What Is The Greatest Human Chess Game Ever Played?

[Don]

That is a good one, but it was so long ago - it does not remind me of the game I was thinking about. I remember the queen sacrifice as being almost positional and hard to believe - in this beautiful game it's not hard to believe there might be immediate tactics.

I don't really remember such a Fischer's game but i do remember one of Tal's.
He gave his Queen for N+B for positional purposes only. No immediate attack or gain of material.
I remember after days of analysis that the sacrifice was sound but no program of the time was able to play it. These were the Deep Fritz 8/Shredder 8 days i remember, and i was able to find that black gets better after countless of variations.

Don't know if analysis with todays programs would change the soundness of the move or if they can find it(if it of course proves correct with them also).

Tal played 11...Nxd5 here giving his Queen.
Bobotsov-Tal was the game.
[d]r1b2rk1/3nppbp/p2p1np1/qppN4/2PPP3/4BP2/PP1QN1PP/1K1R1B1R b - - 0 11

Komodo briefly considers this move but seems to prefer Qd8. Komodo seems to view black as being down about a pawn. I will let it run a while. If it does not change it's mind I will force Nxd5 and see what the score is after a deep search.

If you have to force a move it's better to let it analyze the forced continuation(after 11...Nxd5) 11...Nxd5 12.Qxa5 Nxe3 in order to save some time.

The attack black creates after some quiet moves like Bb7 and Rfc8 and the possible Pawn march is very strong i think for white and it's a lot far away from engine's horizon. Tough position anyway.

Ok, I advanced the position as you suggested. The score from blacks point of view did go up slightly, but it's still down almost a pawn. So the queen sac looks perfectly playable, but I cannot prove it is winning. I probably could if I wanted to spend a lot of time on this but right now I cannot - but it's certainly interesting.

[yanquis1972]

critter also 'spots' it instantly & prefers it quickly (at least in 2 pv mode) on my quad --

[+0.72] d=23 11...Nxd5 12.Qxa5 Nxe3 13.Rd3 Nxc4 14.Qe1 cxd4 15.Nxd4 Nc5 16.Rd1 Rb8 17.Qf2 Bd7 18.Rc1 Bh6 19.Bxc4 bxc4 20.Rxc4 Nd3 21.Qe2 Rxb2+ 22.Qxb2 Nxb2 23.Kxb2 e6 24.Rb1 Bf4 25.Rc7 Rb8+ 26.Ka1 Bb5 27.Nxb5 axb5 28.a4 Ra8 29.Rxb5 d5 30.Rc2 Rxa4+ 31.Ra2 Rxa2+ 32.Kxa2 dxe4 33.fxe4 Bxh2 (0:04:03) 750750kN
[+0.80] d=22 11...Qd8 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.dxc5 dxc5 14.Nc3 bxc4 15.h4 Rb8 16.Bxc5 Qc7 17.Bd4 Bxd4 18.Qxd4 Nb6 19.h5 Bb7 20.Qe3 Rfd8 21.Be2 Rxd1+ 22.Nxd1 e5 23.hxg6 fxg6 24.Qg5 Rf8 25.Nc3 Ba8 26.Rd1 Kg7 (0:03:12) 602154kN

[yanquis1972]

going back to the origin of the thread, my personal fave is probably still capablanca - marshall new york 1918 (the marshall gambit).

[Event "ch Manhattan CC"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "1918.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "01"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Black "Frank James Marshall"]
[ECO "C89"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "71"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3
O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 Nf6 12.Re1 Bd6
13.h3 Ng4 14.Qf3 Qh4 15.d4 Nxf2 16.Re2 Bg4 17.hxg4 Bh2+ 18.Kf1
Bg3 19.Rxf2 Qh1+ 20.Ke2 Bxf2 21.Bd2 Bh4 22.Qh3 Rae8+ 23.Kd3
Qf1+ 24.Kc2 Bf2 25.Qf3 Qg1 26.Bd5 c5 27.dxc5 Bxc5 28.b4 Bd6
29.a4 a5 30.axb5 axb4 31.Ra6 bxc3 32.Nxc3 Bb4 33.b6 Bxc3
34.Bxc3 h6 35.b7 Re3 36.Bxf7+ 1-0

greatest game ever played, probably not, & also one of the best known. but i still replay it every once in awhile, i think mostly for nostalgia purposes. as a very young attacking player i played it out in my bedroom over a chessboard with chernev's commentary. i believe there's debate over whether marshall had played the opening before, whether capa knew (seems highly doubtful), but at any rate chernev was always smart enough print the legend. marshall cooked this up for capa & cooked it up smoking hot. black's position after the 13th move is the kind of thing i would be licking my lips over (still would --)

