Immortal game

From Free net encyclopedia

The immortal game was a chess game played in 1851 by Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky. It is one of the most famous chess games of all time.

Contents

[edit]

General Description

Adolf Anderssen was one of the strongest players of his time, and was considered by many to be the world champion after winning the 1851 London tournament. Lionel Kieseritzky lived in France much of his life, where he gave chess lessons, and played games for five francs an hour at the Café de la Regence in Paris. Kieseritzky was well known for being able to beat lesser players despite handicapping himself - by playing without his queen, for example.

The immortal game was an informal one, played between these two great players at the Simpson's-in-the-Strand Divan in London. Kieseritzky was very impressed when the game was over, and telegraphed the moves of the game to his Parisian chess club. The French chess magazine La Regence published the game in July 1851. This game was later nicknamed "The Immortal Game" in 1855 by the Austrian Ernst Falkbeer.

The immortal game has resurfaced in many unusual guises. The town of Marostica, Italy has replayed the immortal game with live players, dressed as a chess pieces, every year from September 2, 1923. The position after the 20th move is on a 1984 stamp from Surinam. The final part of the game was used as an inspiration for the chess game in the 1982 science fiction movie Blade Runner, though the chessboards used in the film are not arranged exactly the same as those in the immortal game (indeed, although the film's game is played remotely by two people, each with a supposedly identical board, the boards do not actually match each other). It was also the basis of a detective novel of the same name by Mark Coggins.

This game is acclaimed as an excellent demonstration of the style of chess play in the 1800s, where rapid development and attack were considered the most effective way to win, where many gambits and counter-gambits were offered (and not accepting them would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and where material was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid attacks and counter-attacks, are often entertaining to review, even if some of the moves would no longer be considered the best by today's standards.

In this game, Anderssen wins the game despite sacrificing a bishop on move 11, both rooks starting on move 18, and the queen on move 22 to produce checkmate. He offered both rooks to show that two active pieces are worth a dozen sleeping at home. Anderssen later demonstrated the same kind of approach in the Evergreen Game.

The game Friedrich Saemisch – Aron Nimzowitsch, Copenhagen 1923, is sometimes called the "Immortal Zugzwang game" because the final position is widely accepted as being a rare instance of zugzwang occurring in the middlegame (see Zugzwang for more information and the moves).

The game is given below in algebraic chess notation. Some published versions of the game have errors, as described in the annotations.

[edit]

Annotated moves of the game

White: Adolf Anderssen
Black: Lionel Kieseritzky
Opening: King's Gambit, C33
1. e4 e5 2. f4

This is the King's Gambit: Anderssen offers his pawn in exchange for faster development. Although this was a common opening in the nineteenth century, it is less common today, as Black is often able to eventually equalize development, so White will be down in material.

2...exf4

Kieseritsky accepts the gambit; this variant is thus called the King's Gambit Accepted.

3. Bc4 Qh4+

Black's move will force White to move his king and White will not be able to castle, but this move also places Black's queen in peril, and Black will have to waste time to protect it.

John Savard's commentary claims that the moves were actually: 3.... b5 4. Bxb5 Qh4+ 5. Kf1 with the moves afterwards the same. These are transposed positions, with the final resulting position the same. However, no other work describes this sequence of moves, and Savard was likely mistaken.

Image:Immortal game move4.png

4. Kf1 b5?

This is the Bryan gambit, named after Thomas Jefferson Bryan. It is not considered a sound move by most players today.

5. Bxb5 Nf6 6. Nf3

This is a common developing move, but the knight now attacks Black's queen, forcing Black to protect it instead of developing his own side.

6...Qh6 7. d3

With this move, White now has solidified control over the critical center of the board. German grandmaster Robert Huebner recommends 7. Nc3 instead.

7...Nh5

This move threatens Ng3+, and it protects the pawn at f4, but it also sidelines the knight to a poor position at the edge of the board, where knights are the least powerful.

8. Nh4 Qg5

John Savard claims this is 8.... c6, but this is an error in Savard's documentation.

9. Nf5 c6

This simultaneously unpins the queen pawn and attacks the bishop. However, some have suggested 9.... g6 would be better, to deal with a very troublesome knight.

Image:Immortal game move11.png

10. g4 Nf6 11. Rg1!

