the evergreen game.
Sort:
Pretty. isn't it?
indeed
A nice classic of how the Evans Gambit is supposed to be played. Very nice...
People have their reasons...
It didn't seem like Jean Dufresne was chess master. It says in an article that I read that he was a student of Andersson, and it just so happens in this game, he lost horrifically.
It is not his fault he got beaten by one of the world's best talents at the time. He probably didn't castle because he was to busy with queenside play, and just forgot about it.
But even if he did castle he would've mostlikey lost the game, just because of how dominant Andersson was at the time. But it is a good thing he didn't castle because we have this brilliant game of showcase.
also if board was black and white, this would have been everblack!
He didn't castle because of the pin on the knight and once he could've lost a piece
@chamo2074, I thnk they were referring to why he didn't castle in the very beginning, not in the inermediate side of things...
All it comes down it is either the lack of care or because he thought he could get away with it, but in the end this act is what allowed his position to fall apart, slowly but surely.
TeacherOfPain a écrit :
@chamo2074, I thnk they were referring to why he didn't castle in the very beginning, not in the inermediate side of things...
All it comes down it is either the lack of care or because he thought he could get away with it, but in the end this act is what allowed his position to fall apart, slowly but surely.
You cannot say he didn't try (Nge7 and such)
But even if Dufresne didn't make the LAST blunder which is allowing the queen sac he was still loosing, so you can't say this is a blunder. Also, the rook sac is brilliant (should have !! annotation)
@chamo2074, he tried, unfortunatley he failed... He did have one more oppurutnity to castle the King in a safe situation on move 14. Bb7 was a blunder, O-O was the only move to continue the position for logical reasons.
I can only assume the opponent did Bb7 to assume control and possibly later on start a kingside attack with the bishop pair and the surrounding pieces. However we know now that didn't work and for good reason. This is why 90% of the time we should castle. It is a move that is needed, because if not then you end up being in the positions black is in, and that is not good for anybody.
The only saving grace was the fact that Jean was a student of Anderssonl and wasn't a master, so it is not like he was getting outplayed, there were definitley some things he could've done better, however regardless of this he tried his best to stay in the game, but it wasn't enough.
That's pretty much the short story of the game and in a critical moment where he went wrong.
@chamo2074, I am well aware that, this position was losing before he castled, but remaining uncastled downright lost him the game on the spot.
If he would've castled he would've lasted longer, but he probably would've still had some struggles...
It is hard to say honestly, I think Andersson would've won the position that could've been castled with both sides(if Jean would've castled), because he was Andersson, however what happens when two amateurs play the same position that they played, do you think they could carry it out to a win, or do you think it would be a draw for both the Amatuer players?
White is definitley better, but it takes more energy and precision to win the won game then to defend a losing game in my opinion. So with this understanding, trust me, if Jean would've castled he could've survived longer and could've tried to maintain a position that was worse, yet playable...
It is one thing to play a completley losing position, and there is another thing to play a losing, yet playable position, as in the playable position, you can always look for a draw. However again, concerning that Jean was just a student, the result would've probably been a loss, however it probably would've been different if Andersson was playing a top Grandmaster like Morphy or Paulsen(at the time) if 14.O-O would've been played instead of the blunder of Bb7...
That is how I view the position, there is a lot of things I excluded because there is no need to talk about the whole position, just the critical moments, after all we are not engines so we cannot analyze everything so quick and so fast, so analyzing at least one of the critical moments is more human and gives a good understanding of what could've happened better, so this is what I came up with here.
So I understand and am well aware of what has happened, but am trying to let you see the possiblities of better moves(like in an analysis) and tell you that the opponent Andersson was facing did have a difference. However in all of this, his game was a Brilliancy still regardless as he still was in a tough position, and most people would lose the game that Andersson played(in the end, due to the pressure), however Andersson made the brilliant moves that he made and ended up making an Iconic mate and game in which was very nice.
So I was just trying to clarify @chamo2074, to allow you to see where I was coming from my friend.
Yes it is
A very checkmate it is indeed, nobody see's those commonly(at least I don't), mainly it is queen, rook, or some other accomplised piece, or if not that a basic or advanced king+ major or minor pieces. Check Mate. So honeslty seeing this brilliancy with the double bishop mate, makes it even better...