[D]r1bq1rk1/2p2ppp/p2b1n2/1p6/8/1BP4P/PP1P1PP1/RNBQR1K1 b - -

what beautiful bishops!

changed the way i looked at chess & instantly vaulted capablanca to my favorite player of the time. naturally & cooly refuting such a powerful prepped attack against one of the last swashbucklers of his age really makes such an impression.

[mwyoung]

going back to the origin of the thread, my personal fave is probably still capablanca - marshall new york 1918 (the marshall gambit).

[Event "ch Manhattan CC"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "1918.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "01"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Black "Frank James Marshall"]
[ECO "C89"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "71"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3
O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 Nf6 12.Re1 Bd6
13.h3 Ng4 14.Qf3 Qh4 15.d4 Nxf2 16.Re2 Bg4 17.hxg4 Bh2+ 18.Kf1
Bg3 19.Rxf2 Qh1+ 20.Ke2 Bxf2 21.Bd2 Bh4 22.Qh3 Rae8+ 23.Kd3
Qf1+ 24.Kc2 Bf2 25.Qf3 Qg1 26.Bd5 c5 27.dxc5 Bxc5 28.b4 Bd6
29.a4 a5 30.axb5 axb4 31.Ra6 bxc3 32.Nxc3 Bb4 33.b6 Bxc3
34.Bxc3 h6 35.b7 Re3 36.Bxf7+ 1-0

greatest game ever played, probably not, & also one of the best known. but i still replay it every once in awhile, i think mostly for nostalgia purposes. as a very young attacking player i played it out in my bedroom over a chessboard with chernev's commentary. i believe there's debate over whether marshall had played the opening before, whether capa knew (seems highly doubtful), but at any rate chernev was always smart enough print the legend. marshall cooked this up for capa & cooked it up smoking hot. black's position after the 13th move is the kind of thing i would be licking my lips over (still would --)

[D]r1bq1rk1/2p2ppp/p2b1n2/1p6/8/1BP4P/PP1P1PP1/RNBQR1K1 b - -

what beautiful bishops!

changed the way i looked at chess & instantly vaulted capablanca to my favorite player of the time. naturally & cooly refuting such a powerful prepped attack against one of the last swashbucklers of his age really makes such an impression.

If this is not the best game ever, it is pretty close to the best ever.

[EroSennin]

For the fireworks thing, I very much like Kasparov-Topalov 1999 Wijk aan Zee. That rook sacrifice is fantastic to play at that level (24 Rxd4).

Here is the game:

[Event "Hoogovens A Tournament (cat. 18)"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "1999.01.20"]
[Round "04"]
[White "Kasparov, Garry (RUS)"]
[Black "Topalov, Veselin (BUL)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2812"]
[BlackElo "2700"]
[Opening "Pirc Defence"]
[Variation "Ufimtsev-Pytel"]
[ECO "B07"]
[PlyCount "87"]

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 c6
6.f3 b5 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.Bh6 Bxh6 9.Qxh6 Bb7
10.a3 e5 11.0-0-0 Qe7 12.Kb1 a6 13.Nc1 0-0-0
14.Nb3 exd4! 15.Rxd4 c5 16.Rd1 Nb6! 17.g3 Kb8
18.Na5 Ba8 19.Bh3 d5 20.Qf4+ Ka7 21.Rhe1 d4
22.Nd5 Nbxd5 23.exd5 Qd6 24.Rxd4!! cxd4?!
25.Re7+! Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 27.b4+ Ka4 28.Qc3
Qxd5 29.Ra7 Bb7 30.Rxb7 Qc4 31.Qxf6 Kxa3?
32.Qxa6+ Kxb4 33.c3+! Kxc3 34.Qa1+ Kd2
35.Qb2+ Kd1 36.Bf1! Rd2 37.Rd7! Rxd7! 38.Bxc4
bxc4 39.Qxh8 Rd3 40.Qa8 c3 41.Qa4+ Ke1 42.f4 f5
43.Kc1 Rd2 44.Qa7
1-0

