All
the |
(Navigation bar
directly below.)
*******
© A.J. Goldsby,
2009.
(All rights reserved.)
****************
Click HERE
to see the page
for my downloads.
****************
Click HERE
to see any chess
items that I have
that are ...
FOR SALE!
****************
****************
Buy a book
from Amazon.com
(And help me out as well!)
la Bourdonnais - MacDonnell (# 3.)
This is a simple, plain-old text-score page ... so if you want to follow this game - you will definitely need a chess set. (First posted, August; 2002.)
Click
HERE
if you would like to see this game -
very briefly annotated -
in a java-script re-play format.
Louis
Charles de LaBourdonnais (2725)
- Alexander MacDonnell (2650)
[D20]
Match, ENG. vs. FRA.
Westminster Chess Club
London, England (Game # 50), 1834
Dozens
of players, writers, chess historians, etc - have all heaped praise on this
game.
(And many annotators have commented on this game ... and most have gotten
it dead wrong!
I have seen dozens of comments on this game over the years. I
have included several - with
my analysis to correct their mistakes - to give you
an idea of what I am talking about here.)
This is also a game that is
NOT as
well-known as it deserves to be.
(Some better known games are Anderssen's "Immortal Game," and his "Ever-Green Partie."
Also some of Morphy's
games are very well-known. This game is as good as any of those
historic clashes.)
GM Ruben Fine
- in his excellent (and now classic) book -
"The World's
Great Chess Games" -
calls this the FIRST
(!) great ('IMMORTAL')
game of
chess!!!!
Black sacrifices
pieces in a manner that would do honor to M. Tal.
One
of the deepest and most original sacrifices ever actually made on a chessboard. An incredible concept that pre-dates all others.
(REMEMBER: This contest pre-dates A. Anderssen's famous
"Immortal
Game" with L. Kieseritsky by almost 20 years!!!).
This is easily
Alexander MacDonnell's greatest game .............
quite simply ... the best game he ever played.
***
(The comments in brackets ...
<blah-blah-blah> ... are from my
briefly annotated
version of this game.)
***
These
two players played a series of (mini) matches ...
... over an
extended period of time. (84
or 85 games in total.)
There seems to be quite a bit of
confusion about the correct number of this game.
(When it occurred between these two players in their
series.)
(Indeed, it seems
every book gives it a different numbering.)
The book, "The Complete Chess Addict," by Mike Fox and Richard James; call this the Fiftieth Match Game. (Game # 50.)
The book,
"The Oxford Companion To Chess," by David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld;
...
... ... ... also calls this the 50th Match game.
One book
- from the McKay chess library - "An Encyclopedia of Chess,"
(several different authors); calls
this the 15th game of the 3rd match of this epic series. (Another book says this
is the 4th game of the Fourth Match. Their accounting is meticulous, they may be right.)
(And both may be correct, it could be game # 50 {overall}
... as well as # 4 of the 4th match!)
The book, "The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia," ... by Nathan Divinsky; gives this game, but does not give the (correct) game number. (Anne Sunnucks also gives this game as well, but does not bother to provide the game number.)
The
authoritative, and extremely meticulously researched book,
"The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess
Games," ... by IM David Levy & Kevin O'Connell;
(Volume #1, Games: 1485 - 1866); gives ALL the games
of this match. They list it as game # 50, ...
so that is good enough for me!!
1.d4
d5; 2.c4 dxc4;
Black gives up his strong point (d5) in the
center, but gains good piece play.
Thus far, we have a fairly normal Queen's
Gambit.
(Q.G.A. = "Queen's Gambit Accepted.")
[ The continuation: 2...e6; 3.Nc3
Nf6; 4.Bg5 Nbd7; {Diag?}
leads to a standard Q.G.D.
(Q.G.D. = A "Queen's Gambit Declined.")
].
3.e4!?,
This was
heavily criticized by several writers, (Fine - for one, Lowenthal for another);
and was labeled as inaccurate ... or even bad.
***
"Questionable."
- J. Jakob Lowenthal.
(An American newspaper.)
"A beginner's move,"
wrote the well-known Irishman,
...
- James Mason. (A 19th-Century player and writer.)
"A move which is today considered grossly inferior. The principles
of center play were but half understood at that time."
