Talk:Evergreen Game

19...Qxf3

Alternative 19 ... Qh3 (defends d7) 20 Bf1 Qf5 (still defends d7) 21 Qe4! Qxf6 22 Bb5 (with threat Bxc6 and Qxe7) Kd8 23 Rxd7 Kxd7 24 Bxe7 Qe6 25 Qd3 Kxe7 26 Rxe6+ Kxe6 27 Qe4+ with Draw by perpetual check.

also

19 ... Rxg2? 20 Kxg2 Ne5 21 Qxd7+! ChessCreator (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

20...Nxe7

Does 20...Nxe7 deserve a question mark? For sure, it allows an attractive mate in four, but are the alternatives any better? Analysis on chessgames.com suggests 20...Kd8 21.Rd7+! Kc8 22.Rd8+! Kxd8 (...Rxd8?? 23.gxf3) 23.Bf5+ Qxd1+ 24.Qxd1+ Nd4 25.Bh3 and white is better, and 20...Kf8 21.Rxd7+ Ke8 22.Re7+ Kd8 (...Kf8 23.Rxc7+, also transposing unless black wants to lose his bishop and both rooks in a vicious windmill), transposing to the previous line.

Until someone posts analysis that black can hold after 20.Rxe7+, I'm removing the ?.WarmasterKron 13:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

20 Rxe7+ Nxe7 is not the best but doesn't really deserve a question mark as others also lose.

20 ..... Kf8? 21 Re3+ d6 22 Rxf3 easy +-

20 ..... Kd8 21 Rxd7+ Kc8 22. Rd8+ [22...Rxd8 23. gxf3 +-] Kxd8 23. Bf5+ Qxd1 24. Qxd1+ Nd4 25. g3 +-

My feeling is 20...Nxe7 doesn't deserve a question mark. Also in my view 20. Rxe7 doesn't deserve double '!!' as there is no other move to stop the double Black threat on f2 or g2, one could say White was forced into playing the correct combination. ChessCreator (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evergreen Quotation

I would like to refer to the Steinitiz citation of the game as the "evergreen in Anderssen's laurel wreath." Perhaps we should clarify what this remark actually referred to? After Anderssen won the 1851 International Chess Tournament in London, when he returned to Berlin, he was crowned with a laurel wreath by the citizenry. Steinitiz felt that game with DuFresne would give Anderssen "immortality", thus the symbolism of the "evergreen".

ChessHistorian 00:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Evergreen is a way of saying "always green" like immortal, is this the basis of it's name? ChessCreator (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Evergreen in a wreath? There is indeed a translation problem. In German, Evergreen (Immergrün) is the name for Vinca (or Periwinkle), an Evergreen plant of course. As the German Vinca article states, 'in former times young girls used wreaths made from Evergreen (= Vinca) while dancing to strengten their aura'. Appropiately, the term Vinca derives from Latin vincire "to bind, fetter". Simply speaking, it's a symbol for eternal youth! --DaQuirin (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Steinitz was actually writing in English. He wrote a tribute to the recently deceased Anderssen in the British sports magazine The Field in 1879, where he used the (for him) uncharacteristically poetic description "An evergreen in the laurel crown of the departed chess hero" in annotating the game against Dufresne. Steinitz's notes were reproduced in the Chess Player's Chronicle and can be viewed in the Edward Winter article here. He was writing in English, but he used a German cultural reference which was probably lost on most English speakers. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

URL Name and Title

Is it 'Evergreen' or 'Evergreen Game'. If it's the former then the URL would make sense to be 'Evergreen (Chess)', if it's the latter then the title with the capital 'G' for Game would be appropriate. ChessCreator (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Old stuff. This is American/British capitialisation. ChessCreator (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Commentator named Burgess

The article refers to 'Burgess' ("...Burgess suggests Re1 instead") without a wikilink, first name or FIDE title. Perhaps it would be appropriate to, at least initially, give the commentator's full name/title, especially as s/he is not exactly a 'household name' in chess? --Smkruse (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Graham Burgess FIDE Master, author in top reference as follows:Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms. The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games. 1998. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-7867-0587-6.

