< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-30-05|| ||aw1988: Computers are horrible at moves like e5. A 1600 can tell it's bad, a 3000 computer has no clue. Hilarious.|
|Oct-30-05|| ||Bishoprick: Don't know about Lasker's opening contribution, but the Marshall Attack in the Spanish is Frank Marshall's greatest gift to opening theory, and we are all grateful to him for that.|
|Jan-10-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Actually Marshall made dozens of contributions to opening theory. |
# 1.) He was the first top-level player to repeatedly use the Petroff and show the correct path in many variations.
# 2.) He analyzed many different openings. (Like the Slav Defense, most people don't know there is a "Marshall Gambit" in that system as well.)
# 3.) He analyzed many double-KP games, the Marshall Gambit (to the Ruy Lopez) being perhaps his best known contribution to opening chess theory.
|Jan-10-06|| ||FHBradley: Why would a player like Marshall play Petroff (I don't doubt that he did, of course)? It's generally regarded as one of the most boring openings, i.e., a reliable "weapon", if one wants to pursue a draw, and that wasn't the way Marshall used to play.|
|Jan-10-06|| ||Whitehat1963: Am I right in assuming that if:
1) 25. Kxc5, Rd5+, losing the queen; and
2) 25. Qxc5, Qb2#
There aren't any other possibilities, are there?
|Jan-10-06|| ||Jack Kerouac: Isn't it time we impeached the king?|
|Jan-11-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Today the Petroff is seen as extremely dull and a draw, back then it was considered unreliable by the experts. |
I agree that the Petroff was an unusual choice for Marshall, and really did not match his highly agressive and tactical style. (Since he is not here, we can only speculate as to why he chose this opening, but back then the Sicilian had no real adherents at the highest level ... so maybe he did not have a lot of options.)
|Jan-11-06|| ||chancho: <Why would a player like Marshall play Petroff >|
Harry N Pillsbury also played it.
|Jan-11-06|| ||keypusher: For Marshall it was a good counterattacking defense.|
Janowski vs Marshall, 1912
He complained that Lasker took all the fun out of it with Qe2.
Lasker vs Marshall, 1914
|Jan-11-06|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: <Whitehat1963> If 26.Qxc5 Qxb2+ does not mate because 27.Kxc4. But checkmate comes a move later with 27...Ra4#.|
|Jan-12-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: This could be one of Marshall's best games.
# 1.) It comes against a 'name' opponent, and not some small-fry.
# 2.) For many years, the computer was almost completely useless in analyzing such a game.
# 3.) The brevity and strength of Black's attack cannot be questioned.
|Jan-12-06|| ||chancho: Another Marshall demolition of Nimzowitsch.
Marshall vs Nimzowitsch, 1930
|Jan-12-06|| ||AgentRgent: In Nimzowitsch's defense: Nimzowitsch vs Marshall, 1912|
|Aug-21-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: The direct link, http://www.angelfire.com/games4/lif.... (Moved and redone.) |
|Aug-21-06|| ||paulalbert: <AJ> In your lead in to your analysis of this game, you ask about a tournament book. There was a book written on the great Bad Kissingen 1928 tournament by Tartakower in German and also a version published in Russian. I have been trying to find a copy for years, but it's difficult to find and probably expensive if found. This tournament has always fascinated me, because I served as an US Army Artillery Officer in Bad Kissingen in 1967 and 1968 and played chess at the big chess set in the Kurpark there, beating my German foes most of the time. My wife and I returned after 30 years in 1998 and I again played in the Kurpark, but not at the big set. None of the German players there seemed to be aware that there was a great GM tournament there in 1928, and I do not know whether the big set in the Park was established there because of the tournament. Paul Albert|
|Aug-21-06|| ||Pawn and Two: <paulalbert & LIFE Master AJ> I have a copy of the tournament book, "Bad Kissingen Internationales Schachturnier 1928" (in German) by Dr. S.G. Tartakower. My copy is a BCM (British Chess Magazine) Classic Reprint No.21; Limp cover; 192 pages. All 66 games are given with deep notes. A long article on opening theory is included. The book was printed in 1982. The original cost in U.S. dollars was $16.20. |
|Aug-21-06|| ||paulalbert: <Pawn and Two> Than you for the information. I've been hoping to find an original, but the BCM reprint would be also of interest. Paul Albert|
|Aug-22-06|| ||Calli: 14... Nxd4! is an interesting sac based on ideas like 15.Qxb4 c5 16.Qa4 Bc6 17.Qa6 Qf4+ 18.Kb1 Qxf2 19.Nge2 e5! followed by Bd7 and Bf5+. Nimzowitch didn't care to explore such lines.|
|Aug-23-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: All: I appreciate the info, naturally I would not mind getting my hands one one of those reprints ... (aj)|
|Mar-21-07|| ||sozinattack: So much for ignoring classical piece development.|
|Jan-08-08|| ||RookFile: Is it a bad idea to develop your king to b4?|
|Jan-08-08|| ||paladin at large: Nimzo's lawyers will intone that it is the duty of a monarch to visit every corner of his realm.|
On the other hand, is it part of My System to have no repeat no development of your kingside through the first twenty moves!?
|Jan-08-08|| ||RookFile: Apparently, the idea is castle queenside, and hang your king out to dry.|
Marshall certainly knew what to do when he saw this nonsense.
|Mar-05-16|| ||TheFocus: This game won the special brilliancy prize.
See <American Chess Bulletin>, November 1928, pg. 161.
|Jul-04-18|| ||sudoplatov: After 8....Nd5, the game looks like Marshall has out-hypermoderned the hypermodern.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·