Thanks for all your comments. It seems there is still great appreciation for the Evergreen Game! I agree with those who say that it doesn't make sense to compare different eras. Historically, it is an important game and it is good to see the kind of chess that was lauded at the time.
Us mere mortals dream about being able to find and play combinations like that. When I first saw this game (about 45 years ago) Qxd7 just blew my mind. There is still something mesmerizing about this old classics!
I do remember my father telling us This game as an story read from a book meanwhile making the moves on board, that was 55 Years ago !!…so fun as then told a Tintín adventure by his own…never again dad was so fun in my memory…Thanks Daniel. Chilhood revisited I must say. Be well, be safe
Mihail Marin made very insightful observations in "Secrets of Attacking chess" about the differences between Morphy and Anderssen. In a nutshell, he explains that, contrary to received opinion, Anderssen had no "positional" deficiency, and was maybe even more perceptive than Morphy in that regard, but also lacked tactical accuracy - a fatal flaw in chess, indeed. Then he analyses some games between them to prove his point.
Thanks for the analysis, and the provocative question! I don't think it really makes a huge amount of sense to compare the skills of 19th century chess players with modern elite professionals. I don't know if you could describe Anderssen as a professional, but the approach to training and the huge amount of easily available knowledge now makes the comparison between him and Carlsen or Kasparov a bit unfair. Of course their games will be better; they know so much more. It's like comparing tennis players playing a serve/volley game with a wooden racket to Novak Djokovic.
Tennis was arguably more subtle and interesting to watch in the days of maxply and slazenger, because the technology did not overpower the court and I've slowly lost interest in professional tennis since those days. Perhaps chess was also more visceral back in the 19th century, but I prefer the games from the Rubinstein, Pillsbury, Lasker era on the cusp of the transition to modern chess, which transitioned to Capablanca and the endless draws in world championships since then.
Great fun! But agreed, the poor quality of black’s play does tarnish the charm a bit. But chess is fun in all its aspects and history-from the first opening theory manuscripts of the 15th century until today….your book on Sultan Khan a worthy tome in the exploration of chess history. Thanks for the analysis!
hi Daniel, long time subscriber here. I had to think very hard about what I saw in this video. I want to thank you and your patron for these chess videos over the last two years or so. I have been watching them diligently. Good luck, and all the best!
Games like this revealed the beauty of chess in a way that everyone could appreciate. And such games were important when it came to establishing principles of good play. They demonstrated the importance of quick development of the pieces, making forcing moves that limit the opponent's options, sacrificing material to trap the King in the centre, etc. It doesn't really matter that most players in the 19th century were too weak to properly appreciate these ideas. It was Morphy, Anderssen and Blackburne that brought them to light. So the Evergreen Game is beautiful and instructive and historically important.
If you ❤ my videos do subscribe bit.ly/powerplaysubscription and do checkout the supporting options through Patreon: bit.ly/patreondanielking or through PayPal (links in the description)
For us, the amateurs, this game will always be the ever green. Yes, Kasparov combinations are profound but keep in mind that mid 19th century was the beginning of professional chess. The theory was in noce and the things that are obvious to us were not yet discovered then.
In a way, what's traditionally given me the most aesthetic pleasure are games with the most elegant combinations that feature the fewest (or subtlest) mistakes by the loser. I think my favorite game of all time is probably R. Byrne vs. Fischer from the '63/'64 U.S. championship ... it's like the whole board suddenly morphed into something strangely different right before my eyes after Fischer's surprising little exchange sac ... and it all proceeded simply as a result of Byrne moving a rook from f1 (thus releasing a pin on his knight on e2!) rather than moving his queen's rook instead. That was such an unusual and graceful game. I have no idea how many times I've "reread" it in my life, just for the sheer pleasure of it.
