Talk:Immortal Game/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

famous game

This is arguably the most famous game in history - certainly one of the most famous - so it made sense to add this to the Wikipedia.

However, it turns out that two of my sources had different moves than the rest, and that inconsistency was a problem. To determine what were the "right" moves, I've grabbed as many different sources as I can, ones that hopefully use different background sources, to make sure that I've placed the right moves here. I then used standard textual critism techniques to determine what's correct.

I've looked at 8 different sources. All but 2 of them agree with the moves listed here, including the Chesslive database, "Chess for Dummies", Chernev's "The Chess Companion" (1968), and Kavalek's 2003 chess column in the Washington Post that specifically covered this game. The two dissenting works are Savard's and Burgess' works, which differ in DIFFERENT ways from the moves given here. Savard disagrees at move 3 for a few, and again at move 8 for a few, but then agrees with the majority after that. Burgess agrees with the majority until move 18, at which point it diverges from everyone else. Note that not even the two dissenting works agree with each other!! Burgess doesn't even justify why it should be different from anyone else; Savard claims that at move 3 it's right (and everyone else is wrong), but gives no evidence of this, and then diverges again without explanation at move 8.

Thus, I have strong evidence that the two "dissenting" works are simply in error, and that the majority view is in fact the correct sequence of moves. However, I've documented where the differences are, so that someone else can dissent. -- Dwheeler 22:58, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I beg to move a change from the PGN format to plain algebraic notation, as has been done with the Opera game (chess). -- Lord Emsworth 23:57, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

'Tis done. At some point, I or somebody else needs to do the same to Evergreen game (chess). --Camembert
The same has occured at the other page. I merely wished to check if there was objection from any individual to the change in format. Lord Emsworth 01:25, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

"Kieseritzky was well-known for being able to beat lesser players in spite of great odds."

Is that right? Shouldn't that be "better" or "stronger" players? MikeCapone Mar 07 2004.

I think it's right as it is, though it's not entirely clear. What it's saying is that Kieseritzky was able to beat weaker players despite giving them a great material advantage at the start of the game--for instance, Kieseritzky might start without his queen. Such games are said to be played "at odds", hence the wording of the article. I'll try to make it a bit clearer. --Camembert
Ah, yes. It makes sense now. Thanks. MikeCapone Mar 07 2004.

Why are these articles at "x game (chess)"? I don't think there's an evergeen game in baseball... - Woodrow 21:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I meant to move them a couple of weeks ago, and forgot. I'll do it now. --Camembert

Who was what color.

Can it be made more obvious who is white and who is black in the game commentary? . It can be worked out but perhaps should be stated at the top. SimonLyall 04:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The original colour seems to have been Anderssen Black (but moved first), and Kieseritzky White. The rule about white moving first was not established yet. This could cause confusion in very old annotations.

Amended to clarify this. ChessCreator 18:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If the Black started first (as White nowadays) what was position of his Queen and King? I mean, it is enough to rotate checkboard, because starting position hasn't have a rotational symmetry. I believe the notation of game is properly adjusted, but i just wonder how its done. 217.30.156.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC).
I;m not sure, but Black's king was probably on the left. At any rate, the kings are opposite each other. The only effect would be to flip it left/right. Bubba73 (talk), 20:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Back in the days when Black sometimes moved first the board was set up identically. In other words, "Queen on her color". On a related note, I personally I think that drawing light to the fact that Black used to move first is completely irrelevant and has no business being on this page. I've never seen a chess book in my life (until I clicked on that footnote) which actually made the distinction of who had the pieces of a darker shade. It's about as relevant as noting that there was a tiny chip out of Andersson's queen's knight. A discussion of the coloration may be worthwhile on the page about the history of chess but not on every single page dedicated to a chess game from that era. Daniel Freeman (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't agree with the comparison. (If a player went back-in-time in a time machine to witness the game, they'd ignore any chip on Andersson's knight, but be totally perplexed by the color/K/Q orientations.) I converted that original text into an unobrusive footnote. IMO the content adds color to the game (no pun) as well as historical context, and see no problem if it gets replicated to whatever other game articles it also might apply, or where editors want. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Immortal Game", or perhaps "The Immortal Game", as it is a proper noun? Neilc 10:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. "Immortal Game" with capital 'G'. Same issue on the Evergreen Game. ChessCreator (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey

Roadrunner is mistaken - the game used by Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssey was not the Immortal Game but de:Roesch – Schlage, Hamburg 1910. Please check the German wikipedia. Miastko 18:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Play Game move by move

You can add a link to chessgames.com's collection of the game so people can actually play the game move by move. 128.6.175.73 20:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Deep Fritz analysis

Deep Fritz 10 does not give 18. Bd6 as a good move. According to DF10, after 18 Bd6, Qxa1+ wins for black! Bubba73 (talk), 16:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Been looking at 18...Qxa1+
18 ...Qxa1+
19. Ke2 Qb2 (only square Queen can move to and still defend g7)
Looking at 5 possible moves 20.e5/Rb1/Rc1/Rd1/Kd2
  • 20. e5
20. e5 Qxc2 lots of Queen checks, then ...Kd8 24 Bxc5 Bb7 -/+
  • 20. Rb1
20. ... Qxb1? 21. Nxg7+ Kd6 22. Bc7#
20. ... Qxc2+ 22. Ke1 Qxb1+ -+
  • 20. Rc1
20. Rc1 Qxc1? 21 Nxg7 Kd8 22 Bc7#
20. Rc1 g6 21 Bxc5 gxf5 22 Nc7+ Kd8 23 Qf4 Na6 24 Nxa8 Nxc5 25 Qc7+ Ke7 26 Qxc5+ d6 -/+
20. Rc1 g6 21 Qf4 gxf5 22 Nc7+ Transposes to above line -/+
  • 20. Rd1
20. Rd1 Kd8 21 Qf4 Nc6 22 Qg5+ f6 23 Bc7+ Ke8 24 Qxg7 Nd4+ 25 Nxd4 Qxd4 26 Rf1 f5 27 Be5 Qa4 28 Qxh8 Qxc2 29 Ke1 Qc1 Draw by Repetition
20. Rd1 Kd8 21 Qf4 Nc6 22 Qg5+ Nge7 -/+
20. Rd1 g6! with gxf5 -/+ 21. Qf4 gxf5 22. Nc7+ Kd8 -/+
  • 20. Kd2
20. Kd2 g6 21. Rb1 gxf5 22 Nc7+ Kd8 23 Rxb2 +/-
20. Kd2 Bb6 21. Rb1 Ba5 22 Ke3 Bb6 Draw by Repetition
20. Kd2 Bxg1 21. Qf4 Bb6 (Covers c7 and gives possible Ba5+) -/+
20. Kd2 Bxg1 21. e5 f6 22 Nxg7 Kf7 23 Nxf6 Be3+ 24 Kxe3 Qc1 25 Kf2 Qd2 26 Kg3 Qe127 Kh3 +/-
20. Kd2 Bxg1 21. e5 Ba6 22 Nxg7 Kd8 23 Bc7+ Kc8 24 Nf5 Bc5(defends e7) 25 Bd6 Nc6 -/+
20. Kd2 Bxg1 21. e5 Ba6 22 Nc7+ Kd8 23 Qxa8 Bc8 -/+
20. Kd2 Bxg1 21. e5 Ba6 22 Nc7+ Kd8 23 Nxa6 Be3+ 24 Kxe3 Qc1+ 25 Kf2 Qxc2 26 Kg3 Nxa6 27 Qxa8 Qc8 28 Qd5! Qc1(to free c8 square) (28. ... Qc6 28 Qxf7 Nh6 29 Nxh6 ~)29 Qa8+ Qc8 30. Qd5 Draw by Repetition
20. Kd2 Bxg1 21. e5 Bb7 22 Nc7+ Kd8 23 Qxb7 Bb6 (with Ba5) -/+
20. Kd2 Bxg1 21. e5 Bb7 22 Nxg7+ Kd8 23 Qxf7 Be3+ 24 Kxe3 Qc1+ 25 Ke2 Qxc2+ 26 Ke1(Black can take a draw if required) Qc1 27 Ke2 Ne7 28 Bxe7+ Kc8 29 Bd6 Nc6 ~
ChessCreator 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Kd2 Bxg1 21. e5 Bb7 22 Nxg7+ Kd8 23 Qxf7 Be3+ 24 Nxe3 Ne7 25 Bxe7+ Kc8 26 Ngf5 (26...Qxe5 27 Bf6 +/=) 26...Nc6 27 Bf6 Qb4+ 28 c3 (28 Kc1 Rf8) Qb2+ 29 Nc2 Kc7 =/+
ChessCreator 19:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Moves 18-20