- GM Ruben Fine. ("The World's Great
Chess Games.")
"Too abrupt an advance."
- GM Savielly Tartakower & James Du Mont.
("500 Master Games of Chess.")
***
Yet by the late 1980's and the early 1990's - this reached the pinnacle of GM fashion, and was being heavily played by the world's best GM's!!!
(In my original ChessBase edition of this game, I included a survey of over 100 games of this line .... if for no other reason than to prove how wrong GM Ruben Fine was.)
[
The (main) "book" line - which is probably close to 100 years
old - is
the following continuation: 3.Nf3 Nf6; 4.e3 e6;
5.Bxc4,
5...c5; 6.0-0 a6;
7.Qe2, This is the modern main line, according
to MCO-14.
(Probably the move 7.dxc5!?, is only good for equality.)
7...Nc6; According to theory, this is the most modern continuation.
( The
older line - played at the GM level for over 50 years - is:
7...b5!?; 8.Bb3
Bb7; 9.Rd1 Nbd7; 10.Nc3 Bd6!?; "~" {D?}
with a roughly
balanced position, where White holds an
initiative. (I studied this line intensively as a youth, in my
teens. But only from the Black point of view - in
those days
I only played 1.P-K4!) )
8.Nc3 b5; 9.Bb3 Bb7;
10.Rd1 Qc7; 11.d5 exd5;
12.e4! d4; 13.Nd5 Qd8;
14.Bf4 Rc8;
"~" ("=/+") {Diag?}
The end of the column.
15.a4!?,
"+/=" (initiative) ...
"with a big advantage." [to White]
(According to
GM Nick de Firmian in
"Modern Chess
Openings."). He credits this analysis to
Neishtadt, and
goes on
to analyze a line where White reaches a winning endgame.
(Beginning with
15...c4!?) But this analysis is VERY complex,
and also it is not clear if it is
all forced. Black could also play
15...Na5!?;
"~" {Diagram?} as well as the line MCO gives.
I call it, (this particular position, after 15. a4); an extremely
complex
position, with chances for both sides. - LM A.J. Goldsby
I.
[ See
MCO-14; page # 445, column # 6, and also note # (t.). ] ].
3...e5!;
This is considered the best line {today} by modern opening books!
(But ... again - it was heavily criticized in the past by players {and writers!}
from Paulsen to Steinitz to Reinfeld.)
"The correct reply."
- GM (& Dr.) Savielly Tartakower
& James du Mont.
'!' - GM Ruben Fine. '!' - GM Andy Soltis.
[ The
other 'book' line here is: 3...Nf6!?; "~"
{Diagram?}
with a fair game for Black.
Another line here is: 3...e6; 4.Bxc4 Nf6;
5.Nc3 a6;
6.Nf3 b5;
7.Bd3 c5; 8.e5, "+/=" {Diagram?}
White is certainly better here.
(White eventually won.)
J. Gromek - I. Boleslavky; Krynica, 1956. ].
4.d5!?,
White
relieves the pressure from the center.
(MCO-14 does not even consider this move at all. But its not bad.)
*******
[ The best line - according to a book by GM Gufeld -
is the
continuation: 4.Nf3 exd4!?;
5.Bxc4 Bb4+; 6.Nbd2 Nc6!?;
7.0-0,
("comp") {Diagram?} with a fairly complicated position.
(Its not clear who is better
here. Note that White has had to ...
'gambit' a pawn in this particular line.)
Probably the most famous example of this line is the game:
GM G. Kasparov - GM
R. Huebner; World Cup Competition,
/Skelleftea/SWE/1989. (Look this
game up in any on-line db.)
(
Maybe better is: 7.a3!? )
Now a very complicated line ... from
this position ... is:
7...Nf6;
8.e5!? Nd5; 9.Nb3; {Diagram?}
Is this the best
move here?
( The book: "Nunn's Chess Openings,"
gives the
line:
9.a3!? Be7;
10.Qb3 Na5; 11.Qa4+ c6; "~" {Diagram?}
The end of the line/row.
12.Ba2 b5; 13.Qxd4 Be6;
14.Ne4
h6; "~" {Diagram?} Nunn labels this as "unclear."
