Talk:Evergreen Game: Difference between revisions
Sun Creator (talk | contribs) m Standard WikiProject syntax, replaced: Chess|importance=High|class=Start → Chess|class=Start|importance=High using AWB |
→Punctuation: new section |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
Fixed. [[User:Winston365|Winston365]] ([[User talk:Winston365|talk]]) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
Fixed. [[User:Winston365|Winston365]] ([[User talk:Winston365|talk]]) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Punctuation == |
|||
The article currently gives 19. Rad1 only one exclamation mark but 21. Qxd7 two. Seems the wrong way round to me; I know the queen sac is very splashy, but once the position before Qxd7 had arisen any novice could have spotted the entirely forced winning continuation, whereas spotting the win in advance on move 19 ''and'' working out that alternative moves by Black also led to a White win makes this a much more impressive move (and indeed the cornerstone of the whole game). [[Special:Contributions/91.105.61.167|91.105.61.167]] ([[User talk:91.105.61.167|talk]]) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:22, 16 June 2010
Chess Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
19...Qxf3
Alternative 19 ... Qh3 (defends d7) 20 Bf1 Qf5 (still defends d7) 21 Qe4! Qxf6 22 Bb5 (with threat Bxc6 and Qxe7) Kd8 23 Rxd7 Kxd7 24 Bxe7 Qe6 25 Qd3 Kxe7 26 Rxe6+ Kxe6 27 Qe4+ with Draw by perpetual check.
also
19 ... Rxg2? 20 Kxg2 Ne5 21 Qxd7+! ChessCreator (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
20...Nxe7
Does 20...Nxe7 deserve a question mark? For sure, it allows an attractive mate in four, but are the alternatives any better? Analysis on chessgames.com suggests 20...Kd8 21.Rd7+! Kc8 22.Rd8+! Kxd8 (...Rxd8?? 23.gxf3) 23.Bf5+ Qxd1+ 24.Qxd1+ Nd4 25.Bh3 and white is better, and 20...Kf8 21.Rxd7+ Ke8 22.Re7+ Kd8 (...Kf8 23.Rxc7+, also transposing unless black wants to lose his bishop and both rooks in a vicious windmill), transposing to the previous line.
Until someone posts analysis that black can hold after 20.Rxe7+, I'm removing the ?.WarmasterKron 13:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- 20 Rxe7+ Nxe7 is not the best but doesn't really deserve a question mark as others also lose.
- 20 ..... Kf8? 21 Re3+ d6 22 Rxf3 easy +-
- 20 ..... Kd8 21 Rxd7+ Kc8 22. Rd8+ [22...Rxd8 23. gxf3 +-] Kxd8 23. Bf5+ Qxd1 24. Qxd1+ Nd4 25. g3 +-
- My feeling is 20...Nxe7 doesn't deserve a question mark. Also in my view 20. Rxe7 doesn't deserve double '!!' as there is no other move to stop the double Black threat on f2 or g2, one could say White was forced into playing the correct combination. ChessCreator (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Evergreen Quotation
I would like to refer to the Steinitiz citation of the game as the "evergreen in Anderssen's laurel wreath." Perhaps we should clarify what this remark actually referred to? After Anderssen won the 1851 International Chess Tournament in London, when he returned to Berlin, he was crowned with a laurel wreath by the citizenry. Steinitiz felt that game with DuFresne would give Anderssen "immortality", thus the symbolism of the "evergreen".
ChessHistorian 00:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Evergreen is a way of saying "always green" like immortal, is this the basis of it's name? ChessCreator (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why Evergreen in a wreath? There is indeed a translation problem. In German, Evergreen (Immergrün) is the name for Vinca (or Periwinkle), an Evergreen plant of course. As the German Vinca article states, 'in former times young girls used wreaths made from Evergreen (= Vinca) while dancing to strengten their aura'. Appropiately, the term Vinca derives from Latin vincire "to bind, fetter". Simply speaking, it's a symbol for eternal youth! --DaQuirin (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
URL Name and Title
Is it 'Evergreen' or 'Evergreen Game'. If it's the former then the URL would make sense to be 'Evergreen (Chess)', if it's the latter then the title with the capital 'G' for Game would be appropriate. ChessCreator (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Old stuff. This is American/British capitialisation. ChessCreator (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Commentator named Burgess
The article refers to 'Burgess' ("...Burgess suggests Re1 instead") without a wikilink, first name or FIDE title. Perhaps it would be appropriate to, at least initially, give the commentator's full name/title, especially as s/he is not exactly a 'household name' in chess? --Smkruse (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Graham Burgess FIDE Master, author in top reference as follows:Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms. The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games. 1998. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-7867-0587-6.
- Agreed it could be made a bit clearer in the article. ChessCreator (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done, along with a lot of linking. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
incorrect board setup
The animation of the game features a opposite colored chess board. All the dark squares should be light / light squares should be dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qauz (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are right! Yikes...how did I miss that? I'll fix it right away. Thanks for pointing it out. Winston365 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Winston365 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Punctuation
The article currently gives 19. Rad1 only one exclamation mark but 21. Qxd7 two. Seems the wrong way round to me; I know the queen sac is very splashy, but once the position before Qxd7 had arisen any novice could have spotted the entirely forced winning continuation, whereas spotting the win in advance on move 19 and working out that alternative moves by Black also led to a White win makes this a much more impressive move (and indeed the cornerstone of the whole game). 91.105.61.167 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)