysis and debate from masters of the past and present.
The sum of the analysis alone would probably be enough to fill up an entire
book. One of the more recent annotators is the German GM Robert Hübner, who
reviewed the game in his own critical way for ChessBase Magazine. From move
seven to eleven inclusive, Hübner awarded seven question marks!} (8. Rg1 {
/\ 9.g4} Qb6 9. Nc3 c6 10. Bc4 Qc5 11. Qe2 $18 Ba6 12. Bxa6 Nxa6 13. d4 Qa5 14.
Ne5 g6 15. Nc4 Qc7 16. e5) (8. Ke2 $6 Qb6 9. Nc3 c6 10. Bc4 Ba6 $13) 8... Qg5 (
8... g6 9. g3 (9. g4 Nf6 10. Ng2 Qh3 11. Bxf4 Nxg4 $17 {Estrin, Glaskov}) 9...
Be7 $15 {Estrin, Glaskov} 10. Qg4 c6 (10... Kd8 11. Ng2 d6 12. Qf3 $16) 11. Bc4
Bxh4 (11... Na6 12. Bxa6 Bxa6 13. Nc3 $16 {/\ 14.gxf4}) (11... O-O 12. Nf5 Qg5
13. Qxg5 Bxg5 14. Nd6 $16) (11... Kd8 12. Bd2 Kc7 (12... d5 13. Ba5+ $18) 13.
gxf4 d5 14. f5 $18) 12. Qxh4 d5 (12... g5 13. Qh3 {/\ 14.g4}) 13. Bxf4 Qg7 14.
Bd6 g5 15. Qxh5 Qxb2 (15... dxc4 16. e5 $18) 16. Qxg5 $18) 9. Nf5 c6 $6 (9...
g6 10. h4 (10. g4 $2 gxf5 11. gxh5 fxe4) 10... Qf6 {(von Gottschall)} (10...
Ng3+ 11. Nxg3 (11. Ke1 Qf6 12. Nxg3 fxg3 13. Qe2 {'mit starkem Spiel für Weiß'
(von Gottschall)} (13. Qf3 $18 {(Steinitz)})) 11... Qxb5 (11... Qxg3 12. Rh3
$18) 12. Nc3 {(Polhroniade)} Qe5 13. Nge2 Bh6 14. g3 f3 15. Nf4 $18) 11. Nc3 c6
12. Ba4 (12. Bc4 d5) 12... Na6 $15 {/\ 13...Sc5 14.Bb3 d6} (12... d6 13. Nd5)
13. d4 Ng3+ 14. Nxg3 fxg3+ 15. Qf3 Qxd4) 10. g4 $2 (10. h4 $2 Qg6 11. Ba4 d5
$17) (10. Bc4 $2 d5) (10. Ba4 g6 (10... d5 11. g4 dxe4 12. dxe4 Ba6+ 13. Kg2
$16 Nf6 14. Qf3) 11. Ng3 Nxg3+ 12. hxg3 Qxg3 13. Nc3 Bc5 14. Qe1 (14. d4 $2
Ba6+) (14. Qf3 $2 Qxf3+ 15. gxf3 g5 16. Rh5 Be7) 14... Qxe1+ (14... Qg4 15. Rh4
$18) 15. Kxe1 g5 16. Rh5 Be7 17. g3 $16 fxg3 18. Bxg5 Rg8 19. Bxe7 g2 20. Kf2)
10... Nf6 $6 (10... g6 11. Nd4 (11. gxh5 gxf5 12. h4 Qf6 13. Bc4 fxe4 14. dxe4
Rg8 $17) 11... Bg7 12. c3 Bxd4 13. cxd4 Qxb5 14. Nc3 (14. gxh5 Ba6) 14... Qb6
15. gxh5 Qxd4 16. Qf3 (16. Bxf4 Qf6) (16. Ne2 Qf6) 16... Ba6 17. Ke2 g5 18. Rd1
d6 $19) 11. Rg1 $1 {An imaginative piece sacrifice. The idea is to gain masses
of time driving the black queen around the board. This will give White an
enormous lead in development.} cxb5 $2 (11... d5 $2 12. h4 Qg6 13. h5 (13. Bxf4
$6 h5) 13... Qg5 14. Qf3 Bxf5 15. exf5 cxb5 (15... Bd6 16. Ba4 O-O 17. Nc3 {
/\ 18.Ne2}) 16. Bxf4 Qh4 17. Nc3 $18 Bc5 18. Re1+ Kf8 (18... Qxe1+ 19. Kxe1
Bxg1 20. g5 $18) 19. Nxd5) (11... h5 12. h4 Qg6 13. g5 Ng4 14. Nc3 (14. Bxf4 d5
$19) (14. Ba4 d5 15. Nd4 Bc5 16. c3 Bxd4 17. cxd4 dxe4 $19 18. dxe4 Qxe4 {
/\ 19...Ba6+}) 14... cxb5 15. Nd5 (15. Nxb5 $2 Qb6) 15... Na6 (15... d6 $6 16.
