|Feb-01-03|| ||refutor: a good example of the thematic bishop sac on h7 where white has a pawn on e5 |
|Apr-18-04|| ||Kenkaku: Beautiful finish. 28...Nf8 29. Rxc7 Rxc7 30. Rxf8+ Kxf8 (30...Kd7 31. Qd8+ Kc6 32. Qd6#) 31. Qd8# |
|Apr-18-04|| ||tamar: Poor Amos Burn. I bet he didn't get his pipe lighted in this one either! |
|Jun-17-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Wonderful play by Pillsbury ... poor Burn was smoked!|
|Jun-17-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: This game is analyzed in the most recent "Chess Express." (A monthly newsletter from the London Chess Center, # 115.)|
|Jun-17-06|| ||Gypsy: 22...Nf8 23.Qh4 Ng6 24.Qh7+ Kf8 25.Qh8+! Nxh8 26.Rxh8#.|
|May-02-07|| ||gauer: The game above turned out to be among the first with annotations I'd ever analysed. Do the opinions throughout the notes still hold (ie is there still really a distinguishing preference between Bg5 & Nf3)? Also, were these notes seen at all in the Art of Chess by Mason, and is the descriptive notation in that book worth another read?|
|May-02-07|| ||RookFile: Just another example of Amos Burn getting slapped around.|
|May-02-07|| ||Plato: <Just another example of Amos Burn getting slapped around.>|
Amos Burn was a *very* strong player. It's unfortunate that his legacy for so many people is as the loser of the "Pipe Game" against Marshall and nothing more.
Despite the loss in the present game, he actually had an overall plus score against Pillsbury. He also had lifetime plus or equal scores against the likes of Steinitz, Chigorin, Maroczy, Blackburne, Gunsberg, etc... Let's show him some respect, shall we?
|May-02-07|| ||ughaibu: Burn beat Pillsbury in 1898 and 1900, I guess we can say that during this period in time, Burn was at least as strong as Pillsbury.|
|May-02-07|| ||capanegra: In fact, Pillsbury vs Burn, 1898 contains a beautiful and instructive Queen ending won by Burn.|
|May-02-07|| ||chancho: Burns was no chump as evidenced by this game: Burn vs Alekhine, 1911|
In all fairness, this Alekhine was not the great player he would later become, but it shows that Burn was a good, good player.
|Oct-31-08|| ||sleepyirv: Burn is one of those players that was strong enough to play with the best but couldn't beat the best on a regular basis. Which leaves him the victim of some very pretty games.|
|Oct-31-08|| ||whiskeyrebel: Burn's career is covered by one of the biggest dang chess books I've ever seen. It's too heavy to even lug home from the university library where I spotted it.|
|Dec-30-08|| ||Emma: Awfull, awfull game by Black here.|
|Feb-28-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Burn was totally Burned!|
|Jul-23-09|| ||Knight13: Burn not resigning on move 22 just shows that he must've been really, really upset.|
14...a6? should've been labeled with a question mark by the annotater.
|Jul-23-09|| ||RookFile: <ughaibu: Burn beat Pillsbury in 1898 and 1900, I guess we can say that during this period in time, Burn was at least as strong as Pillsbury.>|
I agree that Burn was at least as strong as a dying Pillsbury, who had syphillis.
After Pillsbury died, it was probably the case the Burn was even stronger.
|Jul-23-09|| ||chancho: Well, Pillsbury defeated Lasker twice in 1900 and 1904, and Lasker was the World Champ, as well as Karl Schlechter, who played Lasker for the World title in 1910, and who from 1896 to 1904 had a losing record of +1 -8 =9 against the sick Pillsbury. Are we to assume Pillsbury only went into dying mode whenever he played Burn? Or is it just possible that Burn was a difficult opponent for Pillsbury?|
|Aug-13-09|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.chess.co.uk/chessexpress...|
The above link takes you to the LCC page for the analysis of this game.