My copy of Chessmaster 8000 also shows 18... Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Bxg1 20. e5. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.228.106 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

File downloaded on 17 December 2013 has the correct move so the comment on move 18 can be removed.LordStark45 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove the 23:49, 15 March 2007 comment, if that's what you're referring to. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible typo?

Where you have:

" 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."

Did you mean "20...Bb6 is a much better try?" If not, could you please elaborate on why 20...Ba6 is a better try? 24.7.24.18 10:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's 20. ... Ba6 for sure. The reason why Ba6 is a much better try is that it gives Black's King an escape route from being mated. The King can go, when checked to Kd8 then Kc8(where the Bishop formally was), then Kb7 and White cannot immediately mate the Black King. ChessCreator 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
20...Bb6? 21 Nxg7+ Kd8 22 Qf6+ Ne7 23 Qxe7 mate.
Still 20...Ba6 is not good enough to hold out for long 21 Nc7+ Kd8 22 Nxa6 Qa2 (with idea of Qxc2+ and defends f7 against Bc7+, Nd6+ and Qf7 mate) now 23 Bc7+ or Nb4 and white is winning Black's Queen or mating soon. ChessCreator 22:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing I missed earlier, there is an ending possibility with 22... Bb6 23. Qxa8 Qc3 24. Qxb8 Qc8 25. Qxc8 Kxc8 26. Bf8 h6 27. Nd6+ Kd8 28. Nxf7+ Ke8 29. Nxh8 Kxf8 30. Ng6+ Kf7 31. Kf3 with winning endgame for White. ChessCreator 03:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Name?

Why is it called the "Immortal Game"? Just wondering. Jac roe 03:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer--because it was one of the greatest, and people that are a lot better at chess than me, when they see it, they see it as artful. In other words, this was like the game of the century, at the time. I'm a new editor. I hope this answer is helpful. 71.40.177.90 (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So I think the point is why 'Immortal', why not 'artful' or some other name? Do we know the source or the reason for it's being named immortal? Interestingly the immortal game processes the Evergreen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_game ChessCreator (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Immortal (came first) or Evergreen Game means in fact the same thing: never to be forgotten. It's (romantic) 19th century language both translated from German. When Steinitz beat Curt von Bardeleben at Hastings 1895 in another very famous game, Emil Schallopp wrote in the German tournament book (p. 180): 'Steinitz plays here an immortal game' ('unsterbliche Partie')... --DaQuirin (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Animated GIFs

Although I'm sure it was a lot of work, I really don't like animated GIFs because real encyclopedias dont have them. Quale 06:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, except that I see it's nearly 1MB in size, which would inconvenience some people. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Uploaded_image_size says, "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size." So perhaps you have a case. Peter Ballard 07:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the file size is now only 108Kb. Maybe the image has been reduced in file size or the above comment was mistaken. ChessCreator 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I am just a college student, but I think the animated game is really valuable, especially for those of us without PGN software. 71.40.177.90 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (James from Univ Illinois)
I agree. The animated gif really helps those of us without much chess experience. Alphabet55 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Anderssen mated indeed, but with the black pieces