I think White is clearly
(and at least); a little better. ("+/=")
(White's position is visually
very impressive - even at a
first {and somewhat casual} glance.)
[ See NCO;
page # 380, line/row # 7, and note # 42. ] )
9...Nb6; 10.Bb5!?,
{Diagram?}
Right after this was first played, an issue of the Informant
labeled
it as "best" and even awarded this move an exclam.
(Today it is not
the only move at this juncture.)
***
( The 'book' (main line) continuation here is:
10.Bg5!? Be7; {D?}
This is probably best.
(The end of the column in "Modern
Chess
Openings.") 11.Bxe7 Qxe7!; {Diagram?}
Considered best
by several sources.
(An alternative line is: 11...Nxe7!?; 12.Bd3 Ng6!?; 13.Nfxd4,
13...Nf4!?; 14.Bb5+ c6; 15.Qf3!, "+/=" (best) {Diagram?}
White is
just a little better here.
(Black's pieces seem to be misplaced.)
GM L. Ftacnik - GM C. Hansen;
Yerevan Olympiad, 1996.)
12.Bb5 Bd7; 13.Bxc6 Bxc6; 14.Nfxd4 Bd5;
15.Qg4 0-0!; "~"
{Diagram?}
The position is not at all clear.
GM I. Sokolov -
GM R. Huebner; Haifa,
(ISR); 1989.
"This position is equal, since 16.Qxg7+, Kxg7; 17.Nf5+, Kh8;
18.Nxe7, Bxb3;
19.axb3, Rfe8; wins back the pawn."
- GM Nick de Firmian in MCO.
[ See MCO-14; page # 452, column # 19, and also note # (e.). ].
Now 16.Rfe1!, "+/=" {Diagram?}
This position MUST be slightly
better for White.
- LM
A.J. Goldsby I.
(This is confirmed by checking this position against
ChessMaster 8000 and
Nimzo 8.0)
(The continuation:
16.f4!? Bxb3!?; 17.Nf5
Qc5+; 18.Kh1 g6; 19.axb3!?, "+/="
also seems to give
White a fairly small edge.) )
***
Now a favorite game of mine is: 10...Qd5!;
{Diagram?}
Both the Informant and MCO award this move an exclam.
( Not 10...0-0?!; 11.Bxc6 bxc6; 12.Nbxd4, "+/" {D?} - MCO. (14)
).
11.Nfxd4 Bd7;
('!') {Diagram?} To me, this seems like the
most logical move in this
position. {A.J.G.}
( 11...0-0!?; 12.Nxc6 Qxb5;
13.Nxb4!? Qxb4; "=" {Diagram?}
This is equal, according to MCO.
GM L. Portisch - GM R. Huebner; Tillburg, 1988.
[ See MCO-14; page # 452, column # 19, and note # (d.). ] ).
(We now return to an analysis of one of my favorite games.)
12.Nxc6
Qxb5!?; {Diagram?} It appears that Black is trying
to avoid the doubled pawns.
(Worse is: 12...bxc6; 13.Bd3, "+/=")
13.Nbd4!?
Qc5; 14.Nxb4 Qxb4; 15.e6!?, {Diagram?}
This looks attractive, but it
eventually fizzles.
( Maybe White should play the move: >= 15.a3!,
"+/=" {D?}
when it seems he
retains some (a very small) advantage. )
15...Bxe6; 16.Nxe6 fxe6;
17.Qh5+ g6; 18.Qe5 0-0-0;
19.Qxe6+!?,
{Diagram} This regains material
equality,
but allows Black to equalize.
(Could White try: 19.Bf4!?, "--->" in an attempt to use the c-file? ).
19...Kb8; 20.b3!? Rhe8; 21.Qh3 Qe7;
{Diagram?}
GM Huzman
says this position is completely level. ("=")
Interested parties can consult ChessBase's "Big Base"
to
see if they have the deeply annotated version of this game.
22.Be3 Nd5;
23.Rae1 Nxe3; 24.Rxe3 Qf7; "=" {Diagram?}
Draw agreed, 1/2-1/2
GM Ljubo Ljubojevic -
GM Pedrag Nikolic;
Amsterdam/NED/[A.J.G.]/1999
(24)
(An extremely interesting draw!)
