< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Dec-31-11|| ||Lambda: Marshall was an aggressive, tactical player. But Lasker at least equalled him in tactical ability, and was superior in many other areas. This never ends well for the tactician. Just look at the difficulties that the likes of Shirov, Polgar, Short etc. had against Kasparov. Only the more strategic Karpov and Kramnik could trouble him.|
|Jan-05-12|| ||chesstyro: maybe try something besides the french?|
|Jan-05-12|| ||AVRO38: <How could Marshall not win a single game against Lasker in this match...>|
The same question could be asked about Lasker in the Capablanca match!
|Jul-04-12|| ||Agent Bouncy: krippp has no idea what an American is. That's why he invents his own special definition.|
|Jul-21-12|| ||King.Arthur.Brazil: For the Chess future, thanks God for LASKER remain WCC. Surely MARSHALL was weak to get there. Several times his peaces were misplaced, exposed to many kinds of double attacks and eventually he lose Ps, 1B, or quality much easily. Many times he left his opponent with 2B. There's no big trouble to LASKER win, seems more final technique. Even old, STEINITZ showed big chess than MARSHALL.
He dind't show to worry about material, but this is the main cause of its opponent sucess. Few of his well played games, he let it draw or lose. LASKER knew how and when to win! Didn't work too much.|
|Jul-21-12|| ||RookFile: Lasker was a stronger player. Oddly, Marshall without a doubt made more significant contributions to the opening the Lasker did. That was the problem with Lasker: even when you got him into trouble out of the opening, his great fighting qualities would rise up and he would win or draw the game anyway.|
|Aug-06-12|| ||Phony Benoni: There's a statement in the introduction that I'm not sure about:|
<Frank James Marshall was born in New York City, but spent his youth in Montreal where he rapidly rose to the top of the chess scene. Upon returning to the USA, he won the US Championship (although refused to accept the honor, as Harry Nelson Pillsbury did not participate).>
As far as I can figure, this is referring to his victory in the 7th American Chess Congress at St. Louis 1904. That event was originally intended as a US Championship event, but objections from Pillsbury and others scuttled the idea; therefore, it does not seem correct to say that Marshall won the US Championship there. See <crawfb5>'s introduction to his tournament collection:
Game Collection: St. Louis 1904
|Aug-06-12|| ||Petrosianic: It's also not clear when he refused the honor. Max Judd organized that tournament to try to yank the US title out from under Pillsbury, who was still alive, but ailing. It was hugely controversial at the time. I've heard that Marshall didn't accept the honor, but I've also heard that he did at first, and that the Capablanca-Marshall match was actually organized as a US Title defense.|
Supposedly, after Marshall lost the match, he argued that Capablanca couldn't challenge for the US Title at all, as he wasn't a citizen. They agreed to let Walter Penn Shipley arbitrate it. Shipley ruled that Capablanca wasn't US Champion because he wasn't a US citizen, but Marshall wasn't US Champion either, because when Pillsbury died, the title reverted to Jackson Showalter, the last person to hold it.
At this point, Marshall scooted off to Kentucky, challenged Showalter to a title match, and won it, which caused Capablanca to give up his plans to become a US Citizen. It's not entirely clear, but I'm guessing that Marshall accepted the 1904 Congress as being a US Championship until Shipley's ruling.
|Aug-06-12|| ||jnpope: http://books.google.com/books?id=NF...|
Helms records Pillsbury still being US Champion after Marshall won St. Louis 1904. I think Judd wanted it to be for the US Championship and Pillsbury (and his supporters) protested (a statement can be found in the American Chess Bulletin for 1904 p94 prior to the tournament). If I recall correctly, St. Louis was restated to be the for the "US Tournament Championship" and I think that is what was embossed on the medal Marshall won as part of first prize (I'll need to double check that).
Without an official organizing body managing the title it really depends upon which version of history someone wants to believe... much like the history of the World Championship prior to 1886.
|Aug-07-12|| ||Petrosianic: Yes, if we could see a picture of that medal, it would clear up a lot. It may be that Marshall never considered himself US Champion as a result of that tournament, but just assumed that he was champion by acclamation after Pillsbury died.|
|Aug-07-12|| ||Everett: <RookFile: Lasker was a stronger player. Oddly, Marshall without a doubt made more significant contributions to the opening the Lasker did. That was the problem with Lasker: even when you got him into trouble out of the opening, his great fighting qualities would rise up and he would win or draw the game anyway.>|
I read recently that one current top-GM thinks that Marshall was probably the best opening theoretician of his day, better than the WCs on down when it came to ideas and plans from the beginning position.
|Mar-13-13|| ||ranny: The Marshall quote in the introduction is incorrect. What he actually wrote in My Fifty Years of Chess was, "Speaking of matches, I had several unfortunate results about this time...The grim business of wearing down your opponent has never appealed to me very much."|
|Jul-16-14|| ||jnpope: I still haven't found a photograph, but I did find this recently...|
<F. J. Marshall, first prize, $500 and a gold medal, inscribed "CHAMPION;" Max Judd,
second, $300; Louis Uedemann, Western champion, third, $150; Emil Kemeny, fourth,
$100; fifth, $50, tied for and divided by L.Eisenberg and Ed. Schrader.
