You need balls as well as brains to go through with something like that.

wow, very interesting

That is the craziest opening I've seen.

brrrrilllliant.........................

The Bird game is nice but black played badly. 10.cxb4 seems a waste (why not rescue the bishop on d1 for example), and 11. Nf6 is clearly a massive blunder (e.g. Bg4 would stop any mate threat on f5)

Brilliant :O

That was a nice sacrifice by Henry Edward, then clamping the king down like that, brilliant!

The Bird simulation is amazing. Though I feel Ivanchuk's was more insightful perhaps in the context of the game.

How did this game after the queen sac go so quickly?! At the end, white is clearly winning because black's king is separated from the queen while the two rooks can do their job.

I've seen this before and I'm just curious, why can't black take the pawn on the second move?  I know I probably sound retarded, but yeah...

Looking at those two is very interesting.

Both involve what must be called a speculative queen sacrifice, although there is some difference in motivation.

The Bird game is romantic chess at its shakiest (although I must say I have not subjected it to computer analysis). If you don't mate the king, with that material deficit, you will lose.

But the Ivanchuk game! Look at the motivation for the sac - not just mating threats but incredible understanding of the positional aspects of the sacrifice - look at how Qg7 diverts the bishop from the protection of the knight and the queenside.

Rb1 is a wonderful move also in my opinion.

wow

I would never do a queen sac like that. GM's have incredible insight into positions.

What about this one:

(Of course, this Queen sac is completely unsound, but Bird played against a weak player and he knew it, so why don't get some fun)