I don't know if it's rightfully still known as The Evergreen Game. But to this day, even when there are multiple oversights along the way, when a game ends with checkmate on the board via a Queen sac involving combination, it's still something worth taking note of, I think. So, maybe the "Romantic Era Evergreen"? Thanks for your videos!
not much to say ... I first encountered this game in a book more than 50 years ago ... I just love your commentary, Mr. King! As I recall, popular chess authors of the day like Irving Chernev and I.A. Horowitz advised readers not to overthink too much about games like this but just to "enjoy" them ... but I really wanted the truth! So thanks for pulling no punches! Beautiful aesthetic game and highly flawed. I'm glad we're clear about that at last. And as I long suspected, even as a tender young adolescent, the so-called "immortal game" was ever MORE flawed! Oy! (as we Jewish people like to say)
I believe Fischer studied 19th Century games and opening books and used their ideas and particular moves and systems in his style of play. Just imagine how good he could have become if he had grown up in the Chess world of today with computers and all the online playing oppourtunities!
Very happy to 19th century games series. :) Thank you very much Mr. King. I don't agree with your assessment at the end, because I think we are not choosing correct games. Anderssen's game vs Zukertort in 1869 is also Evan's Gambit and is of sufficient high quality for its time. The whole chess world I think is fascinated with wrong games. 19th century games are really interesting and have sufficient value too.
In the past, I wouldn't have understood your idea that the appeal of this game is diluted by the weak play of Andersson's opponent... but now we're in the era of online chess and chess streamers!!! I was indeed introduced to this game before online chess became big. But nowadays, many IM's tally up insane brillianicies in online blitz games. After seeing tons of beautiful Eric Rosen combinations in short time controls against opponents around my level (I'm 1300)... I get it. And after seeing tons of Hikaru Nakamura "brilliancies" against 2200's (from bad openings, no less)... I get your sentiment even more. A game like this is possible for many strong players... if they're facing the right opponent. Weak opponents enable this sort of play. It is pretty, though!
There would be no Kasparov without Andersen. Or Kasparov would play just like Andersen. The romantic chess was a milestone in the development of chess. A necessary stage in order to progress.
Watching master games feels different when my chess skills are developed. When I first watched this game when I was not so good at chess, these combinations were dazzling. How do they come up with that idea?! Now watching this when I'm much stronger, these combinations are not too difficult.
It's funny because I was so focused on Nf6+ that I didn't even notice the simple solution of winning material by chasing the queen. I guess throwing pieces towards the king going for a mate is what makes the game most fun. However, losing due to miscalculations or allowing to much counterplay is very frustrating on the other hand. Still I think that especially in this computer dominant era chess should also be a form of art with creative (not always 100% sound) attacking play
When I was a kid and an aspiring chess player, as opposed to UA-cam chess consumer, of course, this was something mind-blowing. But I just wish I was taught something about opening theory, visualisation and calculation and/or middle game strategies, rather than the beauty of Paul Morphy, Adolf Anderssen, Wilhelm Steinitz and Jose Raul Capablanca. Maybe I would have actually learned how to play the game a little...
When I was young I lived in St Leonards-on-sea close to where the annual Hastings Chess Congress was held. One year (every year?) they exhibited a hand sewn tapestry maybe 60cm square depicting a classic chess position. I think it was the Evergreen, tho might have been the Immortal etc.
I think the point is that a competent club player could (just about) find this combination and would remember it forever - the tingle factor!! Indeed I truly believe that combinations of this type happen quite often in club chess (yes, with the opponent errors too - necessary). The reality is that GM chess today is simply like a different universe to 99.09% of players - these opportunities rarely appear (except in rapid/blitz). We can follow the moves but we'd never find them across the board!
I recently found your channel and like your content. Great work. I have subscribed. One constructive critique: You might consider rerecording your intro. The loud whistle on the word "share" is rather painful when wearing headphones. Thanks for the content. 😊
Players today are standing and viewing the game from a pile of 160 years of theory and over two decades of super-human computing, they don't even really start playing until out of engine theory. Looking at this, you might as well compare jockeys with racing drivers. What is enjoyable is the attacking spirit.
I fully agree with your view that modern games such as those by Kasparov or Carlsen or any of today's 2700+ rated players offer more depth, entertainment, and useful lessons than those romantic games of the 19th century. A comparison may be drawn with football, where nobody would really be interested (apart from the historical value in them) in football games of the early 20th century as their skills would be comparable with those of a weak third division team nowadays. Times have moved on and we ought to be wary of nostalgia of some bygone era...
