Go back
The Immortal Game

The Immortal Game

Only Chess

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by basso
Well, where can we find this "favorite"?
http://www.chess.freegames.eu.com/famous_games/evergreen_game.html

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by caffienex
Are you serious? I've played against two masters before and drawn both times. They are not infallible, and soon enough I will beat them.
Let's have a game.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Positional Player
That one's nice, but my favourite is "The Evergreen Game".
That IS indeed a beautiful game! Play it through, guys, if you haven't already. You can find it at:
http://www.chess.freegames.eu.com/famous_games/evergreen_game.html

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zebano
Ahhh, the power of development. A classic.
Seconded.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Regarding the Immortal game, I find it interesting how incredibly fast and aggressive both the players are. By modern standards, both players seem to over extend too quickly, but they do a good job (esp white) of attacking with multiple pieces.

Does anyone know why black plays 4...b5? It appears he wanted to pull the white bishop over, but why? To protect f7?

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

BiggDoggProblem: I'm refering to the first game BTW. Two instances of poor positional play: overextension as mentioned, and opening the king side prematurely.

Ralla88: As soon as I get a free game you're on.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by caffienex
BiggDoggProblem: I'm refering to the first game BTW. Two instances of poor positional play: overextension as mentioned, and opening the king side prematurely.

Ralla88: As soon as I get a free game you're on.
Which moves in particular do you think were questionable in the Immortal Game?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Which moves in particular do you think were questionable in the Immortal Game?
No response? Pity. For a minute, I thought a 1500 player was going to teach us all something about the game of a former world champion.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Regarding the Immortal game, I find it interesting how incredibly fast and aggressive both the players are. By modern standards, both players seem to over extend too quickly, but they do a good job (esp white) of attacking with multiple pieces.

Does anyone know why black plays 4...b5? It appears he wanted to pull the white bishop over, but why? To protect f7?
4...b5 was probably played with the intent to later play c6 with a tempo, yet it does seem that black would get little compensation for the pawn (eventual control of the d5 square?)

10...cxb5 probably would have been better

20...Ba6! saves black, but I do not know the following lines.
After 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 what would follow?

(Edit: Looking at Crafty's chessgames.com analysis... 20...Ba6! 21.Nc7+ Kd8 22.Nxa6 Qc3 23. Bc7+ Qxc7);(eval -0.44; depth 12 ply; 5000M nodes)...not sure how good computer analysis is here though...

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Nice call on Petrov!

Vote Up
Vote Down

a little history..
4...b5 was a hot item back then. at this time the romantic style of play (fast attacks without development) was becoming obsolete. so many players went too far the other direction by sacrificing material for small compensation like a tempo or a glimmer of initiative. the grandmasters didnt know what we do today, but its still safe to play they understood the game better than anyone posting at this forum. yes even caffienix (or w/e his name is).

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Yuga
4...b5 was probably played with the intent to later play c6 with a tempo, yet it does seem that black would get little compensation for the pawn (eventual control of the d5 square?).
b5 followed by c3 (with tempo) and d4 is the main idea of the Evans gambit which even Kasparov trotted out a time or two (although against inferior competition).

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by caffienex
I have just started playing here friend, you shouldn't underestimate me.
Hmmm... Well, it's funny that you say that. You have one every single game you've played on RHP, and you aren't a regular member on here... So, your successes thus far do look a bit suspicious. But, who knows? Maybe, you're Karpov hidden behind a name, but I doubt it!

Vote Up
Vote Down

BiggDoggProblem: You're a newb if you don't understand the difference between tactics and strategy. But to give you a hand, here are two positionally weak moves for white in the opening:

2. f4: which opens the king-side prematurely, and

3. Bc4: allowing the check, displacing the king, and losing castling rights.

If even a good player did this to me, they would lose, assuming they don't work suffieciently hard to build a queen-side defence. Again, I'll reiterate my open question to you all, what's so good about their positional play?


Balla88: You're a coward for deleting my game when you were the one who challenged me. Grow some balls.


powershaker: what is so strange with my success? I have been playing low rated players after all.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by caffienex
BiggDoggProblem: You're a newb if you don't understand the difference between tactics and strategy. But to give you a hand, here are two positionally weak moves for white in the opening:

2. f4: which opens the king-side prematurely, and

3. Bc4: allowing the check, displacing the king, and losing castling rights.

If even a good player did this to ...[text shortened]... aker: what is so strange with my success? I have been playing low rated players after all.
2.f4 is the King's Gambit, a book opening which is still played today by strong players. You are revealing your ignorance of chess theory and history. You also reveal your lack of understanding calling 2.f4 a weak positional move. How can a move which contests a key central square, e5, be called positionally weak?