Saw this game live, after looking at the game the next day. We found that Rxd4 does not work. If Topalov would have ignored the rook sac, the game would have been long forgotten. It took Topalovs blunder after Rxd4 to make Rxd4 work, so I do not consider this game one of the best ever.

I remember some people using the rook sac as a computer test position, but no computer program would play the rook sac....because even in those day the chess programs saw the sac was not winning.

I remember doing analysis and watching the game live. I had at least two engine back then that would play the sacrifice. I am not sure that the sack does not work, but I have not analyzed it in a long time. I am pretty sure me and a friend concluded it did not force a win, but was sound.
In the interest of time, Houdini 1.5 likes Rxd4.


FEN: b2r3r/k4p1p/p2q1np1/NppP4/3p1Q2/P4PPB/1PP4P/1K1RR3 w - - 1 24

Houdini_15_x64:
4/15 00:00 2,604 0 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Rd6xc6 Re1e7+ Ka7b6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Re8e1+ Kb1a2 Rc6e6 Bg2h3 Re6d6 Bh3c8 Nf6d5 Bc8b7 Re1e6 f3f4 Rd6d8 Bb7xd5 Rd8xd5 b2b4 a6a5 Ka2b2 c5xb4 a3xb4 a5xb4
5/33 00:00 3,975 0 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Re8e1+ Kb1a2 Rc6e6 Bg2h3 Re6d6 Bh3c8 Nf6d5 Bc8b7 Re1e6 f3f4 Rd6d8 Bb7xd5 Rd8xd5 b2b4 a6a5 Ka2b2 c5xb4 a3xb4 a5xb4
6/33 00:00 5,724 0 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Rd6xc6 Re1e7+ Ka7b6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Re8e1+ Kb1a2 Rc6e6 Bg2h3 Re6d6 Bh3c8 Nf6d5 Bc8b7 Re1e6 f3f4 Rd6d8 Bb7xd5 Rd8xd5 b2b4 a6a5 Ka2b2 c5xb4 a3xb4 a5xb4
7/33+ 00:00 7,534 0 -0.17 Na5c6+
7/33 00:00 8,466 0 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Rd6xc6 Re1e7+ Ka7b6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Re8e1+ Kb1a2 Rc6e6 Bg2h3 Re6d6 Bh3c8 Nf6d5 Bc8b7 Re1e6 f3f4 Rd6d8 Bb7xd5 Rd8xd5 b2b4 a6a5 Ka2b2 c5xb4 a3xb4 a5xb4
8/33 00:00 12,012 0 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Rd6xc6 Re1e7+ Ka7b6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Re8e1+ Kb1a2 Rc6e6 Bg2h3 Re6d6 Bh3c8 Nf6d5 Bc8b7 Re1e6 f3f4 Rd6d8 Bb7xd5 Rd8xd5 b2b4 a6a5 Ka2b2 c5xb4 a3xb4 a5xb4
9/33 00:00 20,069 557,000 -0.21 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 c6c7 Kb6xc7 Re1e7+ Kc7b6 Re7xf7 Nf6d5 f3f4 h7h6 Rd1e1 Nd5e3
10/33 00:00 28,182 640,000 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Re8e1+ Kb1a2 Rc6e6 Bg2h3 Re6d6 Bh3c8 Nf6d5 Bc8b7 Re1e6 f3f4 Rd6d8 Bb7xd5 Rd8xd5 b2b4 a6a5 Ka2b2 c5xb4 a3xb4 a5xb4
