< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|May-14-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Reply to ughhaibu>
I would rather wait until you have seen the annotations ... they should be posted in a few days. In the meantime, what was YOUR opinion of this game? |
|May-14-04|| ||ughaibu: I haven't looked at it. |
|May-15-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Reply>
Marshall considered it one of his best; after a very exciting and difficult opening, we move to a middle-game. There ... many complexities arise, and Marshall gains the upper hand. From there we move into an ending which Marshall called both "difficult" and "intructive."
Another point was that before this game, many Masters actually thought that R+P was much better than two Knights ... on an OPEN board.
|May-15-04|| ||fantasticplastic: Mieses once played a game against another octogenarian in a match and won it. He proclaimed a victory for youth when the game ended. (smiles) |
|May-17-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Reply to fantastic>
I am not even sure what the heck that means! |
|May-17-04|| ||Lawrence: <fantasticplastic>, welcome, hope you enjoy this place as much as all the rest of us do.|
<AJ>, Mieses was like about 82, his opponent maybe 86, and Mieses won, so "he proclaimed a victory for youth."
|May-18-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Lawrence>
Thanks for the explanation.
|Jul-20-04|| ||suenteus po 147: The original mentality of rook superiority versus two knights on an open board is apparent in Mieses's 26...Qd6. He is defending the a-pawn while rooting out the white queen. He doesn't expect Marshall to exchange, but the exchange does occur. It's interesting to see Mieses flounder with what is considered at the time to be a "better position" for black in this case. His assault on the queen side to root out the knight and eat up pawns is unsuccessful. So, a shift to the kingside, where the knights shift better, defending and threatening attacks or sucking up pawns with every cavort and hop they make. From today's standpoint, Marshall is the clear victor, but back then he had to stick to his guns and see it through. |
|Jul-29-04|| ||acirce: Was 54.Nc4 played? I recently saw it with 54.Nf5, given a question mark and with <After 54.Nc4 Rxg2 55.b6+ Kb8 56.Kc6 White wins thanks to the b-pawn> in the annotations. Then 55.b6+ is commented as <A strange pawn sacrifice> and 55..Kb8 given a ?? and <It smells of mutual time trouble. The only chance is of course to capture the pawn..> and these moves would really be more than strange.. |
|Jul-29-04|| ||sneaky pete: <acirce> Marshall's <Best Games of Chess> has 54 Kt-B4 and the rest of the moves as they are given here. My guess is that your annotator used another English descriptive source with the typo 54 Kt-B5 which accounts for his bewilderment over the next moves. |
|Jul-29-04|| ||acirce: Seems very plausible, or that he just misread the correct Kt-B4, descriptive notation causes many typical errors like that. The game was published in the latest issue of a Swedish chess magazine, I think I'll just mail the editor. |
|Aug-21-04|| ||CambridgeSprings1904: The actual move was 54.Nc4. This is one of many notation errors that have made their way into the electronic databases. For more, check out my Cambridge Springs 1904 website. (Google "Cambridge Springs 1904"). |
|Aug-22-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I have deeply annotated this game and passed it along to a friend. After he reviews it, we will probably try and make a web page out of it. |
|Aug-22-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: By the way, I was one of the first to discover that many (electronic) databases had <incorrectly> put in the wrong move for White at move number fifty-four. |
|Aug-22-04|| ||SBC: <CambridgeSprings1904>|
I do like your Cambridge Springs web site. You did a wonderful job with it!
For anyone who hasn't visited it, I recommend it highly: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/home...
|Oct-09-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Check out the following link: http://home.wi.rr.com/etzel/game32.... |
|Jan-02-05|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Has anyone studied my notes to this game? (See the link, just above.) |
|Jan-29-05|| ||aw1988: <LIFE Master AJ> I do not wish to comment on every single thing - although I have one general comment and suggestion.|
The comment: I am quite proud of your devotion; congratulations!
Suggestion: The over-use of " " in well-known opening lines. Very rarely does white get an enduring small advantage.
|Jan-29-05|| ||aw1988: I also suggest being a little more harsh in the system of annotation. |
|Feb-07-05|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <aw1988> I appreciate the comment. |
Just a few things:
# 1.) Judging from the e-mails I receive, people like and approve of my annotations at a rate of 10 or 20-to-one. (Or better.)
# 2.) I DEEPLY despise the "modern school" of annotation. I would NEVER do that ... to any chess game!
# 3.) I am a Master ... yet I can remember what it was like to be a struggling class player. I hate the snobbery some masters display in their notes. ("A brilliant combination, 75 moves deep. But of course any decent player would have seen this as soon as he sat down at the chess board!!!")
# 4.) Irving Chernev is my hero ... I consider him to be one of the greatest and best chess writers who ever lived. I try to emulate his example as much as possible.
But your idea is a common one ... I have heard it all before. But thanks for the feedback.
|Feb-07-05|| ||aw1988: <LIFE Master AJ> I would like to retract one suggestion. The "friendly" annotation system is OK, so long as people get the point. |
|Feb-08-05|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <aw1988>
Thank you sir.
|Aug-07-05|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Just went over this game - again - tonight - never a dull moment.|
|Oct-28-09|| ||Phony Benoni: |
click for larger view
In the American Chess Bulletin for 1904, p. 2, White's next move was given as <22.dxc8B>. Marshall, annotating the game, says "Just a whim; a queen would be equally useful."
|Mar-14-13|| ||wachter123680: Marshall had a hard fought won...but I'm sure Mieses saw some errors calculated after reviewing it.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·