With Great Power, Comes Art
Adolf Anderssen, back in 1851, in London, while attending the first international tournament of chess, played a casual game with Lionel Adalbert during a break. That serendipitous contest, would result in the Immortal Game of Chess.
That's quite a title, but here in the present day, when I asked about ten games, which embodied the epitome of the game, this game tittle unanimously made the list. This game and Paul Morphy's Opera House Game – played in Paris a couple of years later, in 1858. After those two, variations begin to show up in the list as to which others should be proposed. But those two games have made their indelible mark on the history of our culture.
From this game I have learned so much, for example I learned what a Pure Mate is.
A Pure Mate is a device from the Romantic Era of Chess.... well... we say Romantic Era of Chess but really it was the Romantic period experienced by just about everyone in the European states and territories. For chess specifically, it was a time where flash and style were prized above victorious play. Victory was nice, but did you look good doing it? Did you bring art into your play?
This era was in the 18th century declining around 1880s. The Romantic era of play was followed by the Scientific, the Hypermodern, and then the New Dynamism eras.
A pure mate is when all of the remaining pieces (not pawns, but the pieces) are all used to render the mate, and each is used for a unique need. i.e the Be7 attacks the King. Nd5 covers c7, Ng7 covers e8. Each are required for this mate to be successful. All of the rest of White's pieces have been used in the battle and have been sacrificed in a nearly forced-move manner to arrive at this resolution of the game.
Anderssen brings art to this play. But it's not an art everyone can enjoy. It takes learning and study and a non-trivial commitment of time and effort in order to gain enough understanding to appreciate the joke. Because that's really what this is. A joke, a celebration of art and creative conjuration.
It is true that my own understanding and ambitions with chess are still being forged. You could, easily, challenge my conclusion that humor drove Anderssen to render this amazing set of positions and instead had a more serious purpose. Refuting that my idea -- that this was meant as an elaborate punchline -- as being naïve, broadline insulting. You could. Well, you could right up until move 20.
20. e5
Right up until that moment I would have questioned my own understanding -- because I am a nube. Seriously. How could I possibly look at a page of algebraic pattern descriptions and expect to glean anything other than the most basic of understandings ... the pawn moved to e5.
But, I did read it, and I did understand. I understood, because I have been in a room where I thought I understood the threat levels. Where I felt good about the level of menace I projected in return – only to be rudely enlightened by the sound of the exit door being closed and deliberately locked with a clean metallic click. And that clear, fearless voice explaining, "Now, now youse can't leave." : https://youtu.be/ZDAlifCmd8w
Up until that moment, of course I would’ve doubted my grasp -- my read of the play. I’m a nube. My first interpretation after reading the PGN of the game, did not reach toward 'genius'. Not at all. Quite the reverse, in fact. I didn't understand that the moves I took to be blunders, were in fact the virtuoso strokes of a paragon.
And why would I think anything else? Every time that kind of thing happened to me, it certainly wasn't on purpose. Those moves were blunders. Even Stockfish will tell you, those are blunders. What madness, what twisted idiopathic drive would interpret Anderssen's activity as 'masterful'?
My PGN literacy is still mildly pathetic. Looking at a page of the code, or pages imprinted with those small single position board shots, the ones filling all of the chess play and puzzle manuals... There's a steep learning curve before a student is capable of enjoying the nuances of this sport – of which there are many. Volumes stuffed with lightly annotated games, filled libraries around the world. But they are not accessible to everyone. Not after you first begin.
This is probably why Chess has a difficult time attracting new players on a regular bases. The commitment is daunting. When I first noted the label ‘casual game’ I decided that there must be a definition of ‘casual’, which I have not been aware of. Because so far it has been focused and difficult work, with only glimpses of possible enjoyment in a possible future.
It was only after going through the game script several times, and writing annotations for the positions myself, that I began to piece it together. And my first access square into that rank of comprehension was 20. e5.
What caught my attention was the placement of the move. After the move, there is no fat in the play. And prior to 20. very little could be called superfluous. I didn’t understand the moves completely, and at first interpreted them poorly. But Anderssen’s play wasn’t purple. The energy of the board changed every time he moved his pieces. And then there was 20. e5.
He doesn't need to make this move. The board is set. All of the pieces are in position, ready to do his bidding. The play from this point, with the sacrifices about to be preformed are forced or as good as forced. So...? Why did he stop? Why did he pause and move that pawn one space forward before claiming his victory? Then I heard it, that click of the lock, securing the only way out.
Once I heard in my mind’s theater, the latch of that door clicking secure, the rest of the game began to file into my mind, and reveal the creative genius of a chest grand master. That door closing in the face of the dark Queen, struck me like Helen Keller’s well water.
It is incredibly difficult to grasp concepts you are unaware exist. In other areas of my life I have learned a truth, and that is Answers are easy. Honestly, they are. You can find answers on any street corner. In any Forum or Comment section on the Internet, there are answers waiting for us. And if they don’t know the right one you are certain to get answers anyway. Heck, they make them up on the spot.
What is difficult, and discerning – what moves us forward to success and the joy of a casual game, is the right question.
==== Note ==== Update ====
A reader pointed out that my 19. e6 was actually 20. e5. Looking up the game I found he was right, and edited the above appropriately. However, I originally procured the PGN for the game from another source. I checked it using the source on Chess.com. --- And then, out of some nagging need to believe, but verify, I went back to my original source which stubbornly said, No, it is 19. (I did get the e6 wrong, that was e5 </blush>. After some searching around looking for balance and understanding -- I found that this has been a problem for others. Apparently, the PGN for this game was altered over the many years (centuries in fact) of its publication going from one journal, to another newspaper to another magazine. My first source was aligned with one of these alterations from history, while the version on Chess.com is inline with the original -- as best as we can tell. (</sigh>).
If I was less of a nube I could probably reconcile these differences better. But I'm just going to leave it at this point. Thanks for reading this far. Enjoy the game -- and the drama.
