Who cares if my opponent is 17 points above me?
How do you define an "Immortal Game"? Because you made one mistake and five blunders(according to Stockfish).
@ChessladderJP said in #2:
> How do you define an "Immortal Game"? Because you made one mistake and five blunders(according to Stockfish).
They are sacrifices.
> How do you define an "Immortal Game"? Because you made one mistake and five blunders(according to Stockfish).
They are sacrifices.
In chess, a sacrifice is a move giving up a piece with the objective of gaining tactical or positional compensation in other forms. The OP's opponent did not play well, so the essentially poor sacrifices were rewarded, although they were blunders.
Actually he meant "Immoral Game".
This is actually one of the worst games I have ever seen. Both players 200+ ACPL.
Makes sense.
It is true, that an Immortal game normally has sacrifices, that lead to victory.
Here, for Instance the original Immortal Game: lichess.org/study/W0FQk4eB#35 (I hope, this does not count as advertizing)
You can see, that Anderssen played some dubious moves (or sacrifices, since he gave up his Bishop and both Rooks), but in the end, he won with a nice Queen-sacrifice. So, this example shows us, that a Game, that also is an Immortal Game, needs to have sacrifices, to exist as an Immortal game. (Of course, there are probably some variations, where an Immortal Game does not need any sacrifices.)
Were Anderssens sacrifices correct? Not really, with best play, Black would have won, but Black is no engine.
Did Anderssen had a superior position through the sacrifices? Arguably not, but then again, he had the initiative through sacrificing his pieces.
Were Andessens sacrifices, in the context of the game, beautiful? Many people - including me - think: Yes, this game, although it has it's flaws, is quite beautiful.
So, an Immortal game does not need to be flawless (which would be hard to achieve, since a innacuracy, mistake or blunder needs to occur to lead to a decisive result, with one side winning) and the more sacrifices it has and the more it appeals optically, the more it is considered a beautiful game and thus it may be considered an Immortal game. So, the OP may be correct when claiming, that it was an Immortal game., although it definetely had some flaws.
Another thing is, that games, that feature sacrifices - be it good and functioning ones or bad and losing sacrifices - are quite often regarded more interesting and beautiful than games, that do not feature them.
As an example, Mikhail Tal, the magician from Riga and former World Chess Champion as well as one of the most popular chess players of all time, sacrificed, although with mixed results, quite often his pieces, but most people would (probably) say, that his games were quite beautiful because or the sacrifices.
Here is an interesting quote from Tal: "There are two types of sacrifices: Correct ones and mine."
But I digress.
I hope, that this post was insightful.
Here, for Instance the original Immortal Game: lichess.org/study/W0FQk4eB#35 (I hope, this does not count as advertizing)
You can see, that Anderssen played some dubious moves (or sacrifices, since he gave up his Bishop and both Rooks), but in the end, he won with a nice Queen-sacrifice. So, this example shows us, that a Game, that also is an Immortal Game, needs to have sacrifices, to exist as an Immortal game. (Of course, there are probably some variations, where an Immortal Game does not need any sacrifices.)
Were Anderssens sacrifices correct? Not really, with best play, Black would have won, but Black is no engine.
Did Anderssen had a superior position through the sacrifices? Arguably not, but then again, he had the initiative through sacrificing his pieces.
Were Andessens sacrifices, in the context of the game, beautiful? Many people - including me - think: Yes, this game, although it has it's flaws, is quite beautiful.
So, an Immortal game does not need to be flawless (which would be hard to achieve, since a innacuracy, mistake or blunder needs to occur to lead to a decisive result, with one side winning) and the more sacrifices it has and the more it appeals optically, the more it is considered a beautiful game and thus it may be considered an Immortal game. So, the OP may be correct when claiming, that it was an Immortal game., although it definetely had some flaws.
Another thing is, that games, that feature sacrifices - be it good and functioning ones or bad and losing sacrifices - are quite often regarded more interesting and beautiful than games, that do not feature them.
As an example, Mikhail Tal, the magician from Riga and former World Chess Champion as well as one of the most popular chess players of all time, sacrificed, although with mixed results, quite often his pieces, but most people would (probably) say, that his games were quite beautiful because or the sacrifices.
Here is an interesting quote from Tal: "There are two types of sacrifices: Correct ones and mine."
But I digress.
I hope, that this post was insightful.
@BharathSom
Its truly a immortal game....Maybe the sacrifices are blunders according to the engine...But as i know 'Romantic Chess' is also like that....Isnt it?
Its truly a immortal game....Maybe the sacrifices are blunders according to the engine...But as i know 'Romantic Chess' is also like that....Isnt it?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.