The two original sources about the original game are now available. The Horwitz and Kling source seems to have been completely overlooked so far. So, Anderssen possibly mated indeed - but with the black pieces! --DaQuirin 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see now, reading the whole discussion, the fact that Anderssen won with the black pieces is not completely new. But here we have at least the original record. --DaQuirin 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. Both sources have Anderssen playing white. The difference I see is that they have black resigning on move 20, but the Wikipedia article already suggests this. Peter Ballard 00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read again. Kling and Horwitz report that Anderssen played black and mated Kieseritzky indeed (after 20. - Na6). Just to know: Around the time either White or Black could have the first move. In English notation it makes no difference anyway. --DaQuirin 01:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. Kling and Horwitz say that Anderssen played black, but that black moved first. (So by modern convention, Anderssen had white). Kieseritzky, however, has the conventional setup: Anderssen played white, and white moved first. I'm not sure if it deserves mention in the article. Perhaps it deserves mention in Chess article, that as late as 1851, a chess magazine could speak of Black moving first. (And it's not just a misprint, because they mention the colours four times. Peter Ballard 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
During the London tournament itself, half of the games started with the black pieces. For the French readers, not used to it, Kieseritzky had to change this. I think it's much more important to see an original source claiming that Anderssen actually 'mated in three moves'. The whole discussion whether Kieseritzky gave up before or not seems a bit overdone. One will never know exactly. --DaQuirin 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to make it clear: With Black having the first move, they actually played 1.e7-e5 e2-e4 2.f7-f5 etc. It looks a bit different then - from either side of the board. --DaQuirin 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read (I can provide sources if it becomes an issue) that the debate about when the true resignation took place was due to the fact that some spectators had wagers on the outcome of the game. When Kieseritsky (correctly) resigned in a hopeless position, some gamblers insisted that he play on, which he obliged by playing moves allowing Anderssen to demonstrate the win. Therefore it may be accurate to say that Keiseritsky resigned with some shred of dignity on move 20, but it's also correct to say that the game was played out all the way to mate. Daniel Freeman 06:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the fact that some games in this era were played with "colors reversed" (i.e. Black moves first) is entirely ignored by modern chess writings. Everything is simply normalized for White moving first to avoid the madness which would otherwise ensue. The fact that Anderssen's pieces may have been of a darker hue is irrelevant to the telling of the story and should be omitted entirely. Daniel Freeman 06:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to know your source of the story with the gamblers. If you check the two original sources, you will find at least two more move order discrepancies in the opening phase (see the misleading comment about "an error in Savard's documentation"). PS: Why should it be "omitted entirely", if it's part of the history of this famous game? --DaQuirin 10:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that neither of the references above are to original sources (though they are contemporary). It seems to have been Falkbeer who gave the game its name in print: the original score to be called The Immortal Game must be whatever score appeared in his article in Wiener Schachzeitung in 1855. Note that he may very well have given a different score from what actually took place, as already the 1851 sources differ as to move order.Athulin 10:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that these two are not the original sources? --DaQuirin 13:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Because the name The Immortal Game did not exist until 1855. An earlier score may be historically more correct, but, without going back to Wiener Schachzeitung, there's no way to say if that is also the score Falkbeer was so impressed by. He may have relied on a bad source, and assumed an 'improved' score was the real thing: such improvements are not at all unheard of. It is only Falkbeer's opinion that matters here, and so only his article in Wiener Schachzeitung 1855 can be considered as the original source for The Immortal Game.Athulin (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it seems to have been Falkbeer who found the name Immortal Game does not change the fact that the two given game scores are the two original sources for this famous game. --DaQuirin (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Endgame graphic?