Agreed it could be made a bit clearer in the article. ChessCreator (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, along with a lot of linking. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

incorrect board setup

The animation of the game features a opposite colored chess board. All the dark squares should be light / light squares should be dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qauz (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right! Yikes...how did I miss that? I'll fix it right away. Thanks for pointing it out. Winston365 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Winston365 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

The article currently gives 19. Rad1 only one exclamation mark but 21. Qxd7 two. Seems the wrong way round to me; I know the queen sac is very splashy, but once the position before Qxd7 had arisen any novice could have spotted the entirely forced winning continuation, whereas spotting the win in advance on move 19 and working out that alternative moves by Black also led to a White win makes this a much more impressive move (and indeed the cornerstone of the whole game). 91.105.61.167 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Different sources give different move evaluations. I think we should pick one good reliable source for the evaluations of the moves and stick with it. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Chessmaster analysis

I'm wondering about the winning Chessmaster move given in the text. After 20... Kd8 21. Rxd7+ Kc8 22. Rd8+ Kxd8, Chessmaster gives 23. Be2+ winning. After 23... Nd4, can someone tell me the winning continuation? (Thx!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-obvious continuations

I'm wondering if a couple continuations might be a bit hard for casual readers to find, and should they be pointed out in the text?

1. Burgess says winning material is simpler with 17.Ng3 Qh6 18.Bc1 Qe6 19.Bc4. (Do we point out how White wins material after 19...Qg6?)
2. The line 20...Kd8 21.Rxd7+ Kc8 22.Rd8+ is given, where 22...Rxd8 and 22...Kxd8 are examined. (Do we point out how White wins if Black plays 22...Nxd8?)

And does it constitute WP:OR? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Caps

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Evergreen game → Evergreen Game – Rich Farmbrough, 19:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

• Support. Consistency with other articles in Category:Chess games. Jenks24 (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

cited source was plagiarized from wikipedia

I have removed Jose A. Fadul's "Lessons in Chess, Lessons in Life" as a source. It is obvious from an examination of the source that he simply plagiarized an old version of the wikipedia article. Compare: [1] and [2]. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You might find this enlightening: Jose Fadul (AfD discussion). There was a time when his self-promotion was an issue, chess as mental training, chess therapy and list of chess historians were targets. Quale (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What I imagine happened

This is what I imagine happened; lots of supposition, can't put it in the article, but it seems reasonable.

Anderssen himself probably didn't take the game very seriously. He and Dufresne were good friends and they were probably just having a bit of fun - this would explain the inaccurate but "fun" move 17.Nf6+. Seeing some entertainment value in the game, and justly proud of his combination, he published it in the Schachzeitung with only light notes. The first publication went only as far as move 18 by Black, and left it to the readers to work out how White won.

Staunton decided to have a go at this, found the move 19.Rad1 and spent hours and hours analyzing it, finding all sorts of fascinating lines, only a small portion of which he ended up publishing. The next issue of the Schachzeitung must have been a disappointment/anti-climax for him. There was no analysis, only the information that Black played the losing move 19...Qxf3 and White pulled off a beautiful combination.

Staunton didn't want all the hours he'd spent analyzing the position to go to waste so he published his analysis, apparently to prove that Anderssen couldn't possibly have worked all this out at the board (not that Anderssen ever made such a claim). Staunton claimed a win for White in all lines, but missed the three most critical defences - 19...Qh3 20.Bf1 Qf5, 19...Bd4 and 19...Rg4. Staunton's word carried a lot of weight back then though, so his assessment went more or less unchallenged for many years - for example Bird simply says that Black is lost in all lines. The game turned up in some anthologies but there's no evidence that it was particularly more famous than other Anderssen games (e.g. his awesome win with Black against Rosanes). It was only when Steinitz included it in Anderssen's obituary with the effusive commentary "an evergreen in the laurel wreath" that the game took on a "legendary" aspect. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Major analytical works

I find the changing consensus of the assessment of Anderssen's combination very interesting so I've tried to reflect this in the article. Here is a summary of the major annotations and articles on the game and their findings. I've added my OR (which we obviously can't use) based on engine checks. (Yes, I'm a mediocre player, what of it?)

1853 - Staunton, Chess Player's Chronicle

Scope - Black's alternatives to 19...Qxf3. Also some analysis of 20...Kd8.

