cruz abdul: Well I think you can play h2-h3 some what the same which you play with white. You should not try too much punish from that move. This is how I have been thaught about this kind of moves.

cruz abdul: I don't know anything about h2-h3 but I know that Andersen played 1.a2-a3 a couple of times as white ... his idea was (a) to confuse the opponent (b) simply, to "make white black" - after, let's say 1.a2-a3 e7-e5 he would follow along the usual lines of the black ... 2.e2-e4, etc.

Pafl:
Actually Andersen would most likely have played 2. c2-c4 as he did in his match with Morphy three times in 1858! Hugh Myers would have liked an e4 follow up more likely and he wrote something about it in a couple of his books. I think he called it something like Mangarini's Opening, but my spelling may be off on that.

panzerschiff:
Correct! There is no reason Anderssen(and not Andersen) to want to play "black moves" when he had white, since in that match he lost all his games as black against Morphy except one. So there was no reason to want to play black lines....
Also with 1.a3 he succeeded an equal result of 1 win, 1 lose and 1 draw that is 50% while against Morphy in the same match when he tried other opening he had 75%(1 win, 1 draw) so we can't consider 1.a3 a success for him.....
Also Anderssen may tried 1.a3 because he may liked to play a kind of reversed Sicilian Defense after 1...e5 Who knows what he had in mind?!?!
The best responses i know are 1...Nf6! 1...g6 and 1...d5 but 1...e5 is playable too.....

Chicago Bulls: Poor Anderssen didn't have much luck with the Spanish game either just getting a draw and a loss with it in his other two whites. Actually 1.a3 could have been a success if he had followed up his opening advantages better. Morphy did not handle the closed positions very well that arose out of this reversed Sicilian. Beim's books "Paul Morphy a Modern Perspective" gives some interesting analysis on these games. Anderssen should probably have won the 6th match game that he lost with 1.a3, but a lack of practice and the speed of the play did not help his chess in that match.

It is too bad that Morphy did not give Anderssen a rematch or play Kolisch a couple of years later. Unfortunately we chess players have missed out on a number of interesting matches, because of players losing interest in the game or refusing to play worthy contenders in the good old days before FIDE or after if for that matter! If we count Kramnik's refusal to play Kasparov before the latter retired from chess.

panzerschiff: .
.
.
Yes i would like to see Kasparov's revenge against Kramnik but also i would be thrilled to see these old days (1997-1998), the revenge against Deep Blue after his tragic loss....

Chicago Bulls: Yes, another match with Deep Blue would have been good publicity for chess. Unfortunately IBM did not have anything to gain by it as the win they had was already worth millions in publicity. Kasparov's accusations of cheating and his general behavior after the 2nd game in the 2nd match also did not help his cause for bringing about another match. "Trash talk" has its place in sporting events and can help generate interest in boxing and other types of sports, but when dealing with corporate types there are different rules. Kasparov and other top chess players haven't always caught onto those rules and they now suffer for the lack of reliable corporate sponsorship in chess events. One big consequence is having to put up with the Kirsan and many of his reforms!

cruz abdul:
Clemenz Opening
I think Franz Kafka played this opening sometimes.