(Click HERE to see a modern GM game in this line.)
****
A
less attractive line for White is the following variation:
4.dxe5!?,
{Diagram?} Several books brand this as doubtful
or inferior. ('?!')
4...Qxd1+; 5.Kxd1 Nc6; 6.f4 Bg4+;
7.Nf3 0-0-0+;
("=/+") {Diagram?} with a good game for Black.
].
*******
4...f5!?;
Some sources
branded this as [slightly] inferior, yet Nimzovich would have enjoyed this
attack at the base of White's Pawn chain.
This is not the main line today, yet is not at all bad.
[ The modern 'book' line is: 4...Nf6!;
5.Nc3 c6; "~" etc.
("=/+")
Black has a good game here.
A draw (in nearly 50 moves) was
the result between 2 legends
of the game, in the encounter:
GM Ratmir Kholmov - GM
Alexander Kotov;
USSR Championship. Moscow/RUS/1948.
Kholmov is well-known in chess
and pioneered many systems
where Black uses an early fianchetto of his KB
vs. KP
openings.
Kotov once won an Interzonal, and also authored the great book:
"Think Like
A Grand-Master."
The wild complications that arise from: 4...b5!?;
5.a4, "~" {D?}
are very, very unclear. ].
5.Nc3 Nf6;
6.Bxc4
Bc5;
"Black's position is freer." - GM R. Fine.
While this might seem true, having advanced his f-pawn also gives the second player some potential weaknesses.
[ Black could also play: 6...Bd6!?;
"~" {Diagram?} but
Dr. Savielly Tartakower
and James du Mont
call this way of playing ...
"less
ambitious."
***
A line that was quoted by one source, runs as follows:
6...fxe4;
7.Qe2!?, A seemingly natural move.
( Black could
also try: 7.Nxe4 Nxe4; 8.Qh5+ g6; 9.Qxe5+ Qe7;
10.Qxh8
Qb4+; which seems to clearly favor Black.
("/+" or "-/+") - Howard Staunton.
Interesting was: 7.Bg5!? Bf5; 8.Nge2 Qd7; 9.Ng3, "+/=" {D?}
- J. Jacob
Lowenthal. )
7...Bf5;
{Diagram?} A normal
developing move. 8.f3 exf3;
9.Qxe5+ Qe7;
10.Nxf3; "~" {Diagram?} - Saint Amant.
(!) ].
7.Nf3,
A straight-forward developing move.
[ White could also try: 7.exf5, "~" as well as other moves here. ].
7...Qe7;
Black makes a fairly logical developing move, ... (He gets a nice,
sensible, centralized Queen.); adopting a sort of "wait-and-see"
attitude.
According to several programs, White is just a shade better here.
(Probably - "+/=")
White now falls for a simple tactic.
8.Bg5?!, (bad) {Diagram?}
This is a mistake - and walks into a common trap.
'?' - GM R. Fine.
<< A mistake. White misses the idea of a capture on f2 by the
Bishop, and then a check on c5 by the Black Queen. (The Queen
on the c5-square
also attacks {FORKS} the White Bishop on c4!!) >>
[ Obviously much better
was: >= 8.Qc2, "+/=" {D?}
when White is clearly just a little better.
Interesting is: 8.Qa4+!?, "~" with a playable game. ].
8...Bxf2+!;
An alert tactical shot.
[ 8...h6!?, "~" ].
9.Kf1!?,
This is forced, according to several writers.
But I think it is inaccurate. ('?!') - {A.J.G.}
Perhaps the great La Bourdonnais - sensing he has made an error - decided to avoid exchanges and keep the game as complicated as humanly possible?
[ White may have been happier with: >=
9.Kxf2! Qc5+; 10.Ke1,
10...Qxc4,
"~" (Or "=/+") {Diagram?} when the size of Black's
advantage is not as large as in the actual game.
(Nxe5, Qa6)
Lowenthal recommended Kxf2, but for the wrong reasons.
(His
analysis was full of holes.) ].
9...Bb6;
"=/+" ('!')
The most
accurate. (Maybe worthy of an exclam?)
Black is clearly just a little better now.
[ Less accurate is: 9...Bc5!?; 10.Qa4+, "~" which allows counterplay. ].
