The Evergreen Game: Anderssen's Queen Sacrifice That Never Gets Old
Anderssen vs. Dufresne, Berlin 1852: the Evans Gambit where White sacrificed both rooks and then his queen to force checkmate. Wilhelm Steinitz called it 'the Evergreen', it's been proving him right ever since.
The Evergreen Game is a chess game played in Berlin in 1852 between Adolf Anderssen (White) and Jean Dufresne (Black). Anderssen sacrificed two rooks across the middlegame and then delivered a queen sacrifice on move 21, forcing checkmate in three more moves against a king that had run out of hiding places. Wilhelm Steinitz named it “die immergrüne Partie”, the Evergreen, in 1889, a name the game has justified continuously for 170 years.
Its companion piece, the Immortal Game, was played one year earlier and has one more famous sacrifice. The two games together established Anderssen as the dominant genius of the pre-Steinitz era.
The game
The opening is an Evans Gambit: White offers a pawn on b4 on move 4. Dufresne accepted and spent the next fifteen moves collecting material while Anderssen developed his pieces. By move 11, Anderssen had left his a1 rook hanging. Dufresne took it. By move 13, the h1 rook had entered the game by capturing on d7. The board was open, White’s pieces were active, and the attack was coordinated before Dufresne realized how committed he was.
The complete game score (public domain: played 1852):
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5
4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4
7. 0-0 d3 8. Qb3 Qf6 9. e5 Qg6
10. Re1 Nge7 11. Ba3 b5 12. Qxb5 Rb8
13. Qa4 Bb6 14. Nbd2 Bb7 15. Ne4 Qf5
16. Bxd3 Qh5 17. Nf6+ gxf6 18. exf6 Rg8
19. Rad1 Qxf3 20. Rxe7+! Nxe7 21. Qxd7+! Kxd7
22. Bf5+ Ke8 23. Bd7+ Kf8 24. Bxe7#Game score is public domain. Played in Berlin, 1852.
How the queen sacrifice works
The move 21.Qxd7+ is forced. Dufresne has to take the queen with his king (21…Kxd7), because accepting it with the knight would allow a different mating line. After 21…Kxd7, Anderssen plays 22.Bf5+: a check from the bishop. The king retreats to e8. Then 23.Bd7+ forces the king to f8. And 24.Bxe7 is checkmate, because the bishop on e7 covers all escape squares and the rook on d1 controls the d8 square from behind.
The mechanism that makes it work is piece coordination. By move 19, Anderssen’s bishops on a3 and d3, the rook on d1, and the knight on f6 (exchanged on move 17 to open the f-file) had collectively produced a position where Black’s king had no safe squares. The queen sacrifice is the trigger, not the idea. The idea was built from moves 10 to 19.
Dufresne’s error was strategic. He took material at every opportunity (the rook on a1 at move 11, the queen on f3 at move 19) instead of developing his pieces. He was a piece ahead at the end. He was mated.
The name and the comparison to the Immortal Game
Steinitz used the term “immergrüne Partie”, the Evergreen Game, in Die Moderne Schachpartie (1889), his analysis of key games in chess history. The name refers to the game’s enduring appeal: it stays fresh, remains instructional, and doesn’t age. Falkbeer coined “the Immortal Game” in 1855 for the Anderssen-Kieseritzky game from 1851. The two names, applied to two games by the same player one year apart, became the standard vocabulary for chess brilliancy.
The comparison between the two games is a minor industry in chess commentary. The Immortal Game has a more dramatic sacrifice count (both rooks and a bishop before the queen). The Evergreen Game has a longer combination. The coordination from move 15 to 24 is harder to see in its entirety than the Immortal’s climax. Which is “better” depends on what you find more beautiful: the spectacle or the construction.
Both were casual games. Neither was played in a tournament. Anderssen was, informally, the best player in the world in 1851 and 1852, and these two games are the reason anyone remembers it.
What club players can take from it
The Evergreen Game is useful to study not for its specific combinations, the Evans Gambit and the specific positions that arise are not standard tournament fare in 2026, but for the principle it illustrates: piece activity and coordination compound into decisive advantages faster than most players expect.
Dufresne had more material. Dufresne had pawns and pieces that were not working together. Anderssen had fewer material resources and a completely coordinated army. The queen sacrifice was available not because Anderssen calculated every line from move 1, but because he had arranged his pieces so that the queen sacrifice would always be available if the position developed the way he expected.
That planning habit, building coordination in advance, is what Logical Chess: Move by Move (Chernev, Batsford) teaches through 33 complete annotated games. Every move explained, including the quiet ones that set up the visible fireworks. See our chess improvement guide for more on how this kind of study integrates with tactical training.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Evergreen Game in chess? The Evergreen Game is a game played by Adolf Anderssen (White) against Jean Dufresne (Black) in Berlin in 1852. Anderssen sacrificed two rooks and then his queen to force checkmate on move 24. Wilhelm Steinitz named it “die immergrüne Partie” (the Evergreen) in 1889.
Who played the Evergreen Game? Adolf Anderssen, a German chess master and winner of the 1851 London International Chess Tournament, played White. Jean Dufresne, a German chess journalist and player, played Black. The game was played informally in Berlin.
How does the queen sacrifice in the Evergreen Game work? On move 21, Anderssen plays Qxd7+. The king must take it (21…Kxd7). Then Bf5+ forces the king to e8. Bd7+ forces it to f8. Bxe7# is checkmate. The remaining bishops and rook had been coordinated for this mating pattern since move 15.
What is the difference between the Immortal Game and the Evergreen Game? Both were played by Anderssen, one year apart. The Immortal Game (1851) involves sacrificing both rooks, a bishop, and a queen. The Evergreen Game (1852) involves a more extended coordination phase before the queen sacrifice on move 21. The Immortal Game is more dramatic; the Evergreen Game is more constructive in its buildup.
Sources
- Steinitz, Wilhelm. Die Moderne Schachpartie. 1889. (First use of “Evergreen” designation for this game.)
- Hooper, David, and Kenneth Whyld. The Oxford Companion to Chess. Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Evergreen Game complete score, chessgames.com
This page contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, DiscussChess earns from qualifying purchases.
Sources
- Steinitz, Wilhelm. Die Moderne Schachpartie. 1889. (First use of 'Evergreen' designation.)
- Hooper, David, and Kenneth Whyld. The Oxford Companion to Chess. Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Evergreen Game score — chessgames.com
Further reading
- Logical Chess: Move by Move — Irving Chernev, Batsford edition — ASIN verified via Open Library 2026-05-02. Chernev annotates complete games in plain language, the same analytical approach that makes the Evergreen Game comprehensible to players at any level.
- My 60 Memorable Games — Bobby Fischer, Batsford/Pavilion edition — ASIN verified via Open Library 2026-05-02. Fischer's annotations of his Najdorf games demonstrate the same principle visible in the Evergreen Game: active piece coordination beats static material counting.