Would you like a complete repertoire with the King's Gambit? Check out my DVD/download: 💿 King's Gambit DVD: shop.chessbase.com/en/products/king_powerplay_27_kings_gambit?ref=RF54-4N15VPFQS9
@@user-ts2co4ov5h I CANNOT believe instead of being APPRECIATIVE that GM King takes his time to review this for FREE, you take your time to call it "pointless". Surely you have better things to do with your time than be insulting? I am also sure you are not a GM nor highly rated that you could not learn SOMETHING from Daniel's commentary---BOOM !
@@user-ts2co4ov5h It was interesting how to see how modern GMs think compared to GMs of the past. As Danny said, the old masters valued playing for a win and today's GMs value playing soundly since a draw is an acceptable result. It was telling that Danny, a modern GM, would have played to prevent the double Rook sacrifice with d4, whereas Anderssen played to win in style with Nd5 allowing the sacrifice. Only Nd5 gives white any chance of playing an immortal game, although d5 wins as well, so that's what Anderssen played. That's a big difference between the best players now and then (except for Tal - he knew how to play the man and not the board, as well). I say, if you are going to remain an amateur in chess, then play like Anderssen. You have a chance of emulating him, and none of emulating the risk-averse GMs of today. Only Romantic play gives you a shot at playing a game that will be discussed for 200 years.
The Bc4 in the KG always reminds one a bit of the famous Morozevich-Vishy game , Moscow, Intel speed chess 1995. I loved that game too. And Danny's immortal commentary that time and also his analysis of that game in this channel!!!!!!
As others pointed out, it is very nice to have your insights on this classical game, Daniel. Borges would certainly envy your chess library. Thanks for sharing it with us!
It's very nice to present a 19th century game. I and many others will watch it with pleasure for sure. :) But I think the recommendation to show us a bit lesser known games is legitimate. :) Anyway, I prefer this over any modern game, so not complaining. I loved some of the moves in the opening - Nh5 for example, very forcing. Today's players would just go for castling, but this presents lot of problems for today's amateurs. :) 19th century chess is very rich. Some of the moves "feel odd" as you mentioned, but they aren't losing, instead very interesting.
Another game that is very WELL KNOWN that even most beginners have seen this game . It has been covered in so many different books and UA-cam videos that I really am baffled at your selection..... Respectfully
Because all of us were beginners, and all beginners are awed by this game. That such play is even possible is stunning to an amateur. Nostalgia is one reason.
I love the kings gambit bishops gambit, my first choice and I agree with you Daniel, when my opponent plays Qh4+ I always think welcome to my territory. Win lose always fun. Thanks for a fine analysis and keep up the good work.
(Typed at around 0:50) I fairly recently got the idea that Anderssen's finish of course was just brilliant and the focused and planned play and positional advantages are brilliant as well. But got the idea that leading up to that (and beyond merely the first handful of moves) Anderssen played some moves top elite players probably would not have played. As well as there being some really dubious moves by Kieseritzky including fairly early in the opening (like I think the b Pawn sacrifice fairly early). I have not watched or gone through the game in a long time. I am sure our analysis of the game and quality of the opponents moves as well as possible alternate moves Anderssen had throughout the game are probably going to be pretty spot on.
@@yzfool6639 It is true. (That isn't exactly what I was referring to, later in the game there were straight forward forced winning combinations, that doesn't really exist on turn 2.) There are many openings, that seem fine (and in some cases seem quite solid, Kings Gambit maybe is not considered solid, but still probably largely fine), lower level players play and play just fine (relatively speaking) that elite players never touch.
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)
The game is of course a dubious slugfest. But the end combination where black play is at least understandable will for sure reamain immortal. Resulting in end position of mate where black has still all pieces! White down queen, 2 rooks and a piece.
This game has never appealed to me and I never understood why it was called "The Immortal Game". It felt more like your average club game with one player grabbing material and getting slaughtered in the process by another player with some tactical flair.