White now has great difficulty getting his King's Rook developed and into the
game on an effective square.
10.Qe2 f4!; (space & lines)
Black
clears the diagonal for his Queen's Bishop.
[ Black could also play: 10...a6!?;
or even 10...fxe4!?; {Diag?}
with a fair game for Black in either
case. ].
11.Rd1!?;
A perfectly reasonable looking move, especially considering the situation that White currently finds himself in.
Yet GM R. Fine says that this is: "Preparing to lose." (!)
My analysis reveals that Black gets an advantage - no matter what move White plays here.
[ 11.Bb5+!? ].
11...Bg4!?;
(Maybe - '!')
A pin - properly used - is a very powerful weapon.
[ 11...Nbd7!? ].
12.d6!?;
"A serious effort to contest the
initiative." - Tartakower & du Mont.
[ 12.h3!? ].
12...cxd6;
13.Nd5!?,
This move - virulently condemned by so many - is actually not a
bad move. In fact it looks to be a good move. I remember testing this game on
several different computers in the year 1999 or 2000. Just about all the
programs picked the move ... you guessed it! ... 13. Nd5.
<< Condemned
by virtually all the annotators, yet this move looks very reasonable to me.
And
it is the first choice of nearly all the strong chess programs. >>
[ 13.Bxf6!? ].
"In this situation Black has the choice of suffering the
attack, or of
beating back every attempt to attack him by giving up his Queen.
His judgment inclines him towards the latter alternative and,
being a brave
man, he follows it. He probably saw several menaces
such as 13...Qd8; 14. Nxf4, exf4; 15. e5, or 13...Qf8; 14. Bb5+, and
Black is prevented from castling.
On the other hand, he weighed the
chances after 13...Nxd5. For his Queen, he
gets two pieces, two
valuable pawns and an outpost position for his Knight at
e3. So he
made his decision. He did not make a combination, for he could not
have calculated the maze of variations ... for it was too involved. He
judged,
and valued, and then acted." - Emanuel Lasker.
(I don't fully agree with
Lasker here. Black made a tremendous combo,
and Black's conduct for the rest of the game PROVES he calculated
this combination extremely well.)
13...Nxd5!!;
(Maybe - '!!!/!!!!') {Diagram?}
"The move White had overlooked." - GM Ruben Fine.
One of the deepest and most brilliant sacrifices ever made ... and just darn pretty.
Tal would have been proud to play such a move.
For this sacrifice, Black will obtain 2 pieces - and a ton of play - for the Queen.
The great Master - (former) World Champion Emmanuel Lasker - looks at this game in some depth in his book: "A Manual of Chess."
I have tested this game literally dozens of times over the years against chess programs (and D.M.P.'s) since 1980 ... almost NO program has ever picked this fantastic move at this point.
"Most unexpectedly, Black decides on a rare combination - giving up two pieces for the Queen, with fine prospects." - GM Savielly Tartakower & James du Mont.
[ Most programs pick the move: 13...Qd8; "=/+" in this position. ].
14.Bxe7;
This move - although it was heartily condemned by a few - is now
White's only real, practical chance to win the game.
(Computer analysis pretty much bears this out. In fact after Bxe7, most computers consider the position to be clearly better for White! 6/2000).
[ Perhaps: 14.Bb5+!?, {D?} is playable?
No good for White is: 14.Bxd5?! Qc7!;
"/+" {Dm?}
Black is
clearly better. ].
14...Ne3+;
15.Ke1,
Most writers, or
at least those who bother to comment; thought this was forced here.
[ >= 15.Qxe3, "+/="
- Saint Amant. 15...Bxe3; 16.Bxd6 Nc6;
17.Bb5 0-0-0;
18.Bxc6 bxc6; "/+" Black is clearly better.
- A.J.G. ].
15...Kxe7!;
"Black has two pieces and a powerful attack for the Queen."
"Subsequent analysis has never been able to demonstrate a really adequate
defense." - GM Ruben Fine.
[ 15...Ba5+!? ].
<< Black - over
the next few moves - will continuously spurn material gain, in preference for
continuing to increase the pressure. >>
16.Qd3,
Maybe
the only try here.
[ >= 16.Rc1!, "+/="
- GM S. Gligoric.
