Immortal Game

Last updated
Immortal Game animation. Anderssen shown playing white. Immortal Game, 1851.gif
Immortal Game animation. Anderssen shown playing white.

The Immortal Game was a chess game played in 1851 by Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky. It was played while the London 1851 chess tournament was in progress, an event in which both players participated. The Immortal Game was itself a casual game, however, not played as part of the tournament. Anderssen won the game by allowing a double rook sacrifice, a major loss of material , while also developing a mating attack with his remaining minor pieces . Despite losing the game, Kieseritzky was impressed with Anderssen's performance. Shortly after it was played, Kieseritzky published the game in La Régence, a French chess journal which he helped to edit. In 1855, Ernst Falkbeer published an analysis of the game, describing it for the first time with its namesake "immortal".

Contents

The Immortal Game is among the most famous chess games ever played. As a miniature game, it is frequently reproduced in chess literature to teach simple themes of gameplay. Although Kieseritzsky himself indicated that the game ended before checkmate, the Immortal Game is frequently reproduced with a brief continuation involving a queen sacrifice—a further loss of material—leading to checkmate. This continuation is commonly presented as part of the complete game, as if the final moves were actually played as part of the real historical game. Some authors also permute certain moves, deviating from Kieseritzky's report, although such permutations typically give rise to a transposition in which a distinct line of play eventually returns to the moves and positions reported by Kieseritzky.

Although both players made moves which are regarded as unsound by modern players, the game is appreciated as an example of the romantic school of chess, a style of play which prized bold attacks and sacrifices over deep strategy. The game—especially its mating continuation—is also appreciated for its aesthetic value, as a plausible example of how a player with a significant material deficit can give mate, provided that an advantageous position exists. The continuation's mating position is a model mate, a strong form of pure mate in which all of the attacker's remaining pieces contribute to the checkmate, while the mated king is prevented from moving to any other square for exactly one reason per square. In 1996, Bill Hartston called the game an achievement "perhaps unparalleled in chess literature". [1]

Overview

Immortal Game checkmate Immortal game.jpg
Immortal Game checkmate

Anderssen was one of the strongest players of his time, and many consider him to have been the world's strongest player after his victory in the London 1851 chess tournament. Kieseritzky lived in France much of his life, where he gave chess lessons and played games for five francs an hour at the Café de la Régence in Paris. His strength was shown most favourably when giving substantial odds to weak players; against masters, he was less convincing.

The Immortal Game was an informal one, played during a break in a formal tournament in London; the exact venue is uncertain. [2] Kieseritzky was very impressed with Anderssen's performance; after the game was over, Kieseritzky telegraphed the moves of the game to his Parisian chess club. The French chess magazine La Régence published the game in July 1851. The Austrian Ernst Falkbeer nicknamed it "The Immortal Game" in 1855. [3]

This game is acclaimed as an exemplar of the 19th-century romantic style of chess, where rapid development and attack were considered the most effective way to win, many gambits and countergambits were offered (and not accepting them would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and material was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review, even if some of the moves are no longer considered optimal.

In this game, Anderssen won despite sacrificing a bishop (on move 11), both rooks (starting on move 18), and the queen (on move 22) to produce checkmate against Kieseritzky, who lost only three pawns. Anderssen later demonstrated the same kind of approach in the Evergreen Game.

Some published versions of the game have errors, as described in the annotations below.

Publication

Record of the game, as communicated by Kieseritzky The Immortal Game, written by Lionel Kieseritzsky in La Regence, 1851.png
Record of the game, as communicated by Kieseritzky

Shortly after the game was played, Kieseritzky is believed [4] to have telegraphed a report of the game to La Régence, a French chess journal which he helped to edit. The game was reported in an 1851 issue of the journal, with the piece attributed to Kieseritzky himself. La Régence used an "obscure" [5] and prototypical form of algebraic notation to record chess games. Pawns were denoted using lowercase letters indicating their starting files (a–h), while pieces were denoted using uppercase letters to indicate same (A–H). Squares were described beginning with their rank, then file, e.g. the square "e4" was instead described as "45".

The game has been republished many times, often with inconsistencies about the order of moves.

Annotated game

White: Adolf Anderssen [7]   Black: Lionel Kieseritzky   Opening: King's Gambit Accepted: Bishop's Gambit, Bryan Countergambit ( ECO C33)

1. e4 e5 2. f4

This is the King's Gambit: Anderssen offers his pawn in exchange for faster development. This was one of the most popular openings of the 19th century and is still occasionally seen, though defensive techniques have improved since Anderssen's time.