Findings - White wins vs 19...Ne5, 19...d6, 19...Bc5, 19...Rxg2+, 19...Qg4 and 19...Qh3. 20...Kd8 also loses (however 22...Kxd8 not analyzed in detail)

OR - The analysis of 19...Bc5 contains an error in that 20.Bxc5 allows Black to safely play 20...Qxf3 (the combo doesn't work anymore because the K can go to c6 and attack the B). Instead 20.Be4 probably wins but it's not simple - 19...Bc5 is probably Black's "4th= best move" in fact, i.e. it's about as good as 19...Rxg2+, menaning it probably loses but it's not trivial. The analysis of 19...Qh3 20.Bf1 does not include the only good continuation, 20...Qf5. 19...Rg4 and 19...Bd4 not considered. Other lines correct and have not been significantly improved upon since - a few sub-optimal moves but nothing that affects the conclusion.

Prior to Lipke, I have seen no annotations (including Steinitz's and Lasker's) that significantly add to Staunton's analysis. Lipke refers to an article on the game in the London Chess Fortnightly (1892-93), where Lasker apparently recommends 15...d2! - that's a possible source if someone can track it down. (Reissued by Moravian Chess in 2001). Based on the secondary source (Lipke) all he says about 19.Rad1 is that (paraphrasing) "there are 60 variations here, all lost for Black".

1898 - Lipke, Deutsche Schachzeitung (managed to reconstruct this article from google previews, can send .txt file if wanted)

Scope - Brief notes on the game itself, detailed analysis of Black's alternatives to 19...Qxf3. (By the way he recommended 11...a6 and 17.Ng3 100 years before Burgess. Maybe Lasker did too.)

Findings - Black loses after 19...Bc5, 19...d6, 19...Ne5, 19...Rxg2+, 19...Qh3. 19...Rg4 is best. After 19...Rg4 20.Qc2 and 20.Qb5 lose; 20.Re4 is equal; 20.c4 Rf4 draws; 20.Be4 loses; 20.Bc4 is best, but Black draws after 20...Qf5!

OR - Analysis of other moves is mostly a rehash of Staunton with minor improvements; like Staunton he gets the analysis of 19...Bc5 and 19...Qh3 wrong. Most important advance is to suggest the move 19...Rg4 for Black; 20.Re4 and 20.Bc4 are in fact White's only good replies, though 20.Be4 may be good enough to draw. Some errors in analysis, notably 20.c4(?) Rf4?, but the conclusion that 19...Rg4 is a viable defence for Black is correct.

1912 - Gottschall, Adolf Anderssen, der Altmeister deutscher Schachspielkunst, Sein Leben und Schaffen. There's a scan by Batgirl (talk · contribs) here but it's too small for me to read. It looks to me like it's mostly a rehash of Lipke but I'd like to take a closer look at it, maybe cite it for the article.

1925 - Lasker, Manual of Chess. In this famous book Lasker dropped a bit of a bombshell; 19.Rad1 had previously been praised to high heaven in every annotation of the game, Lasker was the first to seriously question it.

Scope - Analysed 19.Be4.

Findings - 19.Be4 would have won; 19.Rad1 is inferior because Black can draw by 19...Rg4.

OR - Not so "OR" in this case since the refutation of Lasker's line 19.Be4 Qh3 20.g3 Rxg3+ 21.hxg3 Qxg3+ 22.Kh1 Bxf2 23.Re2? (23...Nd4!) was already well known. However 19.Be4 is certainly a viable alternative to 19.Rad1 which gives White some winning chances with best play. 19...Rg4 is analysed only superficially and no mention is made of Lipke.

1931 - O. Hoppe and H. Heckner, Kombinatsiya Andersena, in Shakhmatno-Shashechny Almanakh. A bit of a mystery this one, Neishtadt, Zaitsev and others refer to this work but it took a while to identify the original source. I found it by searching on the Cyrillic "О. Гоппе" and "Г. Гекнер" on google books, which got a hit on a bibliography of Soviet chess literature. Even the correct transliterations of "О. Гоппе" and "Г. Гекнер" are uncertain; "Г" could represent either G or H. The names certainly look German, but they could have been Soviet citizens. "Гекнер" could be Heckner or Hoeckner or Geckner or Goeckner. "O. Hoppe" is possibly Oswald Hoppe but no confirmation. I'd have to see the very rare original really, but unfortuantely I don't live anywhere near Cleveland.