10/33 00:00 47,790 955,000 -0.23 Rd1xd4 Ka7b6 b2b4 Qd6xf4 Rd4xf4 Nf6xd5 Rf4xf7 c5xb4 a3xb4 Nd5xb4 Na5b3 Ba8d5 Rf7f6+ Nb4c6 f3f4 Rh8f8 Rf6xf8 Rd8xf8 Bh3d7 Rf8d8 Bd7xc6 Bd5xc6 Re1e7 a6a5 Re7xh7 a5a4 Nb3c1 Rd8d2 Nc1d3 Bc6e4 Kb1c1 Rd2e2
11/33 00:00 75,562 956,000 -0.28 Rd1xd4 Ka7b6 b2b4 Qd6xf4 Rd4xf4 Nf6xd5 Rf4xf7 c5xb4 a3xb4 Nd5xb4 Na5b3 Ba8d5 Rf7f6+ Nb4c6 f3f4 a6a5 Nb3d4 Rh8f8 Rf6xf8 Rd8xf8 Nd4xc6 Bd5xc6 Re1e7 h7h5 Re7e6 Rf8g8 Kb1b2 a5a4 Re6d6 Kb6c5
11/33 00:00 80,150 1,001,000 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Rc6e6 c2c3 Re8d8 Bg2h3 Re6e1+ Kb1c2 Nf6e8 Rf7f4 g6g5 Rf4f5 d4d3+ Rd2xd3 Re1e2+ Kc2d1
12/33 00:00 104,712 1,203,000 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Rc6e6 c2c3 Re8d8 Bg2h3 Re6e1+ Kb1c2 Nf6e8 Rf7f4 g6g5 Rf4f5 d4d3+ Rd2xd3 Re1e2+ Kc2d1
13/33 00:00 163,981 1,012,000 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Rc6e6 c2c3 Re8d8 Bg2h3 Re6e1+ Kb1c2 Nf6e8 Rf7f4 g6g5 Rf4f5 d4d3+ Rd2xd3 Re1e2+ Kc2d1
14/33 00:00 272,890 1,421,000 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Rc6e6 c2c3 Re8d8 Bg2h3 Re6e1+ Kb1c2 Nf6e8 Rf7f4 g6g5 Rf4f5 d4d3+ Rd2xd3 Re1e2+ Kc2d1
15/33 00:00 458,011 1,982,000 -0.21 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Rd6xc6 Re1e7+ Ka7b6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Rc6e6 c2c3 Re8d8 Bg2h3 Re6e1+ Kb1c2 Nf6e8 f3f4 Re1e3 c3xd4 Rd8xd4 Rd2xd4 c5xd4
16/33 00:00 804,437 2,812,000 -0.21 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Rc6e6 c2c3 Re8d8 Bg2h3 Re6e1+ Kb1c2 Nf6e8 f3f4 Re1e3 c3xd4 Rd8xd4 Rd2xd4 c5xd4
17/33 00:00 1,452,674 3,853,000 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Rc6e6 c2c3 Re8d8 Bg2h3 Re6e1+ Kb1c2 Nf6e8 Rf7f4 g6g5 Rf4f5 d4d3+ Rd2xd3 Re1e2+ Kc2d1
18/35 00:00 2,746,309 5,011,000 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Rc6e6 c2c3 Re8d8 Bg2h3 Re6e1+ Kb1c2 Nf6e8 Rf7f4 g6g5 Rf4f5 d4d3+ Rd2xd3 Re1e2+ Kc2d1
19/38 00:00 4,908,460 6,022,000 -0.22 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Rd6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Rd1d2 h7h5 Bh3g2 Rc6e6 f3f4 Nf6g4 Rf7b7+ Kb6a5 b2b4+ c5xb4 a3xb4+ Ka5xb4 Rd2xd4+ Kb4a5 h2h3 Ng4e3 Bg2f3 Ne3c4
20/40 00:01 10,344,418 7,134,000 -0.18 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Kb6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Kb1c1 h7h5 f3f4 Kc6b6 Bh3g2 Re8e2 Rd1d2 Re2e1+ Rd2d1 Re1xd1+ Kc1xd1 Nf6g4 Kd1d2 Ng4e3 Rf7b7+ Kb6a5 Bg2h3 Ne3c4+ Kd2c1 Rd6c6 Bh3d7 Rc6f6 Bd7h3 Nc4e3 Kc1d2 Rf6d6 b2b3 Rd6d8