2... exf4 3. Bc4

The Bishop's Gambit; this line allows 3...Qh4+, depriving White of the right to castle, and is less popular than 3.Nf3. This check, however, also exposes Black's queen to attack with a gain of tempo on the eventual Ng1–f3.
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after 4...b5

3... Qh4+ 4. Kf1 b5?! (diagram)

This is the Bryan Countergambit, deeply analysed by Kieseritzky, and which sometimes bears his name. It is not considered a sound move by most players today.

5. Bxb5 Nf6 6. Nf3

This is a common developing move, but in addition the knight attacks Black's queen, forcing Black to move it instead of developing his own side.

6... Qh6 7. d3

With this move, White solidifies control of the critical centre of the board. German grandmaster Robert Hübner recommends 7.Nc3 instead.

7... Nh5

This move threatens ...Ng3+, and protects the pawn at f4, but also sidelines the knight to a poor position at the edge of the board, where knights are the least powerful, and does not develop a piece.

8. Nh4 Qg5

Better was 8...g6, according to Kieseritzky.

9. Nf5 c6

This simultaneously unpins the queen pawn and attacks the bishop. Modern chess engines suggest 9...g6 would be better, to deal with a very troublesome knight.
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after 11.Rg1

10. g4? Nf6 11. Rg1! (diagram)

This is an advantageous passive piece sacrifice . If Black accepts, his queen will be boxed in, giving White a lead in development.

11... cxb5?

Hübner believes this was Black's critical mistake; this gains material , but loses in development, at a point where White's strong development is able to quickly mount an offensive. Hübner recommends 11...h5 instead.

12. h4!

White's knight at f5 protects the pawn, which attacks Black's queen.

12... Qg6 13. h5 Qg5 14. Qf3

White (Anderssen) now has two threats:
  • Bxf4, trapping Black's queen (the queen having no safe place to go);
  • e5, attacking Black's knight at f6 while simultaneously exposing an attack by White's queen on the unprotected black rook at a8.

14... Ng8

This deals with the threats, but undevelops Black even furthernow the only black piece not on its starting square is the queen, which is about to be put on the run, while White has control over a great deal of the board.

15. Bxf4 Qf6 16. Nc3 Bc5

An ordinary developing move by Black, which also attacks the rook at g1.

17. Nd5

White responds to the attack with a counterattack. This move threatens the black queen and also Nc7+, forking the king and rook. Richard Réti recommends 17.d4 followed by 18.Nd5, with advantage to White, although if 17.d4 Bf8 then 18.Be5 would be a stronger move.
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after 17...Qxb2

17... Qxb2 (diagram)

Black gains a pawn, and threatens to gain the rook at a1 with check.

18. Bd6!

With this move White offers to sacrifice both his rooks. Hübner comments that, from this position, there are actually many ways to win, and he believes there are at least three better moves than 18.Bd6: 18.d4, 18.Be3, or 18.Re1, which lead to strong positions or checkmate without needing to sacrifice so much material. The Chessmaster computer program annotation says "the main point [of 18. Bd6] is to divert the black queen from the a1–h8 diagonal. Now Black cannot play 18...Bxd6? 19.Nxd6+ Kd8 20.Nxf7+ Ke8 21.Nd6+ Kd8 22.Qf8#." Garry Kasparov comments that the world of chess would have lost one of its "crown jewels" if the game had continued in such an unspectacular fashion. The Bd6 move is surprising, because White is willing to give up so much material.

18... Bxg1?

Wilhelm Steinitz suggested in 1879 that a better move would be 18...Qxa1+; [8] likely moves to follow are 19.Ke2 Qb2 20.Kd2 Bxg1. [9] The continuation played is still winning for White, however, despite having many complications. The variation continues 21.e5! Ba6 22.Bb4! Qxe5 (22...Be3+ 23.Qxe3 +/−; 22...Nh6 23.Nd6+ Kf8 24.g5 +−) 23.Nd6+ Qxd6 24.Bxd6 +/−.

19. e5!

This sacrifices yet another white rook. More importantly, this move blocks the queen from participating in the defense of the king, and threatens mate in two: 20.Nxg7+ Kd8 21.Bc7#.

19... Qxa1+ 20. Ke2

At this point, Black's attack has run out of steam; Black has a queen and bishop on White's back rank , but cannot effectively mount an immediate attack on White, while White can storm forward. According to Kieseritzky, he resigned at this point. Hübner notes that an article by Friedrich Amelung in the journal Baltische Schachblaetter, 1893, reported that Kiesertizky probably played 20...Na6, but Anderssen then announced the mating moves. The Oxford Companion to Chess also says that Black resigned at this point, citing an 1851 publication. [10] In any case, it is suspected that the last few moves were not actually played on the board in the original game.