The idea of the time was this: If your opponent offers material, you’re not a gentleman unless you take it. In fact you might even be considered an unsportsmanlike coward. And if you do take the offered material and lose, you have no reason whatsoever to regret your decision. We’re not collectors of points, we’re not accountants. We are artists! A chess game should be a work of art, and both players should help make it as great as possible. Winning is nice, but creating masterpieces is so much better! Personally I must admit that I don’t share this philosophy. I really don’t consider chess to be an art form, and as a consequence of this my most unromantic attitude I’m not quite willing to capture every poisoned piece or pawn laid before me. But still I have no admiration for hoarders of points (including rating points) if it means boring play. My heros are the likes of Tal and Nesmetdinov: People willing to take risks on the board in order to create stunning games. Whenever I’ve managed in my own small way to win by shaking an opponent with baffling combinations that later turned out to be incorrect, I’ve been most happy! Possibly the most embarrassing game I ever played was a win that I received much praise for. I got an early advantage and never gave him a chance. A Boa Constrictor game. But I never took any risks, and I found the game boring. May I never again commit such a crime.
Great analysis. I do think especially towards the end top players would have gone for simpler more predictable forced lines. Brilliant or the very least remarkable game and brilliant player regardless.
Would you like a complete repertoire with the King's Gambit? Check out my DVD/download: 💿 King's Gambit DVD: shop.chessbase.com/en/products/king_powerplay_27_kings_gambit?ref=RF54-4N15VPFQS9
One of the best moments of a chess lover's life is when Daniel King posts a new upload, specially when that upload is from classic masters.
Yes but this game is extremely well-known it is pointless to show it again
@@user-ts2co4ov5h strongly disagree. The game might be old but you'll never get Danny's GM insights from guys like agad or levy
@@user-ts2co4ov5h I CANNOT believe instead of being APPRECIATIVE that GM King takes his time to review this for FREE, you take your time to call it "pointless". Surely you have better things to do with your time than be insulting? I am also sure you are not a GM nor highly rated that you could not learn SOMETHING from Daniel's commentary---BOOM !
So true
@@user-ts2co4ov5h It was interesting how to see how modern GMs think compared to GMs of the past. As Danny said, the old masters valued playing for a win and today's GMs value playing soundly since a draw is an acceptable result. It was telling that Danny, a modern GM, would have played to prevent the double Rook sacrifice with d4, whereas Anderssen played to win in style with Nd5 allowing the sacrifice. Only Nd5 gives white any chance of playing an immortal game, although d5 wins as well, so that's what Anderssen played. That's a big difference between the best players now and then (except for Tal - he knew how to play the man and not the board, as well). I say, if you are going to remain an amateur in chess, then play like Anderssen. You have a chance of emulating him, and none of emulating the risk-averse GMs of today. Only Romantic play gives you a shot at playing a game that will be discussed for 200 years.
Great that you give this historical background. You videos are simply great.
The Bc4 in the KG always reminds one a bit of the famous Morozevich-Vishy game , Moscow, Intel speed chess 1995. I loved that game too. And Danny's immortal commentary that time and also his analysis of that game in this channel!!!!!!
I assume when you are saying "Danny" you are referring to IM Danny Rensch. 😀😀
This game is the reason I fell in love with chess in my younger years and I know I am not the only one. That is another merit of this game.
As others pointed out, it is very nice to have your insights on this classical game, Daniel. Borges would certainly envy your chess library. Thanks for sharing it with us!
It's very nice to present a 19th century game. I and many others will watch it with pleasure for sure. :) But I think the recommendation to show us a bit lesser known games is legitimate. :) Anyway, I prefer this over any modern game, so not complaining.
I loved some of the moves in the opening - Nh5 for example, very forcing. Today's players would just go for castling, but this presents lot of problems for today's amateurs. :) 19th century chess is very rich. Some of the moves "feel odd" as you mentioned, but they aren't losing, instead very interesting.
I only trust analysis of the king's gambit from the King himself!
do more of these classics
Another game that is very WELL KNOWN that even most beginners have seen this game . It has been covered in so many different books and UA-cam videos that I really am baffled at your selection..... Respectfully
Because all of us were beginners, and all beginners are awed by this game. That such play is even possible is stunning to an amateur. Nostalgia is one reason.
I love the kings gambit bishops gambit, my first choice and I agree with you Daniel, when my opponent plays Qh4+ I always think welcome to my territory. Win lose always fun. Thanks for a fine analysis and keep up the good work.
