McDonnell - La Bourdonnais. Two Theoretical Disputes And A Bit Of History
O.K. Before I start, in putting this together I have done a couple of things. Although McDonnell had the 'lucky' Black pieces in all the games, I have shown him as White in the games where he had the first move, rather than create correct PGNs. An act of laziness!
Secondly I give him as McDonnell, although he also used the Irish form M'Donnell, as that is now the database standard. ( My own researches have also uncovered a couple of documents in the National Archives - which would have been taken down by a secretary - where he is referred to with the Scottish version MacDonnell )
In a couple of recent articles I have written a little about the games played between the two in a line of the Sicilian Defence, noting that this was one of the ongoing theoretical debates between the players. In fact for 160 years or so - pre engines - opening theory developed through studying the games played by the best players. That process really started with the games between McDonnell and La Bourdonnais. So let's have a quick look at how those debates finished up - three of the games being from the last of their six matches.
Early in their games McDonnell had huge problems in both the Queen's Gambit and the Sicilian Defence. The latter was noted in a letter to George Walker which was later published in The Chess Player's Chronicle.
Lot's in the game notes here, so this is another of my posts where you should probably go through one game and then come back later! Apart from a glimpse in to my world of trying to examine how chess ideas developed, you get some wonderful chess to enjoy.
Let's start with The Queen's Gambit, on which there was virtually no theory at the time. The last two of their games in that opening are both fascinating! The first of those is one of the two most famous of the games between the two - 'The Immortal 50th'. The line given on 3.e3 was particularly important, and makes quite a modern impression, I think.
In the second game of the final match La Bourdonnais was ready to go into the line again, after losing the previous game ( In that match McDonnell was given curious 'odds' - his first 3 games with White were all to be counted as wins, so in the games played La Bourdonnais had the first move in three consecutive games. )
It is perhaps the game from the matches that I have spent the most time with.
La Bourdonnais from Le Palamede 1841 - this version via @batgirl here - https://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/louis-charles-mahe-de-la-bourdonnais
Let's take a look at how the Sicilian Defence debate ended up.
And the last game between the two, which decided the match in McDonnell's favour - 5-4 in games played, plus his three game 'start'.
So finally the little bit of history, which involves McDonnell's final recipe against the Sicilian.
George Walker's column in Bell's Life was the first important chess column in the history of the game imho. This is the one from Jan 24th, 1836. The next week he gave a second game between the two - an Evan's Gambit.
That final game of MDonnell - date and location given above. It's more typical of games at these kind of odds than the one sided anthology pieces that were usually published - White is basically losing until near the end, but finally the weaker player stumbles.