21/42 00:02 20,698,104 7,976,000 -0.19 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Kb6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Kb1c1 h7h5 f3f4 Kc6b6 Bh3g2 Re8e2 Rd1d2 Re2e1+ Rd2d1 Re1xd1+ Kc1xd1 Nf6g4 Kd1d2 Ng4e3 Rf7b7+ Kb6a5 Bg2h3 Ne3c4+ Kd2c1 Rd6c6 Bh3d7 Rc6f6 Bd7h3 Nc4e3 Kc1d2 Rf6d6 b2b3 Rd6d8
22/45 00:05 42,379,863 8,225,000 -0.21 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Kb6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Kb1c1 h7h5 f3f4 Kc6b6 Bh3g2 Re8e2 Rd1d2 Re2e1+ Rd2d1 Re1xd1+ Kc1xd1 Nf6g4 Kd1d2 Ng4e3 Rf7b7+ Kb6a5 Bg2h3 Ne3c4+ Kd2c1 Rd6c6 Bh3d7 Rc6f6 Bd7h3 Nc4e3 Kc1d2 Rf6d6 b2b3 Rd6d8
23/54 00:16 132,706,888 8,215,000 -0.18 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Kb6xc6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Kb1c1 h7h5 f3f4 Kc6b6 Bh3g2 Re8e2 Rd1d2 Re2e1+ Rd2d1 Re1xd1+ Kc1xd1 Nf6g4 Kd1d2 Ng4e3 Rf7b7+ Kb6a5 Bg2h3 Ne3c4+ Kd2c1 Rd6c6 Bh3d7 Rc6f6 Bd7h3 Nc4e3 Kc1d2 Ne3c4+ Kd2c1 Nc4e3
24/54- 00:29 256,124,787 8,548,000 -0.25 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6
24/61 01:11 629,868,144 8,862,000 -0.23 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Kb6xc6 f3f4 Rh8f8 Bh3g2+ Nf6d5 c2c3 d4xc3 b2xc3 c5c4 Kb1b2 Kc6c5 Bg2xd5 Rd6xd5 Rd1xd5+ Kc5xd5 a3a4 Kd5c6 Kb2a3 Kc6b6 Ka3b4 a6a5+ Kb4a3 b5xa4 Re7d7 Kb6c6 Rd7e7 Kc6b5 Re7e5+ Kb5b6 Ka3xa4 Rf8d8 Re5b5+
25/61- 01:18 700,574,044 8,885,000 -0.29 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6
25/68 02:47 1,534,780,264 9,180,000 -0.37 Na5c6+ Ba8xc6 Qf4xd6 Rd8xd6 d5xc6 Ka7b6 Re1e7 Kb6xc6 f3f4 Kc6b6 Re7xf7 Rh8e8 Kb1c1 c5c4 f4f5 Re8e2 f5xg6 h7xg6 Rd1d2 d4d3 c2xd3 c4xd3 Kc1d1 Re2e3 b2b4 Nf6e4 Bh3g2 Ne4c3+ Kd1c1 a6a5 b4xa5+ Kb6xa5 Bg2f3 Re3e1+ Kc1b2 Nc3a4+ Kb2a2 Na4c5 Ka2b2 Rd6e6 Rf7a7+ Ka5b6
25/68 03:31 1,932,497,852 9,148,000 -0.29 Rd1xd4 Ka7b6 b2b4 Qd6xf4 Rd4xf4 Nf6xd5 Rf4xf7 c5xb4 a3xb4 Nd5xb4 Na5b3 Ba8d5 Rf7f6+ Nb4c6 f3f4 Rh8f8 Rf6xf8 Rd8xf8 Bh3d7 Nc6b4 Re1e7 Rf8f7 Re7xf7 Bd5xf7 Kb1b2 Nb4d5 Nb3d4 Nd5e3 Bd7e6 Bf7e8 Kb2c3 Ne3f1 Nd4f3 Kb6c5 Kc3b2 Nf1e3
26/68 04:57 2,771,423,701 9,314,000 -0.30 Rd1xd4 Ka7b6 b2b4 Qd6xf4 Rd4xf4 Nf6xd5 Rf4xf7 c5xb4 a3xb4 Nd5xb4 Na5b3 Ba8d5 Rf7f6+ Nb4c6 f3f4 Rh8f8 Rf6xf8 Rd8xf8 Bh3d7 Nc6b4 Re1e5 Rf8d8 Re5e7 Bd5g8 Re7g7 Nb4d5 f4f5 Nd5f6 Bd7e6 Bg8xe6 f5xe6 Rd8e8 e6e7 Nf6d5 Rg7xh7 Nd5xe7 Nb3d4 Ne7d5 Kb1b2 Nd5e3 Rh7f7 Ne3c4+