(Typed at around 0:50) I fairly recently got the idea that Anderssen's finish of course was just brilliant and the focused and planned play and positional advantages are brilliant as well.
But got the idea that leading up to that (and beyond merely the first handful of moves) Anderssen played some moves top elite players probably would not have played. As well as there being some really dubious moves by Kieseritzky including fairly early in the opening (like I think the b Pawn sacrifice fairly early).
I have not watched or gone through the game in a long time. I am sure our analysis of the game and quality of the opponents moves as well as possible alternate moves Anderssen had throughout the game are probably going to be pretty spot on.
Elite players would not play 2 f4 as white, except as a surprise, so yeah.
@@yzfool6639 It is true. (That isn't exactly what I was referring to, later in the game there were straight forward forced winning combinations, that doesn't really exist on turn 2.)
There are many openings, that seem fine (and in some cases seem quite solid, Kings Gambit maybe is not considered solid, but still probably largely fine), lower level players play and play just fine (relatively speaking) that elite players never touch.
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)
The term "Valued" makes sense. It is not being the "immortal" that makes this game popular, it's being the "icon" that makes it popular.
3:40 even Kasparov can not fix that mess.
He's a poor standard to apply then. Alpha Zero, Lela, or Stockfish could. Against him.
Romantic Evergreen Era
Mr. Anderssen, Mr Anderssen...
I am very excited about this by the way, 19th century games are the best. :)
b5 - trading a problem on f7 for a problem with a pin at the cost of a pawn, what a trade! :'D
Thought this was the game featured in Perec's Life, A User's Manual, but I was mistaken. It was another Anderssen game, the Evergreen...
that counter gambit move just gives up more time allowing white to develop another piece, which is the whole point of the Kings Gambit
And then Tal came around and people rediscovered the sacrifice.
Old school but cool
The game is of course a dubious slugfest. But the end combination where black play is at least understandable will for sure reamain immortal. Resulting in end position of mate where black has still all pieces! White down queen, 2 rooks and a piece.
Maybe not as "immortal" compared to some other games, but very iconic nonetheless
Thanks sir
Reminds me of Donner, who is in a lot of brilliancies
This game has never appealed to me and I never understood why it was called "The Immortal Game". It felt more like your average club game with one player grabbing material and getting slaughtered in the process by another player with some tactical flair.
'Some' tactical flair? I'm scared of you, for sure.
That's a nice shirt
I guess Alpha Zero is a (new) romantic.
Carlsen’s favorite pawn structure, c2, d3,e4.
Perhaps it's the Immortal Game for the 19th century. :)
Maybe a Morphy game sometime?
Responding with d4 (after Bc5) would be an obvious blunder: it would rule out this game being remembered generations after white played Nd5!
Absolutely. And telling.
The idea of the time was this: If your opponent offers material, you’re not a gentleman unless you take it. In fact you might even be considered an unsportsmanlike coward. And if you do take the offered material and lose, you have no reason whatsoever to regret your decision. We’re not collectors of points, we’re not accountants. We are artists! A chess game should be a work of art, and both players should help make it as great as possible. Winning is nice, but creating masterpieces is so much better!
Personally I must admit that I don’t share this philosophy. I really don’t consider chess to be an art form, and as a consequence of this my most unromantic attitude I’m not quite willing to capture every poisoned piece or pawn laid before me. But still I have no admiration for hoarders of points (including rating points) if it means boring play. My heros are the likes of Tal and Nesmetdinov: People willing to take risks on the board in order to create stunning games.
Whenever I’ve managed in my own small way to win by shaking an opponent with baffling combinations that later turned out to be incorrect, I’ve been most happy!
Possibly the most embarrassing game I ever played was a win that I received much praise for. I got an early advantage and never gave him a chance. A Boa Constrictor game. But I never took any risks, and I found the game boring. May I never again commit such a crime.
Amen.
20...Ba6 saves the game. 20...Na6 (as played) is mate in three.
Great analysis. I do think especially towards the end top players would have gone for simpler more predictable forced lines. Brilliant or the very least remarkable game and brilliant player regardless.
How much did Paul Morphy owe Anderssen in his own chess development?
I don't think it holds up to the tag of "Immortal Game".
We're still talking about if 175 years later. It's as immortal as a game of chess gets.