Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I hadn't seen this one before. Spassky, and his predecessor Petrosian, are
two of the most creative players in the modern era. /Mats

'14 ,,,e2' is the wasted move.  After 14 ...Nxc5 instead, posing a
minimal sacrifice, the Black e3-pawn is still there to consider and may get
support soon from Rook. Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1034110.
After that improved 14 ...Nxc5, any 15 Nd6 as really done, loses the Queen of course.
 If 14 ...Nxc5 15 Nf6+ Bxf6, and King has enough of an outlet square. The original '14
...e2' is at first spectacular-looking but it's where Black goes wrong.

The World's '17 ...Na6' is no good and just leads to loss of the Pawn at
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=29478, Carlsen versus the World online two years ago. But further along, given being down that Pawn to White, Black is about even upon 20 f3..., and '20 ...Bc8' is where Black goes wrong. Instead, 20 ...Qc8, and White Queen, unable to be protected, has immediately to trade Queens or retreat herself to the d3 or e2.  Then rather than a wasted 21 ...f5, the World has a lot of piece power port-side to nibble back the Pawn lost or still more value -- without Rook being hemmed in. At the really played 20 f3..., Carlsen-White pieces and pawns attack only 8 central 16 squares, versus Black's attacking 13 times those sixteen; so down a Pawn, Black might actually be ahead and just needs the better Move 20 ...Qc8 than what they came up with overnight '20 ...Bc8' -- where World-Black went wrong.  Probably most 'Whites' would elect to trade the Queens and after 21 ...Bxc8, The World-Black keeps better position. After the prospective 20 ...Qc8 21 QxQ Bxc8, Black now leads in central-sixteen attacks 12 to 4.

Where does Black go wrong?
Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011478.
This above is #8 in the Mail all-time list of ten best chess games ever played, http://www.chessvariants.com/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=29478.

Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011478, on move 24
White-Kasparov dramatically exchange-sacrifices a Rook. Not only that, by
Move 26 ...Kxa5, Black has 5 pieces to White's having only 3 pieces. Ahead
two pieces, a Rook and a Knight, in the middle game, where does Black go
wrong?

In these studies, finding the clearly wrong move, the earlier in the score
the better. Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011478.  So back
at '21 Rhe1 d4' is the wrong response in the first place. Instead 21 Rhe1 dxe4 solves the position.  It capitalizes on Black's having Pawn development by eliminating White's tiny Pawn development.   The d4-square is guarded by three Black pieces and White will have to move his f-Pawn tearing further into the fabric.  

Actually made impulsive 21 ...d4 is too attacking when Black-Topolov has defense problems solved by 21 ...dxe4.  With this correction now, advanced  White Queen and Knight are become loose cannons.  Not to mention loose cannon White light Bishop since every possible Black piece and King are already untouchably on dark square!  After this revised Move 21, Black can carefully take it into White's mixed-over-all unplanned position.  No immortal game in the offing, or scare tactics. Black stands better.

Where does Black go wrong? 
Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910. To left is another Mail Top Ten, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=29478. Number 5 there.

 Here's ChessGames own top ten: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1009304.
The only duplication between the Mail's and ChessGames' is the Topolov-Kasparov 1999 that we already did for how Topolov-Black can win, so there are nine more. By coincidence it was the very last one this thread on and before 2.November.2012, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=29637 -- nice game making both lists. ChessGames calls it ''The Real Immortal Game'' in its own ten above.

And so there are two immortal games, Anderssen's and Kasparov's, as in out with the old in with the new.

Kramnik rates this as the best game ever, with Swedish GM Gösta Stoltz as
white:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1152958

Gösta Stoltz on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6sta_Stoltz
/Mats

Mats Winther says Vladimir Kramnik said this is the best OrthoChess game ever:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1152958.  Played 61 years ago, big surprise on
'Move 24 d5...' by Stoltz-White will give up the White Queen next move 25. So where does Black
go wrong? After exchange sacrifice Queen for Black Rook, there appears to be clear alternate move that Steiner-Black misses.

It's really an easy win for Black with the right correction. What is it, where does Black go wrong?