Wouldn't it help the person reading if the actual endgame graphic were put in this (and other) chess articles so you don't have to rewatch the animated GIF to see the final move. OptimumCoder (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Care to comment on 16. ... Qc6 versus 16. ... Bc5 ?

My computer (using crafty) thinks that 16. ... Bc5 was a bad mistake (whose answer should have been 17. d4, but this is mentioned in the article already), and that Kieseritzky should have played something like 16. ... Qc6 instead (leaving black at a slight advantage). Now I'm personally hopelessly bad at chess, but since every other move that the computer believes to be significantly better than the one actually played is already commented in the article (namely: 17. d4 rather than 17. Nd5; 18. Nc7+ rather than 18. Bd6; 18. ... Qxa1+ rather than 18. ... Bxg1; and of course 20. ... Ba6 rather than 20. ... Na6), I wonder if this variant should not deserve a mention: 16. ... Qc6 17. Nd4 Qc5 18. Ncxb5 Na6. Anyone care to comment? --Gro-Tsen (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true 17 d4 would be a better reply to 16...Bc5 and as you pointed out it's in the article already. 16...Qc6 may be alternative move but after 17. Nd4 [17. Nd5!?] Qc6 18. Ndxb5 Na6 19. Ke2 with ideas of Be3/Rf1/g5 etc is seems white is still better. So I'm not sure adding 16...Qc6 enhances the article at all. However, perhaps it would be appropriate to give Bc5 a '?!' ChessCreator (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was it special?

Would someone please put, in at least moderately-layman terms, what was so special about this game? The article is really, really unclear on that. No-one who isn't already familiar with the game would find this at all helpful. 70.72.168.218 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's the number of pieces he sacrifices --queen and both rooks-- that makes it special. I've tried to expand the intro a little to make that clear.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a piece?

Twice in the article is said that Anderssen won the game with his three remaining pieces. I'm not really into chess, even less into chess explained in English language, but I thought at the beginning each player had sixteen pieces (paws, rooks, horses, bishops, queen and king) so when he won he had a lot more than just three pieces. He had two horses, one bishop, six panws and, of course, the king. Ie., ten pieces, not three.

If it is normal, in chess (or in chess talked about in English), to use the word piece for the pieces that are neither pawns nor the king, it should better be stated somewhere. If you read the article about chess it says Each player is referred to by the color of their pieces and begins the game with sixteen pieces. These comprise one king, one queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights and eight pawns. , so layman can think "three pieces" means, really, three pieces. --81.38.182.40 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the context, and you have to get acquainted with that. When you are talking about the physical objects, each side has sixteen pieces. But in this context, a piece normally excludes pawns and kings. I think that is in List of chess terms#Piece and I think it is mentioned in chess piece and maybe in rules of chess, but we ween to work on clarifying that. Bubba73 (talk), 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Chess Terms has a brief explanation and I put in a link to that, but the other two articles don't seem to cover it. Bubba73 (talk), 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The chess article should really say "sixteen chessmen" not "sixteen pieces" to avoid confusion, as pawns are not usually regarded as pieces. It is very odd that there seems to be no mention of this in chess piece though. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Now it is mentioned in the lead of Chess piece. Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
A piece has both meanings. From Burgess: "Can be used to signify either any chess piece, or a major or minor piece, as opposed to a pawn. Generally the context makes the meaning clear." Bubba73 (talk), 00:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Title AGAIN

I see from the above comments this has already been mentioned, but proper nouns and titles should have capitals on every word (well, except small grammatical words like "the" and "and", but that doesn't apply here). 91.107.160.206 (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'll get it fixed. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting move lists

Just for future reference, since there's been discussion about different sources giving different move lists, below I've copied and pasted the move lists from both the Wikipedia article and the Chessmaster computer program, with the differences in bold:

