The story behind the game
Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky played this casual game in London in 1851. Later known as the Immortal Game, its lasting value lies in the contrast between material won and pieces able to defend. The score rewards calculation, while modern analysis also reminds us that beauty and objective accuracy are different questions.
Take these ideas to your next game
- A queen far from its own king can be a poor defender.
- Find forcing threats before automatically saving an attacked rook.
- Use the opponent’s restricted king as a tactical clue.
- A famous move still deserves critical examination.
Read the complete annotated game
Full game transcript, including the result and the answers. Original explanations by chessgames.info; game score from the sources below.
An attacked piece does not always have to move immediately. Anderssen plays 11.Rg1 while the bishop on b5 is attacked by the c6 pawn. Black captures it, and White continues gaining space against the queen with h4 and h5. This is a practical invitation to compare threats rather than respond automatically. Consult the saved alternatives: the historical choice is interesting without needing a claim that it was the only good move.
The queen can win material while the rest of the army loses time. The historical 17.Nd5 increases White’s central control. Black’s queen then takes b2 and later a1, moving far from the defence. White’s knights and bishops can operate close to the king. Compare the engine candidates before deciding whether every part of the attack was forced; the teaching point is the difference between material gain and defensive coordination.
Sometimes the king’s job is simply to let the other pieces work. After the black queen takes a1 with check, 19.Ke2 steps out of the check while White’s attack continues. It is tempting to judge an uncastled king by a rule alone. Here you must examine actual checking lines and the activity of the remaining pieces. The saved candidate lines help test that judgement from this exact position.
The final sacrifice works because the minor pieces control the escape squares. After 21…Kd8, Anderssen plays 22.Qf6+. The reply …Nxf6 removes the g8 knight, and 23.Be7 is checkmate in the recorded game. Work backward from the mating position: the knight and bishops determine where the king can go. A queen sacrifice becomes calculable when the defender’s available replies are sharply restricted.
Result: 1-0. The final position is checkmate.
Think through the turning points
Move 11: Choose activity over comfort
How would you keep White’s pieces active while the bishop is attacked? In the game: Rg1. An attacked piece does not always have to move immediately. Anderssen plays 11.Rg1 while the bishop on b5 is attacked by the c6 pawn. Black captures it, and White continues gaining space against the queen with h4 and h5. This is a practical invitation to compare threats rather than respond automatically. Consult the saved alternatives: the historical choice is interesting without needing a claim that it was the only good move.
Engine-supported alternatives
Rg1 h5 h4 Qg6 Ba4 d5 Bxf4 hxg4 Qe1 dxe4 dxe4 Nh5 · -0.53 · depth 16
Ba4 g6 e5 Nxg4 Nd6+ Bxd6 exd6 Ne3+ Bxe3 fxe3 Qf3 Qe5 · -0.99 · depth 16
Qf3 Qxg4 · -1.22 · depth 16
Move 17: Central pieces, distant queen
What matters more here: a pawn on b2 or access to the black king? In the game: Nd5. The queen can win material while the rest of the army loses time. The historical 17.Nd5 increases White’s central control. Black’s queen then takes b2 and later a1, moving far from the defence. White’s knights and bishops can operate close to the king. Compare the engine candidates before deciding whether every part of the attack was forced; the teaching point is the difference between material gain and defensive coordination.
Engine-supported alternatives
d4 Ne7 dxc5 Nxf5 gxf5 Bb7 Rd1 O-O Nd5 Bxd5 Rxd5 Re8 · +4.25 · depth 19
Nxb5 · +3.58 · depth 19
Re1 Qc6 Nxg7+ Kd8 Nd5 Na6 c3 Bb7 Nf5 Qe6 b4 Bb6 · +3.15 · depth 19
Nd5 Qxb2 Re1 Bb7 d4 Bf8 Bd6 Nc6 Qg3 g6 Bxf8 gxf5 · +3.25 · depth 21
Move 19: Keep the king out of the checks
How should White meet the check without abandoning the attack? In the game: Ke2. Sometimes the king’s job is simply to let the other pieces work. After the black queen takes a1 with check, 19.Ke2 steps out of the check while White’s attack continues. It is tempting to judge an uncastled king by a rule alone. Here you must examine actual checking lines and the activity of the remaining pieces. The saved candidate lines help test that judgement from this exact position.
Engine-supported alternatives
Ke2 Qb2 Kd2 Bxg1 e5 Ba6 Nb4 Ne7 Qxa8 O-O Nxe7+ Kh8 · +0.63 · depth 19
Kg2 Qxg1+ Kh3 f6 d4 Bxd4 e5 Bf2 Qe4 Qf1+ Kh2 Qe1 · -3.29 · depth 19
Qd1 Qxd1+ Kg2 Qxg1+ Kh3 Qh1+ Bh2 Qf1+ Kh4 Bf2+ Bg3 Qh1+ · -10.81 · depth 18
Move 22: Make the geometry work
Which check can remove the last obstacle to a mating pattern? In the game: Qf6+. The final sacrifice works because the minor pieces control the escape squares. After 21…Kd8, Anderssen plays 22.Qf6+. The reply …Nxf6 removes the g8 knight, and 23.Be7 is checkmate in the recorded game. Work backward from the mating position: the knight and bishops determine where the king can go. A queen sacrifice becomes calculable when the defender’s available replies are sharply restricted.
Engine-supported alternatives
Qf6+ Nxf6 Be7# · Mate 2 White · depth 23
Qxf7 Qe1+ Kxe1 Bf2+ Qxf2 Nh6 Qf6# · Mate 4 White · depth 23
Qf4 Bc5 Qxf7 Qxe5+ Bxe5 Ne7 Bf6 Bb7 Ne6+ dxe6 Bxe7+ Kd7 · +6.52 · depth 23
Every piece has a part to play.
Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky played this casual game in London in 1851. Later known as the Immortal Game, its lasting value lies in the contrast between material won and pieces able to defend. The score rewards calculation, while modern analysis also reminds us that beauty and objective accuracy are different questions.
Look a little deeper
Play on the board or type your move. Strong engine-supported alternatives receive credit.
Future moves stay hidden until you continue.
Try a different path.
Select a key moment to explore legal continuations supported by saved Stockfish analysis.
Accessible evaluation values & provenance
Stockfish 17.1 · 75,000 nodes per position; 1,000,000 at key moments. Actual depth 11–245. Positive centipawns favour White; mate scores remain separate. Selective search is evidence, not proof.
Download complete engine evidence