(I have
never checked his very deep analysis - with the computer -
for any possible
errors.)
Suffice it to say that after the simple and obvious move:
16...Nc6;
("comp") ("=/+") Black has good play.
].
16...Rd8!;
To me, this is much superior to the immediate capture of the Rook on
d1. - LM A.J. Goldsby I
[ The authors, Tartakower and Du Mont calls the move: 16...Nxd1!?;
("=/+" ?)
... somewhat greedy and penurious. ('?!')
].
17.Rd2,
This may be forced, although Anderssen did not like it.
[ >= 17.Bd5 Nc6;
18.Bxc6, "+/=" - A. Anderssen.
(I guess he is claiming White is
easily a little better here.)
( Maybe 18.Rd2!? ) But now Black
wins in the following line ...
which took many days to work through and verify.
18...bxc6;
19.Rc1 Nxg2+; 20.Kf1 Ne3+; 21.Ke2 Rac8;
22.h3 Bh5;
23.Rhg1 g6; 24.b3 d5; 25.Rg5 Kf6; 26.h4 Bxf3+;
27.Kxf3 Nf5;
28.Ke2 Nxh4; 29.Rg4 g5; 30.exd5 cxd5;
31.Rxc8
Rxc8; 32.Qxd5 f3+; 33.Ke1 f2+; 34.Kd2 Rd8;
"-/+"
Black is clearly winning here.
Analysis by ... - LIFE-Master A.J. Goldsby I. ].
17...Nc6!;
"Scorning the bait." -
Tartakower & du Mont.
[ 17...a6!?; or 17...Ba5!? ].
18.b3!?,
White is trying to secure all of his pieces and also lock down some key squares.
But this does not really work well here.
"18.a3! was better." - GM Ruben Fine.
[ >= 18.a3! Rac8!;
"=/+" {Diagram?}
According to GM R. Fine, Black
retains a bind.
(And maybe Black is clearly better
here.)
This is verified by dozens of other sources ...
AND intensive computer analysis! {A.J.G.}
Maybe White should try to play: 18.Rf1!?;
and give some of the material back.
(This is similar to
Gligoric's idea.) ].
18...Ba5;
19.a3!?,
White prepares b4, to block out the Black B on a5.
[ 19.Kf2!? - A. Anderssen. ].
19...Rac8!;
Black - BEFORE
Morphy!
- has
effectively mobilized ... all of his forces!
A VERY modern concept, ... and VERY, VERY RARE for that era!!
<<
Black is not tempted by the booty on d2 or g2. Instead, ... >>
(From an article I wrote years ago.)
20.Rg1,
White struggles to free himself. (GM Ruben Fine.)
[ Other moves fare no better: 20.Kf2
Bxd2; "/+" {Diag?}
Black should eventually win - without too
many problems.
Much worse is: 20.b4?! Nxb4!; "/+" ("-/+") ?
and once again, Black is
very much better. ].
20...b5!!;
A
move of unparalleled depth and brilliancy ... especially for that time.
Black sacrifices a pawn to further open the position.
"This well-prepared
sacrifice gains an important tempo."
- GM Savielly Tartakower & James Du Mont
[ Black could also play: 20...Bxf3!?; 21.gxf3 Nd4; "-/+" with some advantage. ].
White sees no choice
(now) but to accept the offer on the b5-square.
21.Bxb5,
Is this forced?
[ Maybe a little better was: >= 21.Bd5 Bxf3; 22.gxf3[],
{Dg?}
This is
forced.
( Much worse is:
22.Bxc6? Rxc6; 23.b4 Bh5; 24.Qxb5
Rc1+;
25.Kf2 Ng4+; 26.Ke2 Rxg1; ("-/+") and Black wins. )
22...Bxd2+!?; This is probably best.
(The move: 22...Nd4!?; "=/+" is fairly interesting.)
23.Kxd2 Nd4; "/+"
with play similar to the actual game.
].
21...Bxf3!;
Easily the best move here - Black had several other playable
alternatives.
[ 21...Bxd2+!? ].
22.gxf3 Nd4!;
Black's
pieces have invaded White's position with near decisive effect. - LM A.J.