I'm not sure what your point is, It is clear Houdini does not think the sac is winning. That was my point. Great game, but not the best ever.

You stated the sac does not work, but infact it does work as it's playable, and perhaps the best try for a win. The fact that Rxd4 is playable was my only point. I never said it was winning, but was impressed to see Houdini play it. But I agree, nice game, but hardly the best.

The game I posted isn't certainly the best from a perfect play point of view.

I remember an interview with Kasparov about that, and he said that he went into deep thinking about the sacrifice (about 15-20 ply deep!!) and he couldn't predict if there was going to work on the end because it was so complex.

The greatness of that move is the K played even then he knew it may could not work and a refutation could be found, be he knew it was going to give him great chances of success because the refutation is very hard to find: ie not accepting the sacrifice is not an easy move to play. Seing the winning line and the refutation one over the board in this position for a human in tournament conditions and having the guts to play that against a 2700+ player is what makes this game a great one. Not the best?. No game is.

As has been said, engines refute the sac, but we're talking about "Greatest Human Chess Game Ever Played". Even then, I don't see how taking the sac is a bad move per se, as refuting it is not a good move either (although a better move than accepting it).

First of all Kasparov saw the refutation but he also took into account Topalov's personality. And Topalov just likes to challenge the best of the best in calculation exercises. And lol 15-20 ply? His biggest line went as far as 30 plys.

[OliverUwira]

I think perfect games are very rare. More than likely a perfect games would be a draw, but I suspect that most draws have imperfect moves in them.

I define a perfect move as a move which does not change the game theoretic result - it does not have to necessarily be a good move from our point of view. For example sometimes we have a won game but play a move that makes the win more "difficult" for ourself, but it's still a win.

There is evidence that humans play several hundred ELO below perfect play and I'm estimating that the majority of top grandmaster games have these errors in them. Another way to say this is that a perfect player would rarely not win against a top grandmaster.

Well, the perfect game is not just rare. It has, in fact, not been played as of now. If it took place, chess would be solved.

So, observed from this angle, no game is perfect. We're not, however, talking about perfect but great games. What constitutes a great game is to a large extent dependent on the eye of the beholder.

Whenever you see a supposedly brilliant combination in a game, it is very likely caused by a mistake. There's only a very remote chance that the forced drawing line from the initial position contains any sacrifices (at least in my opinion).

It does not matter whether the players are engines or humans. If you see an engine making a beautiful sacrifice, the opponent engine just didn't see it in time. The same happens in human brilliancies.

But human games have more dimensions. A player might just take his chances to give the game a different direction, e.g. like Kasparov did with his Rxd4 sacrifice.

One has to give the humans credit for that kind of stuff. Crafty has some kind of swindle mode built in for ICS play. That's exactly what a human does once he's been led astray in game.

[Don]

I think perfect games are very rare. More than likely a perfect games would be a draw, but I suspect that most draws have imperfect moves in them.

I define a perfect move as a move which does not change the game theoretic result - it does not have to necessarily be a good move from our point of view. For example sometimes we have a won game but play a move that makes the win more "difficult" for ourself, but it's still a win.

There is evidence that humans play several hundred ELO below perfect play and I'm estimating that the majority of top grandmaster games have these errors in them. Another way to say this is that a perfect player would rarely not win against a top grandmaster.