20... Na6

The black knight covers c7 as White was threatening 21.Nxg7+ Kd8 and 22.Bc7#. Another attempt to defend is 20...Ba6, allowing the black king to flee via c8 and b7, although White has enough with the continuation 21.Nc7+ Kd8 and 22.Nxa6, where if now 22...Qxa2 (to defend f7 against Bc7+, Nd6+ and Qxf7#) White can play 23.Bc7+ Ke8 24.Nb4, winning; or, if 22...Bb6 (stopping Bc7+), 23.Qxa8 Qc3 24.Qxb8+ Qc8 25.Qxc8+ Kxc8 26.Bf8 h6 27.Nd6+ Kd8 28.Nxf7+ Ke8 29.Nxh8 Kxf8, with a winning endgame for White.
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after 22.Qf6+

21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+! (diagram)

This queen sacrifice forces Black to give up his defense of e7.

22... Nxf6 23. Be7# 1–0

At the end, Black is ahead in material by a considerable margin: a queen, two rooks, and a bishop. But the material does not help Black. White has been able to use his remaining pieces—two knights and a bishop—to force mate.
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Final position after 23.Be7# (a pure mate)

See also

Notes

  1. Hartston, Bill (1996). Teach Yourself Chess. Hodder & Stoughton. p.  150. ISBN   0-340-67039-8.
  2. Winter, Edward. "The Immortal Game (Anderssen v Kieseritzky)". www.chesshistory.com. Retrieved 17 November 2022.
  3. Sfetcu, Nicolae (2014). The Game of Chess. p. 47.
  4. Kasparov (2003), p. 22.
  5. Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 200. Kieseritzky.
  6. Kling and Horwitz: The Chess Player, July 1851
  7. Anderssen was playing the black pieces but moved first, [6] so is shown here as playing White to match modern conventions regarding White and Black.
  8. Kasparov (2003), p. 24.
  9. Several sources give a different move sequence: 18...Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Bxg1 20.e5.
  10. Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 180. Immortal Game.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Game of the Century (chess)</span> 1956 chess game

The Game of the Century is a chess game that was won by the 13-year-old future world champion Bobby Fischer against Donald Byrne in the Rosenwald Memorial Tournament at the Marshall Chess Club in New York City on October 17, 1956. In Chess Review, Hans Kmoch dubbed it "The Game of the Century" and wrote: "The following game, a stunning masterpiece of combination play performed by a boy of 13 against a formidable opponent, matches the finest on record in the history of chess prodigies."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evergreen Game</span> Chess game won by Adolf Anderssen against Jean Dufresne in 1852

The Evergreen Game is a famous chess game won by Adolf Anderssen against Jean Dufresne in 1852.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Opera Game</span> Famous 1858 chess game played at an opera house in Paris

The Opera Game was an 1858 chess game, played at an opera house in Paris. The American master Paul Morphy played against two strong amateurs: the German noble Karl II, Duke of Brunswick, and the French aristocrat Comte Isouard de Vauvenargues. It was played as a consultation game, with Duke Karl and Count Isouard jointly deciding each move for the black pieces, while Morphy controlled the white pieces by himself. The game was played in a box while an opera was performed on stage. Morphy quickly checkmated his opponents following rapid development of material, involving a queen sacrifice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Checkmate</span> Winning game position in chess

Checkmate is any game position in chess and other chess-like games in which a player's king is in check and there is no possible escape. Checkmating the opponent wins the game.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lionel Kieseritzky</span> Baltic German chess master

Lionel Adalbert Bagration Felix Kieseritzky was a Baltic German chess master and theoretician, known for his contributions to chess theory, as well for a game he lost against Adolf Anderssen, known as the "Immortal Game". Kieseritzky's name became associated with several openings and opening variations, such as the Kieseritzky Gambit, Kieseritzky Attack, and the Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kasparov versus the World</span> Game of chess

Kasparov versus the World was a game of chess played in 1999 over the Internet. It was a consultation game, in which a World Team of thousands decided each move for the black pieces by plurality vote, while Garry Kasparov conducted the white pieces by himself. More than 50,000 people from over 75 countries participated in the game.

In chess, a pure mate is a checkmate position such that the mated king is attacked exactly once, and prevented from moving to any of the adjacent squares in its field for exactly one reason per square. Each of the squares in the mated king's field is attacked or "guarded" by one—and only one—attacking unit, or else a square which is not attacked is occupied by a friendly unit, a unit of the same color as the mated king. Some authors allow that special situations involving double check or pins may also be considered as pure mate.

Handicaps in chess are handicapping variants which enable a weaker player to have a chance of winning against a stronger one. There are a variety of such handicaps, such as material odds, extra moves, extra time on the chess clock, and special conditions. Various permutations of these, such as "pawn and two moves", are also possible.