After 25 ...Kg8, if 26 B-f6 Q-d7 Or if 26 g6 Bxg6. White really has no good move with the above correction. The analysis does not even need to go beyond the first half-move.

Or if 26 N-f5 Bxf5. Or if 26 N-g4 B-f5. White has no worthwhile continuation let alone immortal game in the offing. Stoltz-White could just as well resign after corrected 25 ...K-g8, or just Resign in another couple moves, same difference, after having thrown away the Queen.

The title ''Gosta Get her,'' referring to tailing the Black Queen is become moot. Gosta_Get_Her

Just step the King out of the potential double line of attack right away, trading the Knight for Pawn, when so far ahead. Mats has the right move but makes the wrong claim for it!

Thanks Mats, White sacrifices Queen, and then Black sacrifices Knight. 

[ Added 11.Jan.2013, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1152958 ]


Like the WWII song year 1943, ''When your're up to your neck in hot
water, be like the Kettle and sing.''

Computer says White is winning after 25 ...K-g8 26 dxc6 bxc6. Fine, both
sides have counterplay, and neither should resign, White having the better
distribution and Black Queen unable to utilize the checkmate diagonal
b2-h7.  
  The better Move 25 invalidates the supposed perfect inevitable finish,
and the burden is on the admirers to support each suspect line. The game is
Kramnik's single best all-time and also on other top-ten lists.  

I am decided White's next best move is '27 R-h6...' Would that be
correct?

If 27 R-h6 B-e4,

Or if 27 N-g4 N-e8, (unless something better occurs).

However White is in control with Black reacting, after the surprise give-up of the Queen. But the first inexact slip-up by ''hypothetical-Stoltz''-White and then there are two diagonals for White mating attack combinations both b2-h7 and a3-f8. It's more reminiscent, after the simple correction 26 ...K-g8 (!) of a genuine CV game like Rococo or Falcon, where it could seesaw either way to completion. However, at slower than postal game rate of play, as here, there should be one determinable outcome best-play I should say of the three this late after sacrifice of Queen.

[Added 15.January.2013: If White cannot dent the three-point lead, when Black Queen can step from the back rank, isolated Rook begins to help.

It is not even convenient for White to pick off the forward f-Pawn. It is understandable that any respectable program rates advantage White, with Black King having no nearby Pawn support. But now by the doubled c-Pawns, d-Pawn may advance towards Black initiative.

Chessist Sam Loyd pony puzzle: don't move the Horse moves anyway: Horse.

Realize that only a Move and half were played, classic-finish Kramnik-best-score-ever Stoltz-Steiner in a week, namely the '26 ...K-g8 27 dxc6 bxc6' by way of revision.]

Where does Black go wrong? Duras-Cohn. The above was played 1911, the year Sam Loyd died.

[17.January.2013, Black looks pretty good up to Move 20 more aggressive than White, but by 38 has lost the two forward Pawns he sacrificed Rook for Knight to get.

What looks spectacular is late sacrifice by White of two Rooks for no piece compensation!

The end 'resign' is because the Black King has two squares to choose, and the follow-up check either one by White Queen snares Black Queen.]

18.Jan.2013, So where does Black go wrong? Move 33 ,,,d3, that attack on the Queen by Pawn just loses the Pawn. Instead leave the two Passed Pawns where they are to tie up Black Rook(s), and start advancing f- or h-Pawn. As of Move 33, the two forward Pawns should make up for the Knight under Rook deficit.

This is ChessGames own top ten,
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1009304. Already done
this thread are  1999 Topolov-Kasparov and 1911 Duras-E Cohn. How about Euwe-Reti, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1041899, only 22 Moves?  Where does
White go wrong?  Euwe went on to be an OrthoChess world champion and not Reti.

Where does White go wrong in the first one, Glucksberg-Najdorf?

This is classic not least because the Pawn performs the checkmate once Black is down four pieces! Where is White's best counterplay,

or does it have to go back all the way to before the brilliancy '9 ...Bxh2'? That would be un-kosher and tantamount

to acknowledging this being the first really perfect game so far, after a brilliancy -- all the other 16 or 18 immortal scores, including several

Spassky-Fischer 1972, having been disproved as such by a better move. Finding one here does not look so promising.