This finish is still beautiful. Whilst you drank tea I chose Ng3. But Kasparov does indeed play better combinations. Thanks Daniel and keep up the good work.
Seriously, we must be grateful for the Romantic Era. Not just for the spectacular (if often less-than-sound) games, but for the fact that the reaction to it made chess a better game. Now, in 2022, when a player succeeds in attack, it is a much more sound victory than ever before. And it is because the push-and-pull of history improved both attack and defense.
Wouldn't it be sad if the epitomy of chess had been reached in 1854 already? I think the "romantic" time of chess was so important because it popularized chess - maybe similar to online chess nowadays. You don't have to love it to see value in it. The "romantic" chess period is aptly named, I think, in that it "romanticizes" bad play. It also instills in every club player the idea of slam dunking your opponent like a mad man, irrespective of it being correct. Who doesn't want that at least once in a tournament game? It was a great setup for the next period, which was all about positional chess and bringing strategic depth to the game (think of Steinitz or Nimzowitsch). Of course all of the above were great patzers compared to the skills of every 2700+ player nowadays (mainly because they couldn't build on as much theory and study material and they didn't have computers).
I could tell Nf6+ wasn't the best way to finish it, but I couldn't see the clear win. These "romantic" games of old are fun to see but also a little sad in reminding us that there is usually a bitter truth in every position. You can't waste time in chess, unless you opponent allows it.
that could be the most romantic and the funniest game of chess ever. simply hilarious. i decided to become a romantic player after watching it!.. a great piece of art- and a great commentary, thanks a lot!!
It is, of course, as green as ever! I mean, chess was still in its early spring in those days! Looking at it in the sallow light of our computer age is hardly relevant. It's also worth remembering that the code of ethics was different. If the opponent offered material, you were expected to take it! Even if it meant taking a tremendous risk. For instance capturing the knight on f3 would have been considered mandatory! And if your greed resulted in loosing, nobody was happier than you, as long as the win was spectacular! Because you'd had the honour of taking part in the creation of a masterpiece.
heh, my impulsive instinct during the tea break immediately went 'Nf6 looks like fun...' then the logical brain kicks in and notes Ng3 is safer and probably just better too. Clearly you play the latter in a serious game, but in a one minute game I'm taking the chaos.
I`m surprised you don`t like romantic chess that much. I think it is beautiful. And you made a lesson about the King`s Gambit. In my opinion THE opening of romantic chess. So I thought you would like it.
Let me state that I like Romantic era chess - it was an exciting time. I like the King's Gambit very much: I played it for quite a few years and spent a lot of time researching it (see my ChessBase DVDs / downloads: shop.chessbase.com/en/products/king_powerplay_27_and_28_kings_gambit). I am just questioning whether the game deserves the epithet 'Evergreen'.
I think that this game is great because Anderssen saw the whole combination when he placed a rook on the d-file, and that’s actually very impressive even by today’s standards to have this kind of imagination. This is a great flashy entertainment. Of course his opponent played badly, everybody except players such as Morphy and Anderssen played badly back then by today’s standards. But again, that’s not the point. It’s supposed to be a fun blockbuster with great action and characters, and not a heavy psychological drama. And yes, I do prefer psychological dramas, and I do prefer Carlsen and Kasparov games. Still, I see no reason to dismiss this kind of romantic chess (and this particular game, as I said because of this Rad1 move), they still have their place.
The problem with such gambits is that, when we watch this kind of games and then "try it at home", we lose, because opponent just castles. :) So it would be better to see games where opponent castles and then positional attack starts while being pawn down. 19th century games are very instructive, but not these NN type of games where opponent just plays badly.
Anderssen's Evergreen at least. By today's standards or at least those of the last 50 years, some of the leaves have dropped. Nevertheless, there are still lessons to be learned and certainly a new player should be directed to games like these. The super-grandmasters of today can be a tad intimidating.
