White: Adolf Anderssen Black: Jean Dufresne
Opening:
Evans Gambit (
ECO C52)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 :The Evans Gambit, an opening popular in the 19th century and still occasionally seen today. White gives up to gain an advantage in .
4... Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 :A solid alternative, unknown to theory at the time, is 6...d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.0-0 Bb6 with the idea of ...Na5, driving White's bishop off the dangerous a2-g8 diagonal. (
Spielmann-
Salwe,
Vienna 1908)
8... Qf6 9. e5 Qg6 :White's e5-pawn cannot be taken: if 9...Nxe5, then 10.Re1 d6 11.Bg5, when 11...Qf5 (11...Qg6 12.Nxe5 dxe5 13.Rxe5+ wins the bishop) 12.Nxe5 wins the
knight (if the knight is recaptured with 12...dxe5, then 13.Qb5+ followed by 14.Rxe5+ wins).
10. Re1 (diagram) :In his 2023 book
Re-Engineering the Chess Classics, in which he analyzes 35 classic chess games with the aid of modern
chess engines, Grandmaster
Matthew Sadler criticizes this move, preferring 10.Rd1, with the idea of regaining the pawn after the inevitable ...d6.
10... Nge7 11. Ba3 :Consistent with the previous move, but 11.Qd1 and 11.Re3, eliminating the d3-pawn, are preferred by engines. Better was 15...d2! 16.Nexd2 0-0 (
Lasker), although White still has a clear advantage.
16. Bxd3 Qh5 17. Nf6+? :A dramatic sacrifice, but this move is objectively bad, turning a won position into an equal one. Lasker's analysis turned out to be faulty, however. Analysis by
Jacob Murey and German Fridshtein published in the Soviet magazine
64 in 1975 found that after 19.Be4 Qh3! 20.g3 Rxg3+ 21.hxg3 Qxg3+ 22.Kh1 Bxf2 23.Bxe7! (Lasker's 23.Re2? is refuted by 23...Nd4!) 23...Qh3+! 24.Nh2 Bxe1 25.Rxe1 Qh4! 26.Qd1! Nxe7 27.Bxb7 Qxf6 the game will likely end in a draw. Subsequent analysts such as
Zaitsev and
Kasparov have agreed with this assessment.
19... Qxf3? :"Who would have played anything else here?!" (Lipke, 1898). White cannot play 20.gxf3 since the g2-pawn is
pinned by the rook on g8. Black now threatens to take either on f2 or g2, both major threats to the white king, but Anderssen has a shattering resource available. :Dissatisfied with the lack of analysis in the game's original publication,
Howard Staunton published a detailed analysis of several of Black's alternatives in the ''
Chess Player's Chronicle'' in 1853. Staunton analysed 19...Ne5, 19...d6, 19...Bc5, 19...Rxg2+ and 19...Qh3, concluding that Black was lost in all lines. Lipke recommended 19...Rg4!? for Black, concluding that it offered Black excellent drawing chances with . Lipke's main line went 19...Rg4 20.Bc4 Qf5! 21.Rxd7! Kxd7 22.Ne5+ Kc8 23.Nxg4 Nd5 24.Qd1 Nd8 25.Re5 Bxf2+ 26.Kh1 Nf4 27.h3 and now either 27...Qb1 or 27...Nxg2 will probably draw for Black. or 20...Rxg2+! (Kasparov). :Most analysts have followed Staunton in rejecting 19...Rxg2+?! on account of 20.Kxg2 Ne5 21.Qxd7+!!, but
I.J. Good contended that after 21...Kxd7 22.Bg6+ Ke6 23.Bxh5 Rg8+ 24.Kh3! N7g6 25.Bg4+ Kxf6 26.Nxe5 Nxe5 27.Be7+ Kxe7 28.Rxe5+ Kf6 White does not have a clear win in the
endgame. :In 1958, analysis by readers of the
Schach-Echo came to the conclusion that 19...Bd4 and 19...Qh3 are even better than 19...Rg4 and sufficient to force a draw. (19...Bd4 was also found independently by Zaitsev. White must instead play 25.g3! (Neishtadt, 1961) :It is unclear whether the following moves were actually played, or whether Anderssen simply "announced mate", a common practice at the time. The
Deutsche Schachzeitung where the game was originally published simply said "White mates in 4 moves", without providing the actual moves. ==See also==