Well, the perfect game is not just rare. It has, in fact, not been played as of now. If it took place, chess would be solved.

Not so. It's quite likely that many perfect games have been played, for example a few moves by each side ending in a repetition.

The thing is you might play a perfect game with someone but never really know that you have, so that doesn't mean you solved the game.

So, observed from this angle, no game is perfect. We're not, however, talking about perfect but great games. What constitutes a great game is to a large extent dependent on the eye of the beholder.

Whenever you see a supposedly brilliant combination in a game, it is very likely caused by a mistake. There's only a very remote chance that the forced drawing line from the initial position contains any sacrifices (at least in my opinion).

It does not matter whether the players are engines or humans. If you see an engine making a beautiful sacrifice, the opponent engine just didn't see it in time. The same happens in human brilliancies.

But human games have more dimensions. A player might just take his chances to give the game a different direction, e.g. like Kasparov did with his Rxd4 sacrifice.

One has to give the humans credit for that kind of stuff. Crafty has some kind of swindle mode built in for ICS play. That's exactly what a human does once he's been led astray in game.

[Terry McCracken]

I remember seeing a Fischer game where BF sacrificed a queen and it was impressive, because it was not some tactical shot but appeared to be completely based on positional judgement and looked like a blunder. Only after several moves did it become apparent that he knew exactly what he was doing. I wish I could remember where to find that game, I'm curious to know how Komodo would have played it.

This?

That is a good one, but it was so long ago - it does not remind me of the game I was thinking about. I remember the queen sacrifice as being almost positional and hard to believe - in this beautiful game it's not hard to believe there might be immediate tactics.

[D]r3r1k1/pp3pbp/1qp3p1/2B5/2BP2b1/Q1n2N2/P4PPP/3R1K1R b - - 3 17


[Event "Rosenwald Memorial"]
[Site "Game of the Century"]
[Date "1956.10.17"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "8"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Donald Byrne"]
[Black "Robert James Fischer"]
[ECO "D92"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "82"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. d4 O-O 5. Bf4 d5 6. Qb3 dxc4
7. Qxc4 c6 8. e4 Nbd7 9. Rd1 Nb6 10. Qc5 Bg4 11. Bg5 {11. Be2
followed by 12 O-O would have been more prudent. The bishop
move played allows a sudden crescendo of tactical points to be
uncovered by Fischer. -- Wade} Na4 {!} 12. Qa3 {On 12. Nxa4
Nxe4 and White faces considerable difficulties.} Nxc3 {At
first glance, one might think that this move only helps White
create a stronger pawn center; however, Fischer's plan is
quite the opposite. By eliminating the Knight on c3, it
becomes possible to sacrifice the exchange via Nxe4 and smash
White's center, while the King remains trapped in the center.}
13. bxc3 Nxe4 {The natural continuation of Black's plan.}
14. Bxe7 Qb6 15. Bc4 Nxc3 16. Bc5 Rfe8+ 17. Kf1 Be6 {!! If
this is the game of the century, then 17...Be6!! must be the
counter of the century. Fischer offers his queen in exchange
for a fierce attack with his minor pieces. Declining this
offer is not so easy: 18. Bxe6 leads to a 'Philidor Mate'
(smothered mate) with ...Qb5+ 19. Kg1 Ne2+ 20. Kf1 Ng3+
21. Kg1 Qf1+ 22. Rxf1 Ne2#. Other ways to decline the queen
also run into trouble: e.g., 18. Qxc3 Qxc5} 18. Bxb6 Bxc4+
19. Kg1 Ne2+ 20. Kf1 Nxd4+ {This tactical scenario, where a
king is repeatedly revealed to checks, is sometimes called a
"windmill."} 21. Kg1 Ne2+ 22. Kf1 Nc3+ 23. Kg1 axb6 24. Qb4
Ra4 25. Qxb6 Nxd1 26. h3 Rxa2 27. Kh2 Nxf2 28. Re1 Rxe1
29. Qd8+ Bf8 30. Nxe1 Bd5 31. Nf3 Ne4 32. Qb8 b5 {Every piece
and pawn of the black camp is defended. The white queen has
nothing to do.} 33. h4 h5 34. Ne5 Kg7 35. Kg1 Bc5+ 36. Kf1
Ng3+ {Now Byrne is hopelessly entangled in Fischer's mating
net.} 37. Ke1 Bb4+ 38. Kd1 Bb3+ 39. Kc1 Ne2+ 40. Kb1 Nc3+
41. Kc1 Rc2# 0-1

