Anderssen, Adolf2600–Kieseritzky, Lionel24801–0C33London 'Immortal game'London1851Huebner
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.c4 h4+ 4.f1 b5?! 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.xb5 f6 6.f3 h6 6...h5 7.c3 b7 8.e5 8.c4! Y.B. Estrin xe4 8...b4 9.d3 xc3 10.bxc3 g5 11.h4 9.xe4! d5 10.b5+ c6 11.c3! 8...d5 8...xf3 9.xf3 xf3+ 10.gxf3 h5 11.d4 c6 12.d3 d5 13.e2 g5 14.h4 h6 15.hxg5 hxg5 16.f5+- 8...g4 9.d4 e3+ 9...g5 10.h4+- 10.xe3 fxe3 11.e2± 8...e4 9.xe4 xe4 10.d3 xf3 11.xf3 xf3+ 12.gxf3 g5 13.h4+- 9.e4± FOO 10.Qe2 7.d3?! 7.c3 b7 7...g5 8.d4 g7 9.e5 h5 Raphael-Morphy (New York 1857), 10.Kg1? 10.e4 g4 11.h4 b6 12.e2+- 8.e2 8.d4 xe4 9.e2 e6 10.xe4 xe4 11.xf4 xe2+ 12.xe2 c6
FOO 13...Be7 8...b4 9.e5 h5 10.g1 0-0 11.d4 b6± 7...h5?! 7...c5 8.d4 b6 9.c3 b7 Anderssen-Pollmächer (1852) 10.d3 10.e5 e4 10...h5 11.e2 xf3 11...g5 12.d3 FOO 13.g4 12.gxf3± 10...d5? 11.xd5 xd5 12.c4 FOO13.c5 11.xe4 xe4 12.h4± FOO 13.Ng5 10...g5 11.h4 g8 8.h4? 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.g1
FOO 9.g4 b6 9.c3 c6 10.c4 c5 11.e2+- a6 12.xa6 xa6 13.d4 a5 14.e5 g6 15.c4 c7 16.e5 8.e2?! b6 9.c3 c6 10.c4 a6∞ 8...g5 8...g6 9.g3 9.g4 f6 10.g2 h3 11.xf4 xg4 Estrin, Glaskov 9...e7 Estrin, Glaskov 10.g4 c6 10...d8 11.g2 d6 12.f3± 11.c4 xh4 11...a6 12.xa6 xa6 13.c3± FOO 14.gxf4 11...0-0 12.f5 g5 13.xg5 xg5 14.d6± 11...d8 12.d2 c7 12...d5 13.a5++- 13.gxf4 d5 14.f5+- 12.xh4 d5 12...g5 13.h3 FOO 14.g4 13.xf4 g7 14.d6 g5 15.xh5 xb2 15...dxc4 16.e5+- 16.xg5+- 9.f5 c6?! 9...g6 10.h4 10.g4? gxf5 11.gxh5 fxe4 10...f6 (von Gottschall) 10...g3+ 11.xg3 11.e1 f6 12.xg3 fxg3 13.e2 'mit starkem Spiel für Weiß'
(von Gottschall) 13.f3+- (Steinitz) 11...xb5 11...xg3 12.h3+- 12.c3 (Polhroniade) e5 13.ge2 h6 14.g3 f3 15.f4+- 11.c3 c6 12.a4 12.c4 d5 12...a6 FOO 13...Sc5 14.Bb3 d6 12...d6 13.d5 13.d4 g3+ 14.xg3 fxg3+ 15.f3 xd4 10.g4? 10.h4? g6 11.a4 d5 10.c4? d5 10.a4 g6 10...d5 11.g4 dxe4 12.dxe4 a6+ 13.g2± f6 14.f3 11.g3 xg3+ 12.hxg3 xg3 13.c3 c5 14.e1 14.d4? a6+ 14.f3? xf3+ 15.gxf3 g5 16.h5 e7 14...xe1+ 14...g4 15.h4+- 15.xe1 g5 16.h5 e7 17.g3± fxg3 18.xg5 g8 19.xe7 g2 20.f2 10...f6?! 10...g6 11.d4 11.gxh5 gxf5 12.h4 f6 13.c4 fxe4 14.dxe4 g8 11...g7 12.c3 xd4 13.cxd4 xb5 14.c3 14.gxh5 a6 14...b6 15.gxh5 xd4 16.f3 16.xf4 f6 16.e2 f6 16...a6 17.e2 g5 18.d1 d6-+ 11.g1! 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? 11...d5? 12.h4 g6 13.h5 13.xf4?! h5 13...g5 14.f3 xf5 15.exf5 cxb5 15...d6 16.a4 0-0 17.c3
FOO 18.Ne2 16.xf4 h4 17.c3+- c5 18.e1+ f8 18...xe1+ 19.xe1 xg1 20.g5+- 19.xd5 11...h5 12.h4 g6 13.g5 g4 14.c3 14.xf4 d5-+ 14.a4 d5 15.d4 c5 16.c3 xd4 17.cxd4 dxe4-+ 18.dxe4 xe4