Goldsby I
(Note how Black ignores the material win by taking the Rook on d2, and also correctly passes on ...Rc1+.)
23.Bc4!?,
"He
at least closes the open QB file, but meanwhile Black's cavalry
has overrun the
position."
- Tartakower & du Mont
[ Worse is: 23.Rxg7+? Kf6;
24.Kf2
Bxd2!; {Dg?}
Black is winning ("-/+") easily from this position.
].
23...Nxf3+;
24.Kf2 Nxd2; ("-/+")
According to modern computer analysis, Black already has a won game. (Black has
a Rook, two Knights, and two Pawns for his Queen. He also still has an amazing
amount of piece activity.)
"The purely 'positional sacrifice' of the Queen has paid enormous dividends, but White still has something to say." - GM S. Tartakower and J. du Mont
***
The next series of moves seem all to be
forced. (Moves # 25 through White's 29th move all seem best/forced. This is
verified by YEARS of computer-assisted analysis!
---> This is in direct
contradiction to what dozens of the pundits have written.)
25.Rxg7+ Kf6; 26.Rf7+ Kg6; 27.Rb7!?,
This appears to be the only
good move for White here.
[ Much worse is: 27.Rxa7? Bb6;
28.Rb7 Nexc4+;
("-/+") {D?}
winning for Black. ].
27...Ndxc4;
28.bxc4 Rxc4;
... "and Black won." - Emmanuel Lasker.
29.Qb1,
"It is curious how the (Black) Knight (on e3) keeps the White Queen immobile." - GM Ruben Fine.
Note White now threatens Qg1+.
"After endless difficulties, the Queen has at last obtained some degree of freedom." - Tartakower & du Mont
[ 29.h4!?; or 29.Qb3!? ].
29...Bb6;
('!')
A pretty rejoinder. (-Tartakower and du Mont)
[ 29...h5!? ].
30.Kf3,
White flees from the awesome power of the potential discovered check. (Not a bad idea ... if you think about it!)
[ 30.Qg1+!? Ng4+; etc. ].
30...Rc3;
"The same
motif." - Tartakower & du Mont. (Black threatens another discovered
check, winning the game.)
31.Qa2!?,
White has little here.
[ If White plays: 31.Ke2 Rc2+; 32.Kf3 Ng2;
33.Kg4 Rc3; "-/+"
...
"with a mating net." - Tartakower & du Mont. ].
31...Nc4+!;
This is not just a check, Black also stops the threatened Qf7+ by
White.
32.Kg4,
(Hmmm.)
Some writers criticized this move as
risky, the computer seems to think it is best. (!!!)
[ About the same is: = 32.Ke2!? f3+; ("-/+") when Black is also winning. ].
Black's next move
is very subtle ... and also VERY ahead of its time.
32...Rg8!; (nice)
A very sly move by Black, ... threatening a cute, ---> - and
winning - discovered check.
(Black's play is thematic here.)
"Threatening
33...h5+; 34.Kh4, Bd8; etc., which forces the adversary to throw more ballast
overboard."
- GM S. Tartakower & J. du Mont.
[ Also good was: 32...Rc2!?; "-/+" which is also very good for Black. ].
33.Rxb6;
This seems forced. (Fine says it is
the only moved.)
[ Definitely not: 33.Re7 h5+; 34.Kh4 Bd8; "-/+" and Black mates shortly. ].
33...axb6;
34.Kh4 Kf6!; 35.Qe2 Rg6; 36.Qh5
Ne3;
White has no chance. So ... White Resigns, 0-1.
(White cannot satisfactorily meet the
threat of ...Ng2+)
A very beautiful game. Surely one that was FAR ahead of its time.
***
This game EASILY belongs in my list of: ...
"The Ten Most Beautiful
Games of The (whole) Nineteenth Century."
***
"An incredible game of
outstanding merit," say the authors of the book:
"500 Master Games of
Chess." (Dr. Savielly Tartakower & James Du Mont.).
"The
Batsford Chess
Encyclopedia" (2nd Edition), calls this game:
"A game that is one of
previously unmatched brilliancy ... and depth of conception."
One writer,
who was working for the magazine, "Chess Review," called this game:
"One of the very best of its time." (A ... "nearly forgotten
jewel," says editor Al Horowitz.)
