Talk:Immortal game

This is arguably the most famous game in history - certainly one of the most famous - so it made sense to add this to the Wikipedia.

However, it turns out that two of my sources had different moves than the rest, and that inconsistency was a problem. To determine what were the "right" moves, I've grabbed as many different sources as I can, ones that hopefully use different background sources, to make sure that I've placed the right moves here. I then used standard textual critism techniques to determine what's correct.

I've looked at 8 different sources. All but 2 of them agree with the moves listed here, including the Chesslive database, "Chess for Dummies", Chernev's "The Chess Companion" (1968), and Kavalek's 2003 chess column in the Washington Post that specifically covered this game. The two dissenting works are Savard's and Burgess' works, which differ in DIFFERENT ways from the moves given here. Savard disagrees at move 3 for a few, and again at move 8 for a few, but then agrees with the majority after that. Burgess agrees with the majority until move 18, at which point it diverges from everyone else. Note that not even the two dissenting works agree with each other!! Burgess doesn't even justify why it should be different from anyone else; Savard claims that at move 3 it's right (and everyone else is wrong), but gives no evidence of this, and then diverges again without explanation at move 8.

Thus, I have strong evidence that the two "dissenting" works are simply in error, and that the majority view is in fact the correct sequence of moves. However, I've documented where the differences are, so that someone else can dissent. -- Dwheeler 22:58, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I beg to move a change from the PGN format to plain algebraic notation, as has been done with the Opera game (chess). -- Lord Emsworth 23:57, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

'Tis done. At some point, I or somebody else needs to do the same to Evergreen game (chess). --Camembert

The same has occured at the other page. I merely wished to check if there was objection from any individual to the change in format. Lord Emsworth 01:25, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

"Kieseritzky was well-known for being able to beat lesser players in spite of great odds."

Is that right? Shouldn't that be "better" or "stronger" players? MikeCapone Mar 07 2004.

I think it's right as it is, though it's not entirely clear. What it's saying is that Kieseritzky was able to beat weaker players despite giving them a great material advantage at the start of the game--for instance, Kieseritzky might start without his queen. Such games are said to be played "at odds", hence the wording of the article. I'll try to make it a bit clearer. --Camembert

Ah, yes. It makes sense now. Thanks. MikeCapone Mar 07 2004.

---

Why are these articles at "x game (chess)"? I don't think there's an evergeen game in baseball... - Woodrow 21:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I meant to move them a couple of weeks ago, and forgot. I'll do it now. --Camembert

Who was what color.

Can it be made more obvious who is white and who is black in the game commentary? . It can be worked out but perhaps should be stated at the top. SimonLyall 04:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Immortal Game", or perhaps "The Immortal Game", as it is a proper noun? Neilc 10:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey

Roadrunner is mistaken - the game used by Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssey was not the Immortal Game but de:Roesch – Schlage, Hamburg 1910. Please check the German wikipedia. Miastko 18:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)