After the brilliancy 9 ...Bxh2,
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100774, how about a different
take '14 Rxg1...'?

This score won't stand up to scrutiny either, even when the above correction turns out not to be the last word.  At that juncture above,
after taking the Bishop, Black has only 2 pieces in the vicinity to White's five or six pieces.  They just have to be handled right.

Recall, the feature of this one, as actually played, is Black's willingly going down four pieces eventually for checkmate by h-Pawn.

This has been widely written about, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/najdorf.html, and it does happen that first try 14 Rxg1... won't work because of 14 ...Q-h2 then 15 ...Q-f2. So where does White go wrong? (just before that)

In the Polish Immortal by Glucksberg-Najdorf 0-1,
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100774, White has to contend
with Black Knight and Queen after the Bishop pawn grab called a brilliancy.
Upon the second half of this ''brilliancy,'' 10 ...N-g4, the response
''11 f4...'' is in fact where White goes wrong. That Pawn move neither
gives King outlet square nor deals with congestion. It just protects the
White Knight.

Instead, correction 11 N-h3 pulls the threatened Knight out of harm's way.
Then Black has no good move for Bishop or Horse.  With revised 11 N-h3,
Black Queen is not going to dislodge that Knight from the protecting side
file. Black's attack is essentially gone, and what he has now is a weak King side,
facing all three slant pieces of White threatening to bear in.

Deserving listing, the game features mid-game Queen sacrifice followed by King chase:

Averbakh-Kotov. Where does White go wrong?

Like the search for the perfect wave in surfing classic film ''Endless Summer'' (1966), the search for the perfect chess game goes on. The first one on the list above, Glucksberg versus Najdorf (1929) fails this test. Just considered last comment, the Polish Immortal falls because of White open-and-shut response 11 N-h3. A perfect chess game score cannot have cooperation if better move shown to be available after a brilliancy. So too since last summer have failed Fischer-Spassky Game 6 (1972), Stoltz-Steiner (1952), Euwe- Reti(1920), and almost a score others, depending how many from the Spassky-Fischer series are counted. However, two or three from the Mail's Top Ten are indeterminate on first look or postponed including Karpov-Kasparov 42 moves (1985) whether filling the bill perfect game, to resurrect the finals.

The four above are examples of ones to throw out as obviously no good for the purpose: Fischer-Spassky famous Game 6 because of 15 ...Rxc5, Stoltz-Steiner because of 25 ...K-g8, Euwe-Reti 1920 because of 12 Qxc5 and that G-N Polish Immortal. False candidates all for perfect game, but understandable each being on top-ten list -- top-one in case of Stoltz-Steiner by Kramnik reckoning -- for their inadvertent cooperative error by opponent leading to interesting exciting chess often having exchange sacrifice.

The brilliancy, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1084375, in
Averbakh versus Kotov sixty years ago is 30 ...Qxh3, sacrificing the Queen for Pawn.  The
game is barely half over and Black will play Queen-less and down the Queen
for 19 moves -- yet win.  

Where does White go wrong?

Is this then the first perfect game after a clear-cut brilliancy?

[ Added 25.February.2013. Second try: So how about the 'Nxf4' earlier at 34? Move 34 Nxf4... Averbakh-Kotov ]

Where does White go wrong? Of note there is a double Rook sacrifice by Move 20.
Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1358096, Bakre versus
Kadziolka. This game played in 2004 is almost current by Chess lore
standards. It is another from one of ChessGame top ten all-time lists, of which there are several. 

Switching to Wikipedia's longer compilation for follow-up scores, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_games, also to finish are two or three left from the Mail's ten-best list.

In the Wikipedia format, we have already determined better move, reversing the outcome in:
(1) 1930 (probably 1929) Glucksberg-Najdorf ''Polish Immortal'' (2) 1960 Spassky-Bronstein, from which this weave is named
(3) 1972 Fischer-Spassky game 6 (4) 1972 Spassky-Fischer game 13 (5) 1985 Karpov-Kasparov game 16.