PDA

View Full Version : The Most Important Chess Games of All Time



Desmond
02-12-2007, 08:58 AM
According to Chessgames.com:

The Chessgames.com Top Ten List

After years of Chessgames.com members filing games away in their game collections, we've compiled detailed statistics on which games are considered the most important.

Here are the ten most important chess games of all time, according to our members.

1. D Byrne vs Fischer, 1956 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361) - "The Game of the Century"
2. Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011478) - "Kasparov's Immortal"
3. Anderssen vs Kieseritzky, 1851 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910) - "The Immortal Game"
4. Morphy vs Karl/Isouard, 1858 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404)- "The Opera House Game"
5. Rotlewi vs Rubinstein, 1907 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1119679) - "Rubinstein's Immortal"
6. Anderssen vs Dufresne, 1852 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961) - "The Evergreen Game"
7. Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067175) - "The Brisbane Bombshell"
8. R Byrne vs Fischer, 1963 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008419)- "The Brillancy Prize"
9. Spassky vs Bronstein, 1960 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1034110) - "King's Gambit"
10.Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1922 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012099) - "Three Queen Sacrifices"

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2007, 10:52 AM
Mostly, the usual suspects. :lol: I don't think a list of most downloaded games really answers the difficult question "most important". "Most famous", certainly.

Basil
02-12-2007, 12:27 PM
And of course, "usual suspects" to seasoned players.

Desmond
02-12-2007, 05:00 PM
Semantics aside, there's 10 great, entertaining games there for those who haven't seen them before, and there just as entertaining for those who have!

Spiny Norman
03-12-2007, 01:55 PM
They didn't list my favourite game of all time ... I suppose its "just a favourite" as opposed to "top 10 important":

Grigory Serper vs Ioannis Nikolaidis 1-0 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1289099) (St Petersburg Open 1993, King's Indian Defense: Kramer Variation)

In this game, White sacrifices every piece ... both knights, both bishops, both rooks, and his queen ...

1.c4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nge2 Nbd7 6.Ng3 c6 7.Be2
a6 8.Be3 h5 9.f3 b5 10.c5 dxc5
11.dxc5 Qc7 12.O-O h4 13.Nh1
Nh5 14.Qd2 e5 15.Nf2 Nf8 16.a4 b4 17.Nd5 cxd5 18.exd5 f5 19.d6
Qc6 20.Bb5 axb5
21.axb5 Qxb5 22.Rxa8 Qc6 23.Rfa1 f4 24.R1a7
Nd7 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8 26.Qd5 fxe3 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.Rxd7 exf2+ 29.Kf1
Qe8 30.Rf7+ Qxf7
31.Qc8+ Qe8 32.d7 Kf7 33.dxe8=Q+ Rxe8 34.Qb7+
Re7 35.c6 e4 36.c7 e3 37.Qd5+ Kf6 38.Qd6+ Kf7 39.Qd5+ Kf6
40.Qd6+ Kf7
41.Qxe7+ Kxe7 42.c8=Q Bh6 43.Qc5+ Ke8 44.Qb5+ Kd8
45.Qb6+ Kd7 46.Qxg6 e2+ 47.Kxf2 Be3+ 48.Ke1 1-0

Ian Rout
03-12-2007, 02:36 PM
Semantics aside, there's 10 great, entertaining games there for those who haven't seen them before, and there just as entertaining for those who have!
I think entertaining is a good word. Or famous. Certainly not "important". Only numbers 1 and 7 have any real claim on that; at least two are not even tournament or match games.

Depending on your criteria, important games off the top of my head might be, for instance Spassky - Fisher (3) 1972 (Fischer's first win against Spassky and turning the match around); Capablanca - Marshall 1916? (launch of the Marshall Gambit); Kasparov - Karpov (24) (can't remember which year, 1987 or 1990?) where Kasparov had to win the last game; Botvinnik - Bronstein (23) 1951. Maybe Short - Kasparov (1) 1993; if Short hadn't over-stepped the time limit and then gone on to win the match the last fifteen years might have been vastly different.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2007, 08:44 PM
What one considers "important" depends on the purposes one has in mind. Morphy vs Duke/Count is "important" as a tool for teaching juniors that you need to develop your pieces rapidly or else you get crushed like a hemipteran. But it isn't very relevant to the development of chess theory, given that the opponents played rather badly.

