|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Aug-19-05
 |
| al wazir: <sfm: Burn should have defended more actively, perhaps with 15...Qf6 Maybe he didn't like 16.Qxe8+!> I don't like it much either. |
 |
| Aug-19-05 |
| teme: Nice game, good comments. |
|
Aug-19-05
|
| al wazir: <patzer2: Black's only chance was 13...Re7 14. 0-0-0> What about 13...Kg7 (suggested by <sfm>)? Then 14. O-O-O Rh8. |
|
Aug-19-05
 |
| Calli: See Teschner vs Spassky, 1959 where Marshall's attacking idea is defeated. |
|
| Aug-20-05 |
| RookFile: Thanks Calli. That's a great game,
Spassky certainly had ice water in
his veins to be able to defend that
king side attack like he did. |
|
Aug-20-05
 |
| patzer2: <al wazir> <What about 13...Kg7> Not a bad suggestion at all, as it offers Black about as much as 13...Re7 14. 0-0-0. However, after 13... Kg7!? 14. O-O-O
Nd7 (14... Rh8 15. Rxh8 Qxh8 16. e4 Nc6 17. e5 Be7 18. Nxd5 Nxd4 19. Nxd4 Bxd5 20. Be4 Bxe4 21. Qxe4 Rd8 22. Rf1 Qh5 23. f4 Bc5 24. Nc6 Re8 25. b4 Bf8 26. Nxa7 c5 27. b5 Qf5 28. Qxf5 gxf5 29. Nc6 f6 30. a4  ) 15. e4 dxe4 16. Bxe4 Qc8 17. Kb1 a6 18. Qb3 Bxe4+ 19. Nxe4 Nf8 20. Nxf6 Qf5+ 21. Ka1 Qxf6 22. Ne5 Ne6 23. Qc3 Ng5 24. f4 Ne4 25. Qf3 Nd6 26. d5 (+1.56 @ 12 depth), Fritz 8 has White winning. |
|
Aug-20-05
|
| Calli: <RookFile> Heh, I just realized that CG has Spassky losing that game. He really did win, but I don't actually have a rock solid source to send to CG. |
|
Aug-21-05
 |
| Benzol: <Calli> Boris Spassky's 300 Wins says that Spassky won on move 78.
<Swindler> and <sneaky pete> noted the same thing on the game thread and <acirce> pointed out an alternative version with Spassky winning.
I have submitted a correction report so hopefully we can get this cleared up. |
|
| Aug-21-05 |
| molle2006: Isn't there another pipe game, in which the smoker finally drops the pipe out of his mouth because of a striking queen or rook sac? |
|
Aug-22-05
 |
| who: Someone claimed that that happened in reference to S Levitsky vs Marshall, 1912 |
|
| Oct-06-05 |
| schnarre: I wouldn't be at all surprised. |
|
Jun-15-06
 |
| Gypsy: Marshall was the youngest (22) participant of Paris 1900, Burn was the second oldest (51), after Mr. Mortimer. But despite of being skunked by the young upstart Marshall, who could have easily been his son, Burn did quite well in the tournament: 1. Lasker +13, 2. Pilsbury +9, 3-4. Maroczy-Marshall +8, 5. Burn +6, 6. Chigorin +5, 7-8. Schechter-Miesses-Marco, 9-10. Janowsky-Schowalter,... |
|
| Jun-15-06 |
| RookFile: Sonas looked at gomes like this and concluded that Burn should be rated 2728 for 1900, better than Paul Morphy at 2651 in 1858. |
|
| Jun-15-06 |
| Ziggurat: <Sonas looked at gomes like this and concluded that Burn should be rated 2728 for 1900, better than Paul Morphy at 2651 in 1858.>He did not "look at any games". He looked at results of games. OK? |
|
| Oct-11-06 |
| Plato: Amos Burn is largely forgotten nowadays, and it is a pity that he seems best remembered for being the unfortunate loser of this game who didn't get to light his pipe. In fact, Burn was one of the best players in the world for many years, with lifetime plus scores against top players like Steinitz (+1 =3 -0), Gunsberg (+4 -3 =5), Pillsbury (+2 -1 =2), Charousek (+1 =1 -0) Bernstein (+3 -1 =0), Alekhine (+1 -0 =0), etc., and equal records against the likes of Zukertort, Chigorin, Maroczy, Spielmann, Nimzowitsch, etc. As to <Dirk Diggler>'s comment, <blackBURN would not have been beaten here>, I can't help but point out that Burn's record against Blackburne was also in his favor: +6 -4 =6. |
|
May-26-07
 |
| Knight13: Funny. |
|
| Oct-04-07 |
| mircea88: Aside from the later tactical blunders, Black has started with no less than 4 strategic errors in his "avant-la-lettre" Tartakover: 1] Missed the all-important ...h6, which goes a long way against White's K-side attack. With this move, Black removes the target-Pawn from h7 with tempo gained on the White Bishop which normally retreats to h4. 2] Missed gaining a tempo on White's other Bishop with 7.Bd3 dxc4 8.Bxc4. 3] Missed the opportunity to exchange pieces with Nxd5. Black normally tries to un-cramp his position through exchanges in QGD. 4] Placed his QB passively on b7, since the long diagonal is shut down by P/d5. Normally that Bishop comes out on e6 instead, where it has some activity. Of course, these principles were only established two decades later, when Tartakover developed this defence. |
|
| Oct-04-07 |
| mircea88: Even so, Teschner vs Spassky, 1959 (mentioned previously), proves that it's not too late for the liberating 10...c5, the classical equalizing move in QGD. With exact play, Spassky refutes Marshall's "Pillsbury attack" and then his central break ultimately wins the game. But I'd try it as White in club games anyway :) BTW, I thought that Ne5; f4 is the Pillsbury attack - can someone clarify this? |
|
Feb-06-08
 |
| hesyrett: I saw this game published in "Chess Review" long ago under the heading "Burn Fiddles While Marshall Roams." I hereby pass this pun on to the next generation of chess buffs. |
|
| Jul-13-08 |
| mty1637: Es muy buena la partida por parte de Marshall aunque pobre defensa hecha por Burn... En la partida Teschner vs Spassky, 1959 se muestra la defensa correcta |
|
Oct-22-08
 |
| Mulyahnto: Move 8: "I 'speeded' up my moves" ... Hilarious |
|
| Dec-23-08 |
| WhiteRook48: So I sacrificed myself on Rh8? In order to do Qh7#? I don't remember sacrificing myself in this game.
(my username) |
|
| Jan-24-09 |
| WhiteRook48: so Burn didn't get his pipe Burning |
|
| Feb-01-09 |
| WhiteRook48: nice Bishop and Rook sac |
|
Oct-11-09
 |
| hedgeh0g: <So I sacrificed myself on Rh8? In order to do Qh7#? I don't remember sacrificing myself in this game. (my username)> Could you please explain the joke a little more? There was still a gasp of humour left in it after the parenthetic explanation. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Annotations by 
sac: 14.Bxg6