For me "evergreen" games are some of the brilliant wins by Ivanchuk, Anand or Polgar, high level games where the mistakes are not that obvious, or as Daniel says here, endgame masterpieces by Carlsen or his rivals.
I understand your point, but it's still evergreen. I like combinations, sacrifices but i don't enjoy Carlsen's pawn grabbing. Just because Murphy was much better than his opponents doesn't take away his games are also evergreen.
Risk makes for excitement. If we choose to forget these games, or choose to view Tal's questionable sacs with noses in the air, we should give up chess and only play the stock market. Play chess for fun, otherwise it is only misery till you win.
sad. you really should show more reverence for these games. one needs to look at games from 250 years with some perspective. even nunn, burgess and co listed this game as one of the greatest of all times!
Sorry Daniel, I love your channel and your insightful analysis but you are way off here. For the first time ever, you come across as arrogant. Carlsen and Kasparow have more depth? Oh really. A Lamborghini goes faster than a Ford Model T. Like yeah. Appreciate the beauty, the style and especially the path games and players lay ahead with things like this. Nowadays we can smile about it but this is precisely due to the fact, that those games were played and made sure, that every decent player can spot things like this 150 years or so later. Have some respect for the past. People will laugh at you in 30 years and it will be wrong as well!
Thanks for all your comments. It seems there is still great appreciation for the Evergreen Game! I agree with those who say that it doesn't make sense to compare different eras. Historically, it is an important game and it is good to see the kind of chess that was lauded at the time.
Us mere mortals dream about being able to find and play combinations like that. When I first saw this game (about 45 years ago) Qxd7 just blew my mind. There is still something mesmerizing about this old classics!
I do remember my father telling us This game as an story read from a book meanwhile making the moves on board, that was 55 Years ago !!…so fun as then told a Tintín adventure by his own…never again dad was so fun in my memory…Thanks Daniel. Chilhood revisited I must say. Be well, be safe
Mihail Marin made very insightful observations in "Secrets of Attacking chess" about the differences between Morphy and Anderssen. In a nutshell, he explains that, contrary to received opinion, Anderssen had no "positional" deficiency, and was maybe even more perceptive than Morphy in that regard, but also lacked tactical accuracy - a fatal flaw in chess, indeed. Then he analyses some games between them to prove his point.
Thanks for the analysis, and the provocative question!
I don't think it really makes a huge amount of sense to compare the skills of 19th century chess players with modern elite professionals. I don't know if you could describe Anderssen as a professional, but the approach to training and the huge amount of easily available knowledge now makes the comparison between him and Carlsen or Kasparov a bit unfair. Of course their games will be better; they know so much more. It's like comparing tennis players playing a serve/volley game with a wooden racket to Novak Djokovic.
Yea it makes no sense. Even to compare modern Carlsen to Carlsen of 10 years ago is a bit of a stretch.
Tennis was arguably more subtle and interesting to watch in the days of maxply and slazenger, because the technology did not overpower the court and I've slowly lost interest in professional tennis since those days. Perhaps chess was also more visceral back in the 19th century, but I prefer the games from the Rubinstein, Pillsbury, Lasker era on the cusp of the transition to modern chess, which transitioned to Capablanca and the endless draws in world championships since then.
I once put this game as a puzzle to a 2400 rated player and he couldn't find the right moves.
What a game
Great fun! But agreed, the poor quality of black’s play does tarnish the charm a bit. But chess is fun in all its aspects and history-from the first opening theory manuscripts of the 15th century until today….your book on Sultan Khan a worthy tome in the exploration of chess history. Thanks for the analysis!
So refreshing to see a clear point of view elegantly justified. Thanks Daniel and I now follow The Bees👏
hi Daniel, long time subscriber here. I had to think very hard about what I saw in this video. I want to thank you and your patron for these chess videos over the last two years or so. I have been watching them diligently. Good luck, and all the best!
More Morphy games and more Anderssen games from time to time on this channel would be nice. Can't wait for the next.
On their way!
