Explain to me.....

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Warren Kingston

Explain to me.....

Post by Warren Kingston » Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:58 pm

.......what constitutes an Immortal Chess game?

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 6382
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:02 pm

In most cases, lots of flashy sacrifices?? Though there are exceptions (eg the "Immortal Zugzwang Game" :wink: )
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

IanDavis
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by IanDavis » Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:38 pm

The same player castling twice in one game

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by Arshad Ali » Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:24 pm

Warren Kingston wrote:.......what constitutes an Immortal Chess game?
An emotive term. No objective criteria. In the eye of the beholder. Standards for what constitutes a great game shift over the years. The precision with which a Karpov, Leko, or Kramnik squeeze out a technical win would not have captured the imagination of players a century back.

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:28 pm

Immortal? Perhaps they mean games that never finished. We had loads of Immortal Chess Games at Coulsdon until a few years ago when we introduced Fischer timings to our club championships, thus ending the piles of Immortal Games forever suspended by sealed moves never to be continued. :D

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4566
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:09 pm

There is only one 'IMMORTAL GAME'. That was played between Anderssen and Kietzerisky in 1981 at Simpson's. It is full of flashy sacrifices, is immediately recognisable as from the 19th century and is of rather poor quality by today's standards. It was an off-hand game. David Bronstein once told me that he thought Andersson was having a joke, there were so many easier, less flashy ways to win the game.
Kietzerisky's other claim to modern fame is that he lost the 'EVERGREEN GAME'.
'GAME OF THE CENTURY'. Donald Byrne v Ficher when he latter was 14. It was either Hans Kmoch or Al Horowitz who called it that and the name has stuck.
As said, there is the 'IMMORTAL ZUGSWANG' game. That was won by Nimzowitsch and, if I remember correctly, was not an example of zugswang. His opponent had no contructively valuable move that could be played to go forward.
Dr Euwe won the 'PEARL OF ZANDWORT'. I probably have that name wrong and quite likely some of the other matters in this email.

Ar there other examples of names of games? Chess history is so rich, after all are there are fragments of 11th century Arabic games still extant.
There are many others that deserve names:
Robert Byrne v Fischer, US Championship 1963-4. I immortalised the story about that. I wonder, had I called it, 'THE DECEIVING GAME' would that name have stuck?
Karpov v Kasparov World Championship 1985 24th game. 'THE WINNING GAME' perhaps?
Karpov v Kasparov World Championship 1986 16th game. 'THE RICHEST GAME' would be a nice one.
Libel Laws would probably prevent the name 'THE CHEATING GAME' to be employed.
Stewart Reuben

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 8377
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by John Upham » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:13 pm

I would add Spassky - Fischer, 1972, game 13 as "The Most Gutting Game".
Arbiter, Organiser, Swiss Mangler person, Rating Officer, Teacher, Coach and Photographer
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 5176
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford
Contact:

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:26 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote: Kietzerisky's other claim to modern fame is that he lost the 'EVERGREEN GAME'.
Actually, it was Dufresne who lost the Evergreen Game.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9321
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:37 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:There is only one 'IMMORTAL GAME'. That was played between Anderssen and Kietzerisky in 1981 at Simpson's.
Grandmasters these days aren't nearly as good as Anderssen; I can't see Kasparov producing such brilliancies 102 years after he dies. :wink:

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4566
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:46 pm

Alex H >Grandmasters these days aren't nearly as good as Anderssen; I can't see Kasparov producing such brilliancies 102 years after he dies.<
Nonsense. Arrangements have already been made for Kasparov to be cloned after his death. He didn't want to be cloned in his lifetime. The alternative of his brain already having been imprinted on a computer is extremely hush-hush.
Stewart Reuben

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9321
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:52 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:The alternative of his brain already having been imprinted on a computer is extremely hush-hush.
It's a good job you haven't mentioned it on a public forum then...

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3821
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:05 pm

The most famous non-game is Fischer-Spassky 1972 game 2.

(Though a certain no move draw between Tony Miles and some other
lad whose name escapes is a strong contender.
There were more letters written about the none moves in this game
than any other game in history.)

To answer the OP's question.
I'd say it was any game that can be recalled by simply
naming it qulaifies it as an Immortal.

The is the 'Polish Immortal', Marshall's 'Shower of Gold Coins',
'Morphy at the Opera'.....

Was one of the La Bourdonnais - McDonnell games not given a name?

'The Pearl of Zandvoort".
(I had to Google the correct spelling - this is truly an Immortal
because even mis-spelt we knew the game Stewart mentioned).

I'm with Bronstein on the original Immortal (and the Evergreen.)
As much as I like a good stramash I find both of these game very ugly.
Sorry.
Last edited by Geoff Chandler on Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Richard Thursby
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:25 am
Location: origin + pathname + search + hash

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by Richard Thursby » Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:14 pm

Sticking with the Dutch theme there is the Peal of Wijk Aan Zee.

Fischer-Spassky 1972 was such a great game that Kramnik-Topalov decided to repeat it in 2006.

E Michael White
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Explain to me.....

Post by E Michael White » Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:36 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Stewart Reuben wrote:There is only one 'IMMORTAL GAME'. That was played between Anderssen and Kietzerisky in 1981 at Simpson's.
Grandmasters these days aren't nearly as good as Anderssen; I can't see Kasparov producing such brilliancies 102 years after he dies. :wink:
Whoever this Anderssen was, he only needed to repeat moves played 130 years earlier, so he wasnt necessarily that good.
Last edited by E Michael White on Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paul Littlewood
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:39 pm

Immortal Game

Post by Paul Littlewood » Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:38 pm

I think every chess player has his own "Immortal Game ". My offering is the following...unfortunately I cannot remember who my opponent was or exactly when the game was played but it was published in the BCM ( sportingly sent in by my opponent ) so perhaps somebody could help :

1/ d4 d5 2/ c4 dxc4 3/ Nf3 Nf6 4/ e3 Bg4 5/ Bxc4 e6 6/ h3 Bh5 7/ Nc3 a6 8/ 0-0 Nbd7 9/ e4 e5 10/ g4 exd4 11/ gxh5 dxc3
12/ e5 cxb2 13/ exf6 bxa1=Q 14/ Bxf7+ Kxf7 15/ Qd5+ Ke8 16/ f7+ Ke7 17/ Re1+ Ne5 18/ Bg5 mate !

The black pawn going from e5 to a1 in successive moves reminds me of the famous Spassky-Byrne game where the black pawn did a similar thing from d5 along the white diagonal towards h1.

Post Reply