This is an advantageous piece sacrifice. If Black accepts, his queen will be moved away from the action, giving White a lead in development.

11.... cxb5?

Huebner believes this was Black's critical mistake; this gains material, but loses in development, at a point where White's strong development is able to quickly mount an offensive. Huebner recommends 11. ...h5 instead.

12. h4!

White's knight at f5 protects the pawn, which is attacking Black's queen.

12...Qg6 13. h5 Qg5 14. Qf3

Anderssen now has two threats:

  • Bxf4, which will snatch Black's queen (the queen has no safe place to go),
  • e5, which would attack Black's knight at f6 while simultaneously exposing an attack by White's queen on the unprotected black rook at a8.
14...Ng8

This deals with the threats, but undevelops Black even further — now the only Black piece not on its starting square is the queen, which is about to be put on the run, while White has control over a great deal of the board.

15. Bxf4 Qf6 16. Nc3 Bc5

An ordinary developing move by Black, which also attacks the rook at g1.

17. Nd5

White responds to the attack with a counter-attack. This move threatens Nc7, which would fork the king and rook. Richard Réti recommends 17. d4 ... 18. Nd5, which results in an advantage for White.

Image:Immortal game move17.png

17...Qxb2

Black gains a pawn, and threatens to gain the rook at a1 with check.

18. Bd6!!

With this move White offers to sacrifice both his rooks. Huebner comments that, from this position, there are actually many ways to win, and he believes there are at least 3 better moves than Bd6: d4, Be3, or Re1, which lead to strong positions or checkmate without needing to sacrifice so much material. Garry Kasparov has pointed out that the world of chess would have lost one of its "crown jewels" if the game had continued in such an unspectacular fashion. This particular move is unusual, because White is willing to give up so much material.

18... Bxg1?

It is from this move that Black's defeat stems. Wilhelm Steinitz suggested in 1879 that a better move would be 18... Qxa1+; likely moves to follow are 19. Ke2 Qb2 20. Kd2 Bxg1.

The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games has a mistake at this point; move 18 black through move 20 black inclusive are different. Mammoth records the moves as: 18... Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Bxg1 20. e5 Na6 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+!! Nxf6 Be7# 1-0 However, it seems to be the only source of this claim; other resources including Eade's book and the Chesslive Online Database give the moves listed here. Nor does Mammoth explain why it has a different move sequence than other works. The commentary here presumes that Mammoth is in error at this point. Note that this is a reordering of the moves, and the positions become the same again at the end of move 20.

19. e5!

This sacrifices yet another White rook. More importantly, this move prevents the Black queen from protecting Black's g7 pawn — in fact, the Black queen will not be able to easily return to defend Black's king at all. It sets up a dangerous possible attack, 20. Nxg7+ Kd8 21. Bc7#.

19...Qxa1+ 20. Ke2

At this point, Black's attack has run out of power; Black has a queen and bishop on the back row, but cannot effectively mount an immediate attack on White, while White can storm forward. According to Bill Wall, Kieseritzky resigned at this point. Huebner notes that an article by Friedrich Amelung in the journal Baltische Schachblaetter, 1893, reported that Kiesertizky probably played 20... Na6, but Anderssen then announced the mating moves. In any case, it is suspected that the last few moves were not actually played on the board in the original game.

20...Na6

This move was probably made to counter 21. Nc7, which would fork the Black king and rook, and it prevents the bishop from occupying c7 as part of a mating attack, but White has another dangerous attack available. 20...Ba6 is a much better try.

Image:Immortal game move22.png

21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+

This is a queen sacrifice, on top of the earlier sacrifices of a bishop and both rooks, and Black cannot avoid taking the queen.

22...Nxf6 23. Be7# 1-0

At the end, Black is ahead in material by a considerable margin: a queen and two rooks, plus the advantage of having both bishops, while having only one fewer pawn. But the material does not help Black. White has been able to use his remaining pieces - two knights and a bishop - to force mate.

Savielly Tartakower described the match as "a beautiful game."

The moves in PGN format (see portable game notation).

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

da:Udødelige parti (skak) de:Unsterbliche Partie es:Inmortal (partida de ajedrez) nl:Onsterfelijke partij ru:Бессмертная партия tr:Ölümsüz Oyun

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Immortal_game"