Classic Game: Glucksberg-Najdorf

Hi BigDogg,

This game, like a lot of famous brilliant games, suffers because it goes through many
hands and publications. The dates given differ from 1929-1938 with practically every
date between these two used except for the war years.

The opponents name has also been apt to change and the location too has had it's
travels all over Europe. Najdorf's nationally has been brought into question with
some wondering why it is a Polish Immortal because Najdorf was an Argentinean.
(he was Polish and stayed in Argentina when war broke out.)
It got so bad than people have actually questioned it's authenticity sayin it was made up.

Finally in 2005 Najdorf himself noted it up in his best games collection
(a wonderful book) and it is v Gluksberg in Warsaw 1930.

Najdorf had another brilliancy v a player called Gliksberg (sic) in Lodz 1929 and
the two, in this case, understandably, have often change names and places.

Here is Najdorf v Gliksberg, Lodz 1929.

Hi BigDogg,

I touched on this in the Ed Lasker - Thomas game. It appears all famous and great
games 'suffer' regarding exact details. This is down to the game being published by
many different books/magazines/newspapers because, as in this case, it is brilliant.

Sooner or later a human will botch it and others will copy it. I have even seen on at
least three occasions Kieseritzky beating Anderssen in the Immortal Game due to the
fact Anderssen was Black! but moved first. (in them days White did not always move
first, they tossed for colours and who moved first.).

Even today with electronic boards mistakes slip in.

Jones - Gormally, Helensburgh 2013 with Black to play was agreed drawn here.


When the Kings were moved to e5 and e4 to indicate a draw the electronic
board registered 35...Ke5 before acknowledging the game was over when
the White King went to e4.

And thanks to the speed of the internet this position went around the planet


With many people thinking Jones had missed a mate in one. 36.Bg7.

That's interesting Jeff regarding the "who moves first" policy.
Do you know why it was changed?
Was the toss for every game,or just the first game of a tournament and then alternately after that?

Hi venda,

Staunton realised it had to be formalised in 1851 when publishing games in books
became more popular. You were given the player's name (the the colour he played)
so he put a motion forward along with a few other rule changes regarding promotion
and it all became the norm around about 1857.

He also tried to get Britain ad the USA to adopt algebraic notation but sadly failed.
Edinburgh had the black pieces but the first move in 4 of the 5 games v London
in the 1820's see Blog Post 527

One other thing not wildly known about The Immortal. It was a friendly and their
overall head to head score: Kieseritzky beat Anderssen 7 games to 6 with 2 draws.

@greenpawn34 said
Hi venda,

Staunton realised it had to be formalised in 1851 when publishing games in books
became more popular. You were given the player's name (the the colour he played)
so he put a motion forward along with a few other rule changes regarding promotion
and it all became the norm around about 1857.

He also tried to get Britain ad the USA to adopt algebraic nota ...[text shortened]... endly and their
overall head to head score: Kieseritzky beat Anderssen 7 games to 6 with 2 draws.

Cheers for that Geoff