Games like this revealed the beauty of chess in a way that everyone could appreciate. And such games were important when it came to establishing principles of good play. They demonstrated the importance of quick development of the pieces, making forcing moves that limit the opponent's options, sacrificing material to trap the King in the centre, etc. It doesn't really matter that most players in the 19th century were too weak to properly appreciate these ideas. It was Morphy, Anderssen and Blackburne that brought them to light. So the Evergreen Game is beautiful and instructive and historically important.
If you ❤ my videos do subscribe bit.ly/powerplaysubscription and do checkout the supporting options through Patreon: bit.ly/patreondanielking or through PayPal (links in the description)
Crazy game - really enjoyable!
For us, the amateurs, this game will always be the ever green. Yes, Kasparov combinations are profound but keep in mind that mid 19th century was the beginning of professional chess. The theory was in noce and the things that are obvious to us were not yet discovered then.
In a way, what's traditionally given me the most aesthetic pleasure are games with the most elegant combinations that feature the fewest (or subtlest) mistakes by the loser. I think my favorite game of all time is probably R. Byrne vs. Fischer from the '63/'64 U.S. championship ... it's like the whole board suddenly morphed into something strangely different right before my eyes after Fischer's surprising little exchange sac ... and it all proceeded simply as a result of Byrne moving a rook from f1 (thus releasing a pin on his knight on e2!) rather than moving his queen's rook instead. That was such an unusual and graceful game. I have no idea how many times I've "reread" it in my life, just for the sheer pleasure of it.
I have to admit, Nf6 was my first choice. I probably should grow a walrus mustache.
I don't know if it's rightfully still known as The Evergreen Game.
But to this day, even when there are multiple oversights along the way, when a game ends with checkmate on the board via a Queen sac involving combination, it's still something worth taking note of, I think.
So, maybe the "Romantic Era Evergreen"?
Thanks for your videos!
Thank you for this one!
Great commentary. Great game. Viva Evans gambit! Evergreen.
not much to say ... I first encountered this game in a book more than 50 years ago ... I just love your commentary, Mr. King! As I recall, popular chess authors of the day like Irving Chernev and I.A. Horowitz advised readers not to overthink too much about games like this but just to "enjoy" them ... but I really wanted the truth! So thanks for pulling no punches! Beautiful aesthetic game and highly flawed. I'm glad we're clear about that at last. And as I long suspected, even as a tender young adolescent, the so-called "immortal game" was ever MORE flawed! Oy! (as we Jewish people like to say)
I believe Fischer studied 19th Century games and opening books and used their ideas and particular moves and systems in his style of play. Just imagine how good he could have become if he had grown up in the Chess world of today with computers and all the online playing oppourtunities!
Very happy to 19th century games series. :) Thank you very much Mr. King. I don't agree with your assessment at the end, because I think we are not choosing correct games. Anderssen's game vs Zukertort in 1869 is also Evan's Gambit and is of sufficient high quality for its time. The whole chess world I think is fascinated with wrong games. 19th century games are really interesting and have sufficient value too.
We need to see Stockfish forced to play openings like the Evans Gambit against top GMs.
In the past, I wouldn't have understood your idea that the appeal of this game is diluted by the weak play of Andersson's opponent... but now we're in the era of online chess and chess streamers!!! I was indeed introduced to this game before online chess became big. But nowadays, many IM's tally up insane brillianicies in online blitz games. After seeing tons of beautiful Eric Rosen combinations in short time controls against opponents around my level (I'm 1300)... I get it. And after seeing tons of Hikaru Nakamura "brilliancies" against 2200's (from bad openings, no less)... I get your sentiment even more. A game like this is possible for many strong players... if they're facing the right opponent. Weak opponents enable this sort of play. It is pretty, though!
There would be no Kasparov without Andersen. Or Kasparov would play just like Andersen. The romantic chess was a milestone in the development of chess. A necessary stage in order to progress.
Watching master games feels different when my chess skills are developed. When I first watched this game when I was not so good at chess, these combinations were dazzling. How do they come up with that idea?! Now watching this when I'm much stronger, these combinations are not too difficult.
All the great games from the romantic era will always be evergreen. Because they are the reason we loved chess.
Great video as always Mr. King.