Scope - Only secondary sources for this (Neishtadt, Zaitsev, Becker) so unknown, but includes analysis of 19...Rg4

Findings - Several sources credit them with refuting two of Lipke's lines, namely 19...Rg4 20.c4(?) Rf4? 21.Bg6!! and 19...Rg4 20.Bc4 Qf5 21.Rxd7 Kxd7 22.Ne5+ Kc8 23.Nxg4 Nd5 24.Qd1 Nd8, which is refuted by 25.Bd3!.

OR - The first is academic since 20.c4 is now known to be inferior (20...Bd4 or 20...Rxg2+); the second works because of 24...Nd8? when 24...Nxf6 is better. A couple of improvements on Lipke then, but not a total refutation.

1957-58 - Schach-Echo readers. I really want to see the original of this. This is a relatively obscure magazine and the analysis appears to have slipped under the radar at the time; it is not referenced in any of the the Soviet works. This material is second-hand from the ChessBase website.

Scope - analyze alternatives to 19...Qxf3

Findings - 19...Rxg2+ loses; 19...Bd4 draws; 19...Qh3 20.Bf1 Qf5 gives Black winning chances; 19...Rg4 gives Black drawing chances but is less clear than 19...Bd4 or 19...Qh3.

OR - the engine more or less agrees with the analysis as published at the ChessBase site, except that 19...Qh3 is a draw, not a win for Black. (White can just repeat moves with 20.Bf1 Qh3 21.Bd3 etc, not 21.Bxe7?). They also appear to be unaware of the work of Hoppe and Heckner in that they quote the original Lipke line for 19...Rg4 20.Bc4, including the errors 24...Nd8 and 25.Ne5, apparently unaware of H&H's 25.Bd3!. All in all, though, this analysis is probably the most accurate ever published prior to the emergence of strong chess engines.

1959 - Levenfish, Kniga Nachinayushchego Shakhmatista,, 2nd edition.

Scope - analyzed further after 19...Qxf3 20.Rxe7+ Kd8 21.Rxd7+ Kc8 22.Rd8+ Kxd8 23.Be2+

Findings - Black has a draw after 23...Nd4 24.Bxf3 Bxf3 25.Rxd4+

OR - as pointed out by Neishtadt White still wins by 25.g3! Nevertheless, credit to Levenfish for raising the issue (and in a beginner's book no less). Before him analysts just took for granted that White was winning after 23.Be2+

1961 - Neishtadt, Shakhmatny do Steinitsa (Nekorovannye Championy from 1975 contains largely the same material).

Scope - Brief notes on the game, followed by review of Lipke, Lasker, H&H and some original analysis. Was he the first to refute Lasker's 23.Re2? Haven't seen earlier examples.

Findings - Besides H&H's 19...Rg4 20.c4 Rf4 21.Bg6!!, 21.Qb5 Qh6 22.Bf5 Qxf6 23.Rxd7! also wins. Lasker's line is refuted by 23...Nd4!; concludes from this that 19.Rad1 was better. In the 19.Rad1 Qxf3 20.Rxe7+ Kd8 line, Levenfish's analysis is refuted by 25.g3 instead of 25.Rxd4+

OR - Analysis is high quality and mostly correct; errors are of omission rather than commission. No improvement suggested for Lasker's line, leading to incorrect conclusion that 19.Rad1 was clearly better than 19.Be4. Didn't find 19...Bd4 or 19...Qh3; appears to be unaware of Schach-Echo work.

1963 - Christopher Becker, Exploring the Evergreen, Chess Review vol 31 issue 12

Scope - Reviews state of analysis up to Neishtadt, but is unaware of Schach-Echo. Analyses 19...Rg4 20.Bc4 Rxg2+ and 19...Rg4 20.c4 Rxg2+

Conclusion - Black can draw after both 19...Rg4 20.Bc4 Rxg2+ and 19...Rg4 20.c4 Rxg2+

OR - In fact 19...Rg4 20.c4 Rxg2+ is a probable win for Black after 21.Kxg2 Qg4+ 22.Kf1 Qxf3 (rather than 22...Qh3+ given by Becker). 19...Rg4 20.Bc4 Rxg2+, on the other hand, is a probable win for White after 21.Kxg2 Qg4+ 22.Kf1 Ba6 23.Nd2 Qf4 24.Kg2! (not 24.Nd2 or 24.Re2 given by Becker).

More to come. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)