maybe the "quote" option should be open for article comments like they are on other forums... then it wouldnt matter who deleted what :)

i see your point.

Yes, I see we have the option of deleting our own comments. But if we posted something we later wanted to retract (for whatever reason) wouldn't the "edit" our own comments serve the same purpose? In all instances where his comments were deleted, he posted afterwards. He could have just as easily edited his comment. Deleted comments, especially when referred to in subsequent comments, have a disjointed effect. I know I'm new here, but maybe the option of deleting our own comments shouldn't be an option.

Good game

as far as i know he deleted them himself.

thanks for the quote bibliophile, that's really fun to hear!

I'm new here and don't really know the culture, but I'm curious as to why some of Precessional_Groove's comments are deleted. Is it because he deleted them himself or because they violated a guideline, or for some other reason?

Blackburne, the loser of  this game was himself a terrific combinational player.It was not for nothing that he was known as Black Death. Just before that 29th move he had high hopes of winning the game. After all, he still had a menacing rook on the 7^th rank. While waiting for Zukertort’s move, he walked around. Here is his humorous account of what happened:

"On returning, Zukertort  had not yet made his move, but it dawned on me that the sacrifice of the Rook was fatal and the only question was whether he would find out…I presently heard a crash as though a piece were being slapped down with all the emphasis a man’s muscles could give it, and there came a tap to my shoulder, “Your clock is going, I have made my move,” he said, and from the expression of his face and the manner in which he drew himself upto his full height I felt that I might remark as the writer did when the audience damned his play, "He has found out, has he?”

uh ... no.

I only thought it was a cool thing to say ... it appeared to be a humble, wise laughter, as if bellowed by the Buddha ... ... ...

my bad

you thought i would play all the way to mate in one without ever noticing resignation was my best move?

i had some suspicions all along, but if i was wrong it would have been *so* rude to voice them.

I wasn't going to say this ... but I give props where props are due and ...

... that was a cool reply.

(something I could not have calculated ... nice).

hahaha.

Wow ... all this attention from an IM ... I feel priviledged indeed.

Well then, how about these moves then:

29. Rf8+  Qxf8

30. Bxe5+  Kxh7

31. Qxe4+  Kg8 (moving backward instead of forward).

32. Qg6+ (or if you see better .. I'd like to know)  Kf6 (why cover with Queen? It's time to liquidate forces !!)

33. Rf3   Ke 7 or e8 (in preparation to trade Queen for rook)

After which, White has a Queen, a Black Bishop and 5 pawns (with a d-file pawn in prep for capture), versus Black's two Rooks, White Bishop and only two Pawns. However, Black is poised for a 7th or 8th rank checking combo and possible checkmate sequence.

You see ... ... one can punch numbers into a computer all day long and OBVIOUSLY win ... ... but only a human being can be a sarcastic, wiseguy, no good, trouble-maker ... who makes a game ... and particularly this one .. more difficult to win than it should other wise be. That's a behavior a computer is INCAPABLE of performing ... but leave it up to a human being ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .... .. ... and they'll surprise ya each and every time.

Thanks again for the comments and replies ... I'm done with this puzzzle/article now ... I've contibuted enough to the chess community, and my work here is done ... ... the rest is left for interpretation. Gonna go on Live Chess and mayyyybe Chess Live 2 (but only if the games are rated).

See ya'll there !!

Peace

precessionalgroove:

Rf8+! Qxf8 Bxe5+ is winning, for example: Kxh7 Qxe4+ Kh6 (Kg8 Qg6+ Qg7 Qxg7++) Rh3+ Kg5 Rg3+ Kh6 Qg6++

and is you second question about 31...Kh6? that would lead to Rh8+ Kg5 Rg3++

best,

david

hmm ... the sequences do lead to Black's checkmate if Blacks's Queen takes the White Queen at b4 (I had to play it out OTB rather than visualize it in my head to see it. I try to visualize move sequences during games and when analizing other games ... don't always have a board and pieces around, you know) ... but then I still hold to my first impression of this game: it's a win on a blunder, or else why doesn't Black's Queen take the Rook at f8 on move 29 ??

Instead, Black moves King xh7 ... shoulda taken Rook with Queen ... then White's Rook attacks at f3-g3 and h3 would be ineffective and just cause the Black King to charge down the board (or at the very least, pull for a draw with 3xrep). Even with White's Bishop capturing at e5 with a possible check and a possible capter at e4 by White's Queen ... missing a Rook capture at f8 still appears to me to be a game losing blunder.

I lose games on blunders all the time ... there is nothing impressive about the other opponent regarding that. This game just looks like that, a victory on an opponent's blunder, which brings me to this:

Why didn't Blackburne, playing as the Black Kingdom, move his King instead of taking White's Rook at f8 ??

Without a logical answer to this ... ... it's just another game that was won because of an opponent's blunder ... ... just my impression ... nothing more.

Peace

Dear chris1011,

Knowledge develops when one asks the questions, how and why.There is no question of accepting anything on  mere faith or trust.This is chess. Everything has to be demonstrated by giving speific lines and variations. Do you think chess would have grown if everybody had just accepted whatever Steinitz or Zukertort had said? Let us all express our ideas and learn together.

I like to think that i know a little bit about chess, However watching this game makes me realize how little I really know. On the side it makes me feel better to know that im not the only person out there who doesnt get all the moves( but im still smart enough not to question the play or annotations of a grandmaster like so many others are willing to do). for everyone who says the game was played badly there is a reason we play on chess.com and zukertort,steinitz, and becerra play in tournaments you should trust their comments and judgement. 

Many things have said and done, but it is important understanding a master chess mind working during a game. This game is wonderful, thanx for sharing...

 Dear Precessional Groove,

Here is what happens if the queen is taken.28..Qxb4 29.Bxe5+ Kxh7 30.Rh3 Kg6 31.Rg3 Kh6 32.Rf6 Kh5 33. Rf5 Kh6 34.Bf4 Kh7 35.Rh5#.

Please do not judge the play of past masters by this one single game. Their play could also be unorthodox and complex.Take a look at the games of Labourdonnais -Mcdonnell Match( 1834) Then you would know.