It's funny because I was so focused on Nf6+ that I didn't even notice the simple solution of winning material by chasing the queen. I guess throwing pieces towards the king going for a mate is what makes the game most fun. However, losing due to miscalculations or allowing to much counterplay is very frustrating on the other hand. Still I think that especially in this computer dominant era chess should also be a form of art with creative (not always 100% sound) attacking play
When I was a kid and an aspiring chess player, as opposed to UA-cam chess consumer, of course, this was something mind-blowing. But I just wish I was taught something about opening theory, visualisation and calculation and/or middle game strategies, rather than the beauty of Paul Morphy, Adolf Anderssen, Wilhelm Steinitz and Jose Raul Capablanca. Maybe I would have actually learned how to play the game a little...
When I was young I lived in St Leonards-on-sea close to where the annual Hastings Chess Congress was held. One year (every year?) they exhibited a hand sewn tapestry maybe 60cm square depicting a classic chess position. I think it was the Evergreen, tho might have been the Immortal etc.
I think the point is that a competent club player could (just about) find this combination and would remember it forever - the tingle factor!! Indeed I truly believe that combinations of this type happen quite often in club chess (yes, with the opponent errors too - necessary). The reality is that GM chess today is simply like a different universe to 99.09% of players - these opportunities rarely appear (except in rapid/blitz). We can follow the moves but we'd never find them across the board!
I recently found your channel and like your content. Great work. I have subscribed.
One constructive critique: You might consider rerecording your intro. The loud whistle on the word "share" is rather painful when wearing headphones. Thanks for the content. 😊
Players today are standing and viewing the game from a pile of 160 years of theory and over two decades of super-human computing, they don't even really start playing until out of engine theory. Looking at this, you might as well compare jockeys with racing drivers. What is enjoyable is the attacking spirit.
12:10 if bishop e4 instead of f5, we have discovered check and doesnt that win the queen?
However...
Truer words were never spoken.
In my youth for a lark I used to play a Sicilian with 2...et and 4...Qh4. I thought it exuberant and witty but only works in recreational games.
I fully agree with your view that modern games such as those by Kasparov or Carlsen or any of today's 2700+ rated players offer more depth, entertainment, and useful lessons than those romantic games of the 19th century. A comparison may be drawn with football, where nobody would really be interested (apart from the historical value in them) in football games of the early 20th century as their skills would be comparable with those of a weak third division team nowadays. Times have moved on and we ought to be wary of nostalgia of some bygone era...
3:05 black bishop X N?
This finish is still beautiful. Whilst you drank tea I chose Ng3. But Kasparov does indeed play better combinations. Thanks Daniel and keep up the good work.
Hey! This isn't a Kalashnikov! 😆
Seriously, we must be grateful for the Romantic Era. Not just for the spectacular (if often less-than-sound) games, but for the fact that the reaction to it made chess a better game. Now, in 2022, when a player succeeds in attack, it is a much more sound victory than ever before. And it is because the push-and-pull of history improved both attack and defense.
Wouldn't it be sad if the epitomy of chess had been reached in 1854 already? I think the "romantic" time of chess was so important because it popularized chess - maybe similar to online chess nowadays. You don't have to love it to see value in it. The "romantic" chess period is aptly named, I think, in that it "romanticizes" bad play. It also instills in every club player the idea of slam dunking your opponent like a mad man, irrespective of it being correct. Who doesn't want that at least once in a tournament game? It was a great setup for the next period, which was all about positional chess and bringing strategic depth to the game (think of Steinitz or Nimzowitsch). Of course all of the above were great patzers compared to the skills of every 2700+ player nowadays (mainly because they couldn't build on as much theory and study material and they didn't have computers).
the leaves have somehow tarnished.
The grass was GREENER in those days (and not so brutally engineered as today) 😘
I could tell Nf6+ wasn't the best way to finish it, but I couldn't see the clear win. These "romantic" games of old are fun to see but also a little sad in reminding us that there is usually a bitter truth in every position. You can't waste time in chess, unless you opponent allows it.
that could be the most romantic and the funniest game of chess ever. simply hilarious. i decided to become a romantic player after watching it!.. a great piece of art- and a great commentary, thanks a lot!!