We own to a lively curiosity to see what would come of the offer of that much disputed gold medal. If, as now reported, the medal is simply inscribed "CHAMPION," which simply means, we suppose, "a champion chess player," without undertaking to say champion of any particular country. If so. It can not be said that Mr. Pillsbury's rights are in any way invaded, or that Mr. Marshall should have any delicacy about accepting the pretty trinket. The incident and its controversy seem to be harmlessly closed-and rather neatly, too.>
New York Clipper, 1904.11.19, p898.
|Sep-25-14|| ||jnpope: Now that I have successfully completed my move (from an apartment to a condo) I'm starting to get back into the swing of things... here are a few more tidbits I dug up re: Marshall becoming US Champion in 1904.|
<Frank J. Marshall, the Brooklyn chess master, left for St. Louis by the Pennsylvania Railroad at 2 o'clock this afternoon, the object of his trip being to participate in the international masters tournament of the seventh American chess congress opening in the exposition city next Tuesday.
In view of the trouble between Harry N. Pillsbury, the American champion, and the St. Louis committee over his title to the championship, Marshall should have the field pretty well to himself, his most dangerous opponents probably being J. W. Showalter and Max Judd, both of whom are said to have entered.
Before leaving, Marshall said he had written Pillsbury assuring him he would in no case accept the American championship, even in case of success at St. Louis, and that he recognized him, Pillsbury, as the rightful champion.>
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1904.10.07, p12
<The first prize of $500 and a gold medal as tournament champion of America goes to Frank J. Marshall of Brooklyn [...] >
New York Times, 1904.10.27, p1
<Marshall, in addition to the cash prize of $500, received a gold medal with the title "champion" engraved thereon.>
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1904.10.30, p31
|Sep-25-14|| ||ljfyffe: 1n 1895, Marshall was awarded Mason's Art of Chess for a best game played.|
|Mar-07-15|| ||kevin86: A real massacre! Marshall wasn't in the same zip code as Lasker.|
|Apr-26-15|| ||Fusilli: I imagine this must have been the most lopsided world championship match ever, right?|
|Apr-26-15|| ||Phony Benoni: <Fusilli> That distinction probably goes to Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910), where Lasker scored +8 -0 =3.|
|Apr-26-15|| ||offramp: In more recent times Kasparov - Anand World Championship Match (1995) was a disaster for the loser.|
|Apr-26-15|| ||FSR: <In 1904, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs tournament by 1.5 points over Emanuel Lasker, the first time that the World Champion had been beaten in a tournament in nearly ten years.>|
Since when? The last I heard, Marshall won by two points. Cambridge Springs (1904) Also, the language "had been beaten" seems ill-chosen, implying that Lasker had lost no games in his other tournaments. I would say, "the first time that the World Champion had failed to win a tournament since Hastings (1895)."
|Apr-26-15|| ||Fusilli: Thanks, <PB>!
<offramp> I would not call losing 10.5 - 7.5 to Kasparov a disaster, but that's a matter of opinion. Kasparov - Short World Championship Match (1993) was more lopsided.
|Apr-26-15|| ||offramp: <Fusilli: Thanks, <PB>!
<offramp> I would not call losing 10.5 - 7.5 to Kasparov a disaster, but that's a matter of opinion. Kasparov - Short World Championship Match (1993) was more lopsided.>|
In the 1995 match Anand won a game, then he lost a game and then he totally gave up - surrendered, white flag, arms up, lying on the floor, nose to dust.
At least Short kept trying throughout the match.
|Apr-28-15|| ||offramp: A German chess magazine made a memorable comment prior to this match, something like:|
<"If Marshall should win this match, who will consider him the champion of the world?">
This was in reference to the Marshall - Tarrasch (1905) match of two years earlier, which Tarrasch won (in Nuremberg) by 8 wins to 1 with 7 draws.
In the match before your eyes Lasker would have been bearing that result in mind; he would have wanted to outdo Tarrasch. But he was playing in the New World.
Marshall was brought up as a Montréaloid, although I can't see that home advantage gives anything to a chess player, unless the playing venue often gets water-logged and the home player is used to it.
So Lasker tried really hard to win by a bigger margin that his old rival Tarrasch had done. Unlucky for Marshall, but a direct knock-on effect from his big loss to Tarrasch.
|Apr-03-16|| ||MissScarlett: It's not from their match, but this is a contemporary photo:|
|Apr-23-16|| ||Caissanist: Marshall's <My Fifty Years of Chess> is now online, on Google Docs ( https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxI... ), including <ranny>'s version of the match quote.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·