Nd4) (15... Bd6 $6 16. Nxf4 Bxf4 17. Bxf4) 16. Bxf4 Bb7 17. c4 Bxd5 18. cxd5
Qb6 $17) 12. h4 (12. Qf3 $2 h5) 12... Qg6 13. h5 Qg5 (13... Nxh5 $2 14. gxh5
Qf6 15. Nc3 Bb7 16. Bxf4 g6 17. Nxb5 $18) 14. Qf3 Ng8 (14... Nxg4 {Euwe} 15.
Rxg4 Qxh5 16. Bxf4 $18 d5 (16... g6 17. Nd6+ Bxd6 18. Bxd6 Nc6 19. Qf6 Rg8 20.
Nc3) 17. Nc3 Bxf5 (17... g6 $2 18. Nxd5 {/\ 19.Nf6+}) 18. exf5) 15. Bxf4 Qf6 (
15... Qd8 {Reti} 16. Nc3 a6 (16... d6 17. Nxb5 Bxf5 18. exf5 $18 {Polihroniade}
) (16... g6 17. Nxb5 gxf5 18. Nc7+ Ke7 19. exf5 $18 {Polihroniade}) 17. Bd6 Bb7
18. Nd5 Bxd5 19. exd5 Bxd6 20. Nxd6+ Ke7 21. Nxf7 $18) 16. Nc3 Bc5 (16... Bb7 {
Reti} 17. Qg3 (17. Nxb5 Qxb2 18. Nc7+ Kd8 19. Kg2 Na6 (19... Nc6 20. Rab1 Qxc2+
21. Kh3 Rb8 22. Nd5 $18) 20. Nxa8 Bxa8 21. Rab1 Qxc2+ 22. Kh3 $18) 17... Na6 (
17... Nc6 18. g5 {/\ 19.Nxb5}) 18. Nxb5 (18. Be5 Qb6 $13) 18... Qxb2 19. Nfd6+
Bxd6 20. Nxd6+ Kf8 21. Be5 Qb6 22. Kg2 f6 23. Rgf1 $18 {23...Qc6 24.g5}) 17.
Nd5 $6 (17. d4 $1 {/\ 18.Nd5}) 17... Qxb2 18. Bd6 $3 {(?) And here is the
immortal sacrifice. The two exclamation marks are for ingenuity, while the
question mark is for the actual strength of the move. With 18 Bd6 White says
to Black “Take my rooks!”. Given that Black can actually spoil the fun by
choosing a resourceful option at move 19, it should be pointed out that
objectively stronger moves do exist for White here. Hübner gives three
possible wins:} (18. d4 Qxa1+ (18... Bf8 19. Nc7+ Kd8 20. Re1 $18) 19. Kg2 Qb2
20. dxc5 Na6 21. Nd6+ Kf8 22. Be5 Qxc2+ 23. Kh3 f6 24. Nxf6 $18) (18. Be3 d6 (
18... Qxa1+ 19. Kg2 Qb2 (19... Qxg1+ 20. Bxg1 $18 Bxg1 21. Nd6+) 20. Bxc5 Qxc2+
21. Kh3 Qxc5 22. Rc1 d6 (22... Qxc1 23. Nd6+) 23. Rxc5 Bxf5 24. Qxf5 {
Polihroniade 24.Nc7+} dxc5 25. Qc8#) 19. Bd4 (19. Re1 Bxf5 (19... Kd7 20. Bxc5
dxc5 21. Qg3) 20. exf5 Kd7 21. Bxc5 dxc5 22. Nc7) 19... Bxd4 20. Nxd6+ Kd8 (
20... Kd7 21. Qxf7+ Kxd6 22. Qc7+ Ke6 23. Nf4+ Kf6 24. g5#) 21. Qxf7 $18 {
Polihroniade}) (18. Re1 Bb7 (18... Na6 19. Bd6 Bb7 (19... Bxg1 20. e5 $18) 20.