It is, of course, as green as ever! I mean, chess was still in its early spring in those days! Looking at it in the sallow light of our computer age is hardly relevant. It's also worth remembering that the code of ethics was different. If the opponent offered material, you were expected to take it! Even if it meant taking a tremendous risk. For instance capturing the knight on f3 would have been considered mandatory! And if your greed resulted in loosing, nobody was happier than you, as long as the win was spectacular! Because you'd had the honour of taking part in the creation of a masterpiece.
heh, my impulsive instinct during the tea break immediately went 'Nf6 looks like fun...' then the logical brain kicks in and notes Ng3 is safer and probably just better too. Clearly you play the latter in a serious game, but in a one minute game I'm taking the chaos.
I`m surprised you don`t like romantic chess that much. I think it is beautiful. And you made a lesson about the King`s Gambit. In my opinion THE opening of romantic chess. So I thought you would like it.
Let me state that I like Romantic era chess - it was an exciting time. I like the King's Gambit very much: I played it for quite a few years and spent a lot of time researching it (see my ChessBase DVDs / downloads: shop.chessbase.com/en/products/king_powerplay_27_and_28_kings_gambit). I am just questioning whether the game deserves the epithet 'Evergreen'.
I think that this game is great because Anderssen saw the whole combination when he placed a rook on the d-file, and that’s actually very impressive even by today’s standards to have this kind of imagination. This is a great flashy entertainment. Of course his opponent played badly, everybody except players such as Morphy and Anderssen played badly back then by today’s standards. But again, that’s not the point. It’s supposed to be a fun blockbuster with great action and characters, and not a heavy psychological drama. And yes, I do prefer psychological dramas, and I do prefer Carlsen and Kasparov games. Still, I see no reason to dismiss this kind of romantic chess (and this particular game, as I said because of this Rad1 move), they still have their place.
The problem with such gambits is that, when we watch this kind of games and then "try it at home", we lose, because opponent just castles. :) So it would be better to see games where opponent castles and then positional attack starts while being pawn down. 19th century games are very instructive, but not these NN type of games where opponent just plays badly.
👌👌👏👏👏👏
Still evergreen
yep, thats because these guys played theses games that nowadays humans know better. So we owe them. Still Evergreen
Anderssen's Evergreen at least. By today's standards or at least those of the last 50 years, some of the leaves have dropped. Nevertheless, there are still lessons to be learned and certainly a new player should be directed to games like these. The super-grandmasters of today can be a tad intimidating.
black looks pretty green
For me "evergreen" games are some of the brilliant wins by Ivanchuk, Anand or Polgar, high level games where the mistakes are not that obvious, or as Daniel says here, endgame masterpieces by Carlsen or his rivals.
I understand your point, but it's still evergreen. I like combinations, sacrifices but i don't enjoy Carlsen's pawn grabbing. Just because Murphy was much better than his opponents doesn't take away his games are also evergreen.
Risk makes for excitement. If we choose to forget these games, or choose to view Tal's questionable sacs with noses in the air, we should give up chess and only play the stock market. Play chess for fun, otherwise it is only misery till you win.
sad. you really should show more reverence for these games.
one needs to look at games from 250 years with some perspective.
even nunn, burgess and co listed this game as one of the greatest of all times!
Sorry Daniel, I love your channel and your insightful analysis but you are way off here. For the first time ever, you come across as arrogant. Carlsen and Kasparow have more depth? Oh really. A Lamborghini goes faster than a Ford Model T. Like yeah. Appreciate the beauty, the style and especially the path games and players lay ahead with things like this. Nowadays we can smile about it but this is precisely due to the fact, that those games were played and made sure, that every decent player can spot things like this 150 years or so later. Have some respect for the past. People will laugh at you in 30 years and it will be wrong as well!
I have the greatest respect for chess players from the past, as anyone who has followed this channel over the last ten years will be able to judge.
As a matter of fact, it's not against the rules of chess to capture on d4 and let black capture your king!