Something I find interesting in that list is the years the games were played in, when you put them in order:

1851
1852
1858
1907
1922
1956
1960
1963
1985
1999

Three servings of hack-and-slash from the 1850s, but then only two games from the next almost one hundred years, until you are into the tops of the pops from the modern era. And the games from 1956, 1960 and 1963 are two wins by Bobby Fischer against other Americans who, while strong, were hardly players of the highest order, plus a game that is famous because it appeared in a Bond film.

Still, that's where the popular market is at. This suggests to me that those downloading games from chessgames.com are mostly the general interested-in-chess public, rather than very strong players engaged in serious study of history.

Entertaining? Sure, of course.

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 01:30 AM
What one considers "important" depends on the purposes one has in mind. Morphy vs Duke/Count is "important" as a tool for teaching juniors that you need to develop your pieces rapidly or else you get crushed like a hemipteran.

But it isn't very relevant to the development of chess theory, given that the opponents played rather badly.
Strangely enough, Black's 'orrible play probably counted as leading theory of the age, since Harrwitz played it in his match with Morphy that year (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055946)and lasted longer, even though he surrendered the Pf7 and castling rights.

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2007, 08:01 PM
Strangely enough, Black's 'orrible play probably counted as leading theory of the age, since Harrwitz played it in his match with Morphy that year (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055946)and lasted longer, even though he surrendered the Pf7 and castling rights.

Yes, I know quite a deal about this ...Bg4 line since I have had one particular opponent who, despite once being mated on move 10 by a sub-1000 junior while playing it, continued to play it for years later and gave me quite a number of free points in the process.

I'd say 3...Bg4 is just ridiculous garbage except that the gambit 4...Nd7 is vaguely interesting.

HygherNtlgnce
20-12-2007, 12:08 PM
According to Chessgames.com:

Here is one you missed see if you can figure it out!

1 Pe2-e4 Pe7-e5
2 Bf1-c4 Pd7-d6
3 b1-c3 b8-c6
4 Ph2-h3 Qd8-f6
5 c3-d5 Qf6-d8
6 Pa2-a3 g8-f6
7 d5-c3 f6-g8
8 Pd2-d3 Ph7-h6
9 g1-f3 Qd8-f6
10 Bc1-e3 Qf6-g6
11 f3-h4 Qg6-h7
12 Qd1-f3 c6-d8
13 c3-d5 Ke8-d7
14 Qf3-g4+ Kd7-c6
15 d5-b4++

Adamski
21-01-2008, 02:36 PM
Here is one you missed see if you can figure it out!

1 Pe2-e4 Pe7-e5
2 Bf1-c4 Pd7-d6
3 b1-c3 b8-c6
4 Ph2-h3 Qd8-f6
5 c3-d5 Qf6-d8
6 Pa2-a3 g8-f6
7 d5-c3 f6-g8
8 Pd2-d3 Ph7-h6
9 g1-f3 Qd8-f6
10 Bc1-e3 Qf6-g6
11 f3-h4 Qg6-h7
12 Qd1-f3 c6-d8
13 c3-d5 Ke8-d7
14 Qf3-g4+ Kd7-c6
15 d5-b4++

You'll have to tell me. I am agog to know.

arosar
21-01-2008, 02:55 PM
What about the Mona Lisa?

AR

bill718
25-01-2008, 04:30 AM
This may be a silly question, but how does a
chess game get to be "Imporntant"?? Do they
need to display a new opening idea? A complicated
tatical situation? A game with the fewest errors?
Or...is all of this just a matter of opinion? I'm a
player of modest strength (1650) So I need to
learn a bit more about this.
:eh:

Basil
25-01-2008, 12:02 PM
All of those things would be considered I should imagine. One that changes long-held tenets, not to mention other defining criteria - perhaps political environment and social attitudes as a result of the game :hmm: