Merry Christmas and a question

[Richard Cribb]

As I already mentioned in my game with Narz, I will be cut off from any online activity for the next few weeks, but I am planning to return with vengeance in the middle of January, I am even considering to return to organized chess
life again, which I for a great part owe to you good people on this forum(none mentioned, none forgotten).
So I just want to wish you all a merry Christmas and all the best for the new Year.
In addition to that, I also want some feedback to this: I am going to write some chess articles for a local periodical, and I wonder if somebody would be interested in me also posting them here in an English version. In that case, please write your thoughts about in in this thread. My first proiect is a multi-part survey on the career of Adolf Anderssen, with many commented games and special consideration on some of the biggest events such as London 1851 and 1862, Baden-Baden 1870 and the matches against Morphy and Steinitz as well as an attempt to rehabilitate that great chessplayer.

 

[punkbass2000]

I would be very interested to see your articles

 

[SanPellegrino]

I like chess history articles and studied Anderssens evergreen and immortal game as a child, so of course

but why does he have to be rehabilated? I think his impact is not questioned, only Morphy was better, not as a tactician (I think Anderssen was even the better tactician) but as positional player. but that is not a shame, in positional play Morphy was head and shoulders ahead of all his contemporaries.

 

[Richard Cribb]

First of all, Happy New Year to all of you!
Well, I am finally back, to my chagrin I notice that the interest for that sort of thing is not exactly what I would call overwhelming, but I will probably post those things anyway, since the feedback I got was positive.
@punkbass 2000: Thanks a lot for your support, I hope you will not be disappointed with my scribblings.
@San Pellegrino: Thanks for a stimulating input, I will answer you briefly now and hopefully cover it better later when time allows me.

but why does he have to be rehabilated?

Because of assumptions like this:

I think his impact is not questioned, only Morphy was better, not as a tactician (I think Anderssen was even the better tactician) but as positional player. but that is not a shame, in positional play Morphy was head and shoulders ahead of all his contemporaries.

I am sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. I am also sorry that I will have to write some critical words about Paul Morphy, I know that he is the idol of many chess enthusiasts. However I want to emphasize that I too have a tremendous respect for Morphy, but that I feel that he is often presented as a comic-book hero in chess literature, even by people who should know better.
Morphy was in my opinion notsuperior to the other top players in his time in positional play. He was rather weaker in closed positions, and he did notshow any superiority in strategical planning. He was however, vastly superior as a tactician.I think perhaps Morphy is the greatest tactician ever, and this is the main reason for his tremendous practical strength, combined with a professional approach.
Anderssen, on the other hand, is mostly known today as a cut and trust type and for those off-hand two games you mentioned.I must also confess that I find this so-called immortal game to be one of the most stupid I have ever seen.
But how many people knows for instance this game?

Steinitz - Anderssen, 6th match game,London 1866
1. e4 c5 2. g3 Nc6 3. Bg2 e5 4. Ne2 Nf6 5. Nbc3 d6 6. O-O Be7 7. f4 h5
8. h3 Bd7 9. Nd5 Qc8 10. Nxf6+ Bxf6 11. f5 Ne7 12. c4 Qd8 13. Nc3 Bc6
14. d3 Qd7 15. a3 a5 16. b3 b5 17. Be3 b4 18. axb4 cxb4 19. Na4 Bxa4
20. Rxa4 Nc6 21. Qd2 Bd8 22. d4 Bb6 23. d5 Qa7 24. Bxb6 Qxb6+ 25. Kh1
Nd8 26. Qg5 Kf8 27. f6 g6 28. h4 Nb7 29. Bh3 Rd8 30. Ra2 Ke8 31. Rd1 Ra8
32. Qd2 Nc5 33. Qe3 Kd8 34. Be6 Qb7 35. Kg1 a4 36. bxa4 b3 37. Raa1 b2
38. Rab1 Rxa4 39. Bh3 Kc7 40. Bf1 Rha8 41. Rd2 Rb4 42. Kh2 Ra1 43. Rdd1
Rb3 44. Qh6 Rxb1 45. Rxb1 Qb4 46. Qf8 Qd2+ 47. Bg2 Qd3 48. Qxf7+ Nd7
49. c5 Qxg3+ 50. Kg1 Rc3 51. cxd6+ Kb6 52. Rxb2+ Kc5 53. Rb1 Rc2
54. Rb5+ Kc4 0-1
Yes, it was really Steinitz that was white and Anderssen black.
I also want to draw your attention to the fact that Anderssen more or less outplayed Morphy in the 6th, 8th and 10th game of their match, it was only a combination of Anderssen's poor form and Morphy's ingenious defense that allowed Morphy to score 1.5 point out of those games instead of 0.
Anderssen was of course a great tactician, but he also had quite a good understanding for closed positions, and this is often forgotten, which is one of things I want to draw attention to. Regarding his match with Morphy, I think he might have won it under other circumstances.
I would have liked to elaborate on this, but unfortunately time does not allow me, this post is written in a hurry and I apologize if it is a bit messy.
However i have changed my mind somewhat, my first article will be about Paul Morphy instead. I will try to give some substance to my arguments - a sort of critical hommage to a great player, and I will try to have it ready for posting in a couple of weeks.

 

[Narz]

Luce, when you "get back" you might be interested to check out schemingmind.com. It's a perfect site for coorespondence games.

I play on there as "Manifestor".

- Narz

 

[Richard Cribb]

OK, I will check it out next week!

 

[punkbass2000]

Ooh, can I get slaughtered by you too!

 

[Narz]

Sure, slaughtering for all.