David
Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, in the book:
"The Oxford Companion to Chess,"
wrote that the games between MacDonnell and La Bourdonnais were generally regarded as the best of their time.
They went on to note that they were some of the first games to be widely
published in both England, Europe, and America; and greatly increased and
stimulated the interest in the game of chess.
I christen this chess game, "The 1st Great Jewel of England."
***
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I literally
cannot count the number of times I have seen this game in print. But the
following were the chief sources I consulted in annotating this game:
# 1.)
"The World's Great Chess Games,"
by GM Ruben Fine.
(Copyright 1951, and
1976.)
# 2.) "Modern Chess Openings, Fourteenth
(14th) Edition."
By GM Nick de Firmian
& Walter Korn. (Copyright, 1999.)
# 3.) "500 Master
Games of Chess," by Dr. Savielly Tartakower
and James du
Mont. (Copyright 1952,
& 1975.)
# 4.) "Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess
Games," (Volume # 1.);
All the recorded
chess games: From 1485 to 1866.
By IM David Levy
and Kevin O'Connell. (Copyright © 1981.)
0 - 1
Symbols (Similar to 'Informant')
"="
The position is equal, (level) or play is relatively balanced.
Both sides have approximately equal
chances.
"+/="
("=/+") White (Black) is a little better here.
"+/" ("/+") White (Black) is much
better in the given position.
"+/-" ("-/+") White (Black) now has
a won game - or a decisive
material advantage in the position being examined.
"~" The position is unclear. (Unbalanced.)
(Murky. But play is close to being
balanced, or equal chances.)
"~" The side who played the last move has
"compensation"
for any material sacrificed.
"/\" The player who made the last move has the initiative.
(This does not necessarily mean an
attack, but more the
ability to dominate or
dictate the course of play.)
"--->" The player who made the last move has a powerful
attack.
"cp" or ("<=>") - The last player to move has good counterplay
here.
"[]" or "box" This signifies that this move is
probably forced.
(The only move.)
"TN" - A theoretical novelty or a move that is new to opening
theory.
>/= The continuation that follows this symbol is better than or
superior
to what was
actually played in the game or the given continuation.
(When
you see this sign in parenthesis, (>/=);
it means that the indicated
line or variation MIGHT be an improvement, but I cannot be 100% sure.)
</= The continuation that follows this symbol is worse than or
inferior
to what was
actually played in the game or the given continuation.
(When
you see this sign in parenthesis, (</=);
it means that the indicated
line
or variation MIGHT be less than best, but I cannot be 100% sure.)
***********************************************************
'!'
- a very good or exceptional move.
'!!' - an extremely good move, of great or rare brilliance.
(Not to be used lightly or often!)
'?' - a bad move or a mistake.
'??' - a very bad move ... or a blunder/gross oversight.
'!?' - A very interesting move. (I also use this to show
that there
might be a very wide
range of move choices at this point.)
(Some authors use this to mean some risk is involved.)
'?!' - A very (extremely) risky move. (Or) A move of highly
doubtful
value. (Or) A
move that is very much inferior to some of the
alternatives. (Less
than best.)
Most books use many more symbols than this, but these are the most common-place ones.
Another page ... similar to this one ... with more explanations.
This is not the original copy of this game I had in my database - that document would have been too lengthy and cumbersome to publish as a web page.
Instead, this is a special edition of that game ...
that I developed specifically for my web site. It actually turned out to be a little more lengthy than I originally intended, but surely these games deserve a second look. (This one perhaps much more than others!!)
***
Instead of a very detailed bibliography, I will simply tell you I had many, many sources for annotating this game. (Books, magazines, database, analysis, etc.)
Click
here to go to, (or go back to); the
page on,
"Annotated Games, #2."
Click
here to go to, (or return to); my
page on ...
"The Best Chess Matches of All Time."
Click here to go to my "Site Map."
Click
here to go to my "Home
Page."
(Or click the "back" button
on your web browser.)
***
(Page last updated: Saturday; December 23rd, 2006.) Page last edited/automatically updated on: 05/17/2009 .
Copyright (c) LM A.J. Goldsby I
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 1993 - 2008.
Copyright © A.J. Goldsby, 2009. All rights reserved.