Bxc5 Nxc5 21. Nd6+ Kd8 22. Nxf7+ $18) 19. d4 $18 (19. Nc7+ {Polihroniade} Kd8 (
19... Kf8 20. Bd6+ Bxd6 21. Nxd6 Qf6 22. Qxf6 Nxf6 23. Nxb7 $18) 20. Nxa8 Na6 (
20... Bxa8 21. Bxb8 Bxg1 22. Kxg1 $18 {Polihroniade}) 21. Be3 Bxa8 22. Bxc5
Nxc5 23. Nd6 Nh6 24. g5 $18)) 18... Bxg1 (18... Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Qb2 $1 20. Kd2 (
20. Rc1 Bb7 21. Bxc5 Bxd5) 20... Bxg1 (20... g6 21. Rb1 (21. Re1 Bb7 22. Bxc5
Bxd5 23. exd5+ Kd8 24. Bd4 (24. Nd6 Nh6 25. Qe3 Na6) 24... Qb4+ 25. Bc3 Qc5 26.
Ne3 $16) 21... gxf5 22. Rxb2 Bxd6 23. e5 Bxe5 24. Qe3 d6 25. d4 Kd8 (25... Bb7
26. Nc7+ Kd8 27. Nxa8 $18 f4 (27... Bg7 28. Rxb5 $18) 28. Qa3) 26. dxe5 $18)
21. e5 Ba6 $1 22. Nc7+ (22. Nxg7+ Kd8 23. Qxf7 Kc8) 22... Kd8 23. Qxa8 (23.
Nxa6 Bb6 24. Qxa8 Ba5+ $15) 23... Bb6 24. Qxb8+ Bc8 25. Nd5 Ba5+ 26. Ke3 Qxc2
$15 (26... Qc1+ $10)) 19. e5 Qxa1+ (19... Ba6 20. Nc7+ Kd8 21. Nxa6 Qxa1+ (
21... Bb6 22. Qxa8 Qxc2 23. Qxb8+ $18) 22. Ke2) 20. Ke2 $18 Na6 (20... f6 21.
Nxg7+ Kf7 22. Nxf6 Bb7 (22... Kxg7 23. Ne8+ Kh6 24. Qf4#) 23. Nd5+ Kxg7 24.
Qf8#) (20... Bb7 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qxf7 Nh6 23. Ne6+) (20... Ba6 21. Nc7+ (21.
Nxg7+ $2 Kd8 22. Qxf7 Nh6 23. Ne6+ Kc8) 21... Kd8 22. Nxa6 (22. Qxa8 $2 Qc3 23.
Qxb8+ Bc8 24. Nd5 Qxc2+ $15) 22... Qxa2 (22... Qc3 {Falkbeer} 23. Bc7+ Qxc7 24.
Nxc7 Kxc7 25. Qxa8 $18 {/\ 26.Nd6} Nc6 (25... Bc5 26. Nd6 Bxd6 27. exd6+ Kc8
28. Qxa7 $18) 26. Nd6 Nxe5 27. Ne8+ (27. Qf8 $18) 27... Kb6 28. Qb8+ $18 {
/\ 29.Qxe5 (Falkbeer)}) (22... Bb6 23. Qxa8 Qc3 24. Qxb8+ Qc8 25. Qxc8+ Kxc8
26. Bf8 h6 27. Nd6+ (27. Bxg7 Rh7 28. Nb4 $18 {/\ 29.Nd5, 30.Nf6}) 27... Kd8
28. Nxf7+ Ke8 29. Nxh8 Kxf8 30. Kf3 $18 {Tschigorin}) 23. Bc7+ (23. Nb4 Nc6 24.
Nxa2 g6 25. Nb4 gxf5 26. Nxc6+ dxc6 27. Qxc6 Rc8 $16) 23... Ke8 24. Nb4 Nc6 25.
Nxa2 Bc5 26. Qd5 Bf8 27. Qxb5 $18 {/\ 28.Qb7}) 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+ $1 {
The final glory in a game of many glories.} Nxf6 23. Be7# {. Lessons from this
game: 1) It goes without saying that Black was punished in this game for his
lack of respect for development. He had fun with his queen, but this was
short-lived. 2) In the “Romantic” era of chess, defensive technique was
not very well developed, and sacrifices tended to be readily accepted. Hence,
Anderssen’s 18 Bd6 was a good practical bet, but such a move could prove
unwise against a modern grandmaster. 3) The Bryan Counter-Gambit is a very
dodgy opening. Just ask Garry Kasparov!} 1-0
No comments:
Post a Comment