FOO 19...Ba6+ 14...cxb5 15.d5 15.xb5? b6 15...a6 15...d6?! 16.d4 15...d6?! 16.xf4 xf4 17.xf4 16.xf4 b7 17.c4 xd5 18.cxd5 b6 12.h4 12.f3? h5 12...g6 13.h5 g5 13...xh5? 14.gxh5 f6 15.c3 b7 16.xf4 g6 17.xb5+- 14.f3 g8 14...xg4 Euwe 15.xg4 xh5 16.xf4+- d5 16...g6 17.d6+ xd6 18.xd6 c6 19.f6 g8 20.c3 17.c3 xf5 17...g6? 18.xd5 FOO 19.Nf6+ 18.exf5 15.xf4 f6 15...d8 Reti 16.c3 a6 16...d6 17.xb5 xf5 18.exf5+- Polihroniade 16...g6 17.xb5 gxf5 18.c7+ e7 19.exf5+- Polihroniade 17.d6 b7 18.d5 xd5 19.exd5 xd6 20.xd6+ e7 21.xf7+- 16.c3 c5 16...b7
Reti 17.g3 17.xb5 xb2 18.c7+ d8 19.g2 a6 19...c6 20.ab1 xc2+ 21.h3 b8 22.d5+- 20.xa8 xa8 21.ab1 xc2+ 22.h3+- 17...a6 17...c6 18.g5 FOO 19.Nxb5 18.xb5 18.e5 b6∞ 18...xb2 19.fd6+ xd6 20.xd6+ f8 21.e5 b6 22.g2 f6 23.gf1+- 23...Qc6 24.g5 17.d5?! 17.d4! FOO 18.Nd5 17...xb2 18.d6‼ (?) 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 xa1+ 18...f8 19.c7+ d8 20.e1+- 19.g2 b2 20.dxc5 a6 21.d6+ f8 22.e5 xc2+ 23.h3 f6 24.xf6+- 18.e3 d6 18...xa1+ 19.g2 b2 19...xg1+ 20.xg1+- xg1 21.d6+ 20.xc5 xc2+ 21.h3 xc5 22.c1 d6 22...xc1 23.d6+ 23.xc5 xf5 24.xf5
Polihroniade 24.Nc7+ dxc5 25.c8# 19.d4 19.e1 xf5 19...d7 20.xc5 dxc5 21.g3 20.exf5 d7 21.xc5 dxc5 22.c7 19...xd4 20.xd6+ d8 20...d7 21.xf7+ xd6 22.c7+ e6 23.f4+ f6 24.g5# 21.xf7+-
Polihroniade 18.e1 b7 18...a6 19.d6 b7 19...xg1 20.e5+- 20.xc5 xc5 21.d6+ d8 22.xf7++- 19.d4+- 19.c7+ Polihroniade d8 19...f8 20.d6+ xd6 21.xd6 f6 22.xf6 xf6 23.xb7+- 20.xa8 a6 20...xa8 21.xb8 xg1 22.xg1+- Polihroniade 21.e3 xa8 22.xc5 xc5 23.d6 h6 24.g5+- 18...xg1 18...xa1+ 19.e2 b2! 20.d2 20.c1 b7 21.xc5 xd5 20...xg1 20...g6 21.b1 21.e1 b7 22.xc5 xd5 23.exd5+ d8 24.d4 24.d6 h6 25.e3 a6 24...b4+ 25.c3 c5 26.e3± 21...gxf5 22.xb2 xd6 23.e5 xe5 24.e3 d6 25.d4 d8 25...b7 26.c7+ d8 27.xa8+- f4 27...g7 28.xb5+- 28.a3 26.dxe5+- 21.e5 a6! 22.c7+ 22.xg7+ d8 23.xf7 c8 22...d8 23.xa8 23.xa6 b6 24.xa8 a5+ 23...b6 24.xb8+ c8 25.d5 a5+ 26.e3 xc2 26...c1+= 19.e5 xa1+ 19...a6 20.c7+ d8 21.xa6 xa1+ 21...b6 22.xa8 xc2 23.xb8++- 22.e2 20.e2+- a6 20...f6 21.xg7+ f7 22.xf6 b7 22...xg7 23.e8+ h6 24.f4# 23.d5+ xg7 24.f8# 20...b7 21.xg7+ d8 22.xf7 h6 23.e6+ 20...a6 21.c7+ 21.xg7+? d8 22.xf7 h6 23.e6+ c8 21...d8 22.xa6 22.xa8? c3 23.xb8+ c8 24.d5 xc2+ 22...xa2 22...c3 Falkbeer 23.c7+ xc7 24.xc7 xc7 25.xa8+- FOO 26.Nd6 c6 25...c5 26.d6 xd6 27.exd6+ c8 28.xa7+- 26.d6 xe5 27.e8+ 27.f8+- 27...b6 28.b8++-
FOO 29.Qxe5 (Falkbeer) 22...b6 23.xa8 c3 24.xb8+ c8 25.xc8+ xc8 26.f8 h6 27.d6+ 27.xg7 h7 28.b4+- FOO 29.Nd5, 30.Nf6 27...d8 28.xf7+ e8 29.xh8 xf8 30.f3+- Tschigorin 23.c7+ 23.b4 c6 24.xa2 g6 25.b4 gxf5 26.xc6+ dxc6 27.xc6 c8± 23...e8 24.b4 c6 25.xa2 c5 26.d5 f8 27.xb5+- FOO 28.Qb7 21.xg7+ d8 22.f6+!
The final glory in a game of many glories. xf6 23.e7# . 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