Chessmaster:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bxb5 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 7. d3 Nh5 8. Nh4 Qg5 9. Nf5 c6 10. Rg1 cxb5 11. g4 Nf6 12. h4 Qg6 13. h5 Qg5 14. Qf3 Ng8 15. Bxf4 Qf6 16. Nc3 Bc5 17. Nd5 Qxb2 18. Bd6 Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Bxg1 20. e5 Na6 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+ Nxf6 23. Be7# 1-0

Wikipedia:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bxb5 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 7. d3 Nh5 8. Nh4 Qg5 9. Nf5 c6 10. g4 Nf6 11. Rg1 cxb5 12. h4 Qg6 13. h5 Qg5 14. Qf3 Ng8 15. Bxf4 Qf6 16. Nc3 Bc5 17. Nd5 Qxb2 18. Bd6 Bxg1 19. e5 Qxa1+ 20. Ke2 Na6 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+ Nxf6 23. Be7# 1-0

DT29 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the Blade Runner FAQ (link) gives the exact same move list as Chessmaster. DT29 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Both original sources from 1851 (Kling / Horwitz resp. Kieseritzky [with a tricky notation]) give both 10. g4 Nf6 11. Rg1 cxb5 and 18. Bxg1 19. e5 Qxa1+ 20. Ke2. Therefore, our article is fine. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. Just pointing out, like I said, for future reference. Basically to clear up confusion, I guess. As a sidenote, I've also found another Blade Runner FAQ (link) and this one not only has the correct move list, but acknowledges the differing move lists. DT29 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of conflicting move lists: the PGN version of the game linked in the External References section (logicalchess.com) gives 18. ... Qxa1+, not 18. ... Bxg1 as listed in the article. If there is no available PGN of the article move order, then there should at least be a note that you don't replay the same moves in the PGN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.144.132 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Burgess, et.al. give 18...Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Bxg1 20.e5 Na6 21.Nxg7+ Kd8 22.Qf6+ Nxf6 23.Be7#. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
My Great Predecessors gives the same moves as the article currenty has, except tht it says that Black resigned after 20.Ke2. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

English Lake District

Anybody help me out by explaining the relevance of this edit? It provides a link to what seems to be a wire-frame chessboard with a Google Earth map of the English Lake District underneath. My inclination would be to remove it, as off topic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no point - I removed it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
That was quick—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Moves 18-20, again

The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games gives 18...Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Bxg1? 20. e5!!, which is different from the article. Which is right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

But The Immortal Game agrees with the current version of the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Oxford Companion agrees with the article. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Each of the encyclopedias by Brace, Sunnucks, and Golombek agree with The Mammoth Book... and 500 Master Games by Tartakower does too. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Chessgames.com and Chessbase agree with the article, as do The World of Chess by Saidy and My Great Predecessors by Kaspy. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The 365chess.com DB gives 18....Bxg1 19.e5 Qxa1+ 20.Ke2 as the order of moves, just to obfuscate things a bit more in case it's necessary. What a mess to have in an important game! Hushpuckena (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To summarize my comments: These agree with the article:

  • The Immortal Game
  • The World of Chess by Saidy
  • My Great Predecessors by Kaspsrov
  • Chessgames.com
  • Chessbase

These say 18...Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Bxg1 20. e5

  • The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games
  • 500 Master Games by Tartakower
  • Golombek's Encyclopedia (and Chess History)
  • Sunnuck's encyclopedia
  • Brace's encyclopedia

Anyhow, I think the article is probably right and Steinitz's suggestion somehow got taken as the actual game in some sources. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Spurious generalisation

"Notice how the players of the time developed one or two pieces, then moved them again and again." -- The way this is worded is uncomfortably smug, talking as if the best players of the time didn't understand the basics of opening theory. But the King's Gambit is unusually tactical, and pieces often move a second time either to create a direct threat or to oppose one, so that neither side gains an advantage in development. 2.25.134.22 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immortal_Game/Archive_1&oldid=943610692"