Since the first Byrne game was entered I think the more profound second game by his brother should be included.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008419

[Event "US Ch."]
[Site "-"]
[Date "1963.12.18"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Robert Eugene Byrne"]
[Black "Robert James Fischer"]
[ECO "E60"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "42"]

1. d4 {Notes from various sources.} Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 c6
4. Bg2 d5 5. cxd5 {5.Qb3 maintains more tension. -- Fischer}
cxd5 6. Nc3 Bg7 7. e3 O-O 8. Nge2 Nc6 9. O-O b6 10. b3 {It's
hard for either side to introduce an imbalance into this
essentially symmetrical variation. Deadeye equality also
ensues afer 10.Nf4 e6 11.b3 Ba6 12.Re1 Rc8 13.Ba3 Re8 14.Rc1
(Stahlberg-Flohr, Kemeri 1937) -- Fischer} Ba6 11. Ba3 {After
White's 11th move I should adjudicate his position as slightly
superior, and at worst completely safe. To turn this into a
mating position in eleven more moves is more witchcraft than
chess! Quite honestly, I do not see the man who can stop Bobby
at this time. -- K.F. Kirby, South African Chess Quarterly}
Re8 12. Qd2 e5 {! I was a bit worried about weakening my QP,
but felt that the tremendous activity obtained by my minor
pieces would permit White no time to exploit it. 12...e6 would
probably lead to a draw. -- Fischer} 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Rfd1
{"Add another to those melancholy case histories entitled: The
Wrong Rook." -- Fischer ~ "This is very much a case of 'the
wrong rook'. One can understand Byrne's desire to break the
pin on the e2-knight, but this turns out to be less important
than other considerations. Fischer spends a lot of time and
energy analysing the superior 14. Rad1!, but still comes to
the conclusion that Black can keep the advantage." -- John
Nunn} Nd3 {Now it's all systems go for the Fischer rocket. --
Robert Wade} 15. Qc2 {There is hardly any other defense to the
threat of ...Ne4. -- Fischer} Nxf2 {! The key to Black's
previous play. The complete justification for this sac does
not become apparent until White resigns! -- Fischer} 16. Kxf2
Ng4+ 17. Kg1 Nxe3 18. Qd2 {Byrne: As I sat pondering why
Fischer would choose such a line, because it was so obviously
lost for Black, there suddenly comes...} Nxg2 {!! This
dazzling move came as the shocker... the culminating
combination is of such depth that, even at the very moment at
which I resigned, both grandmasters who were commenting on the
play for the spectators in a separate room believed I had a
won game! -- Robert Byrne} 19. Kxg2 d4 {!} 20. Nxd4 Bb7+ {The
King is at Black's mercy. -- Fischer} 21. Kf1 {In a room set
aside for commentaries on the games in progress, two
grandmasters were stating, for the benefit of the spectators,
that Byrne had a won game. Byrne's reply to Fischer's next
move must have been jaw dropping! -- Wade} Qd7 {And White
resigns. Fischer writes: "A bitter disappointment. I'd hoped
for 22.Qf2 Qh3+ 23.Kg1 Re1+!! 24.Rxe1 Bxd4 with mate to follow
shortly."} 0-1

[d]r3r1k1/pb1q1pbp/1p4p1/8/3N4/BPN3P1/P2Q3P/R2R1K2 w - - 0 22

[jdart]

I don't have one favorite, but I like this one, which Beliavsky won:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1257904

[UncombedCoconut]

There's no way on Earth these qualify for "greatest", but I have a soft spot for these king hunts:
Edward Lasker - George Alan Thomas, London 1912
Eugen Soberheim - Salomon Langleben, Montreal 1895