In chess, a queen sacrifice is a move that sacrifices a queen in return for some compensation, such as a tactical or positional advantage.

Romantic chess is a style of chess popular in the 18th century until its decline in the 1880s. This style of chess emphasizes quick, tactical maneuvers rather than long-term strategic planning. Romantic players consider winning to be secondary to winning with style. The Romantic era of play was followed by the Scientific, Hypermodern, and New Dynamism eras. Games during this era generally consisted of 1.e4 openings such as the King's Gambit and Giuoco Piano. Queen-side pawn openings were not popular and seldom played. The Romantic era is generally considered to have ended with the 1873 Vienna tournament where Wilhelm Steinitz popularized positional play and the closed game. This domination ushered in a new age of chess known as the "Modern", or Classical school, which would last until the 1930s when hypermodernism began to become popular.

The Peruvian Immortal is the name given to a chess game played by the Peruvian master Esteban Canal against an unknown amateur in a simultaneous exhibition he gave at Budapest in 1934. In just 14 moves, Canal sacrificed both his rooks and his queen, finishing with Boden's mate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Swindle (chess)</span> Chess maneuver

In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player in a losing position tricks their opponent and thereby achieves a win or draw instead of the expected loss. It may also refer more generally to obtaining a win or draw from a clearly losing position. I. A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld distinguish among "traps", "pitfalls", and "swindles". In their terminology, a "trap" refers to a situation where players go wrong through their own efforts. In a "pitfall", the beneficiary of the pitfall plays an active role, creating a situation where a plausible move by the opponent will turn out badly. A "swindle" is a pitfall adopted by a player who has a clearly lost game. Horowitz and Reinfeld observe that swindles, "though ignored in virtually all chess books", "play an enormously important role in over-the-board chess, and decide the fate of countless games".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immortal Losing Game</span>

The Immortal Losing Game is a chess game between the Soviet grandmaster David Bronstein and the Polish International Master Bogdan Śliwa played in 1957 in Gotha. The name is an allusion to the more famous Immortal Game between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky. The game acquired its name because Bronstein, in a completely lost position, set a series of elegant traps in an attempt to swindle a victory from a lost game, although Śliwa deftly avoided the traps and won.

The opposite-colored bishops endgame is a chess endgame in which each side has a single bishop and the bishops reside on opposite-colored squares. Without other pieces besides pawns, these endings are widely known for their tendency to result in a draw. These are the most difficult endings in which to convert a small material advantage to a win. With additional pieces, the stronger side has more chances to win, but not as many as when bishops are on the same color.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Poole versus HAL 9000</span> Fictional chess game from Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey

Poole vs. HAL 9000 is a chess game depicted in the 1968 science fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Astronaut Frank Poole (White) plays the supercomputer HAL 9000 (Black) using a video screen as a chessboard. Each player takes turns during a game in progress, making their moves orally using descriptive notation and natural language. Poole resigns the game once HAL indicates a certain path to checkmate; however, the move which HAL suggests Frank might make is not forced. Stanley Kubrick, director of 2001, was an avid chess player.

In a chess endgame of a king, bishop, and pawn versus king, a wrong rook pawn is a rook pawn whose promotion square is the opposite color from the bishop's square color. Since a side's rook pawns promote on opposite-colored squares, one of them may be the "wrong rook pawn". This situation is also known as having the wrong-colored bishop or wrong bishop. In many cases, the wrong rook pawn will only draw, when any other pawn would win. A fairly common defensive tactic is to reach one of these drawn endgames, often through a sacrifice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rotlewi versus Rubinstein</span>

Rotlewi versus Rubinstein is a game of chess played between Gersz Rotlewi and Akiba Rubinstein in Łódź, Poland on December 26, 1907. It features a brilliant queen and rook sacrifice by Rubinstein to force mate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kasparov's Immortal</span> Chess game played by Garry Kasparov

Kasparov's immortal is a chess game played by Garry Kasparov as White against Veselin Topalov as Black at the Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee Chess Tournament 1999 chess tournament. This is one of Kasparov's most famous games; it is considered a masterpiece and Chess.com has listed it as the #1 chess game ever played.

In chess, an economical mate is a checkmate position such that all of the attacker's remaining knights, bishops, rooks and queens contribute to the mating attack. The attacker's king and pawns may also contribute to the mate, but their assistance is not required, nor does it disqualify the position from being an economical mate. Economical mates are of interest to chess problem composers for their aesthetic value. In real gameplay, their occurrence is incidental. Nevertheless, some notable games have concluded with an economical mate such as the Opera game, won by Paul Morphy.

References