|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Feb-03-06 |
| Steppenwolf: Truly remarkable game. Lasker never had a chance. |
 |
Feb-03-06
 |
| chancho: Jacques Hannak in his book on Lasker, "The Life Of A Chessmaster".Wrote about this game in pg 107, the following: <"And thereby hangs a tale which chess players all over the world have been enjoying for half a century. Remember Lasker's sensational triumph over Pillsbury in the St. Petersburg 'Grand-Master Tournament' of 1895-96, the game that won the brilliancy prize and turned the tables of the tournament in Lasker's favor. Now in that game, as soon as Pillsbury had made his 7th move he felt that he should have made another move, never tried in that variation and yet - so it seemed to Pillsbury - likely to lead to a rather more advantageous line. That very night, after his shattering defeat, Pillsbury sat down for many hours, analysing his new idea and satisfying himself that indeed it would have given him the advantage. During the next few weeks and months he burned a good deal more midnight oil in the privacy of his room, analysing his new variation as thoroughly as he knew how; but he did not tell anybody about it. Since the opening concerned was a variation of the Queen's Gambit very popular in those days, Pillsbury had countless opportunities to give his new line the practical test; but he would not waste his precious discovery on any of the small fry, whereby divulging his great secret; he would spring that on no one less than Lasker. It had become almost an obsession with Pillsbury, yet the years rolled by and the opportunity never arose. Whenever he did play Lasker, Pillsbury either did not have the white pieces or it so happened that he could not steer the opening into that particular variation. At long last,(1904) already a doomed man and playing in what was to be his last major tournament, Pillsbury got the chance he had worked for, yearned for, and dreamed about for eight long years and four months to a day."> |
|
| Feb-03-06 |
| Whitehat1963: Great post, <chancho>, thanks! |
|
| Apr-03-06 |
| blingice: 30. Ne5!! If anything in chess ever reminded me of that voice from the "Mortal Kombat" games that says "FIIIIINISH HIM!!!", it was surely this move, with an unstoppable checkmate threat, a rook threat, and a bishop threat. |
|
| Apr-05-06 |
| CookieNapster: A very good game indeed!!!!! |
|
| Jun-17-06 |
| GeauxCool: Lasker's mistakes were accepting the challenge with 13.Qxb2?!, then stumbling into a bad position with 19.exd4? -Fine |
|
| Jul-13-06 |
| RookFile: Beautiful game by Pillsbury. |
|
Jul-19-06
 |
| notyetagm: Anyone recall in which issue of Chess Life magazine this game was featured in the Solitarie Chess column? |
|
Dec-30-06
 |
| Phony Benoni: I was curious to find out what happened in this variation after the game, and did a bit of searching. Of games in the database, 7.Qh4 was played 3 times with a 50% result: Blackburne vs Showalter, 1889 (1-0), Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1895 (0-1; the famous game), and, ironically enough, Lasker vs Spielmann, 1900 (˝-˝), which appears to be a casual game at the Vienna Chess Club. Since Pillsbury unleashed 7.Bxf6, everybody has followed his lead. Out of a total of 5 games ... a 50% result again! Znosko-Borovsky vs S Izbinsky, 1905 (0-1); Dus Chotimirsky vs Znosko-Borovsky, 1905 (0-1 again, from the same tournament(!); apparently Z-B knew this line backwards and forwards); Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1942 (˝-˝); Szabo vs W Heidenfeld, 1951 (the equalizing 1-0). The kibitzes for this game suggest that Lasker played the opening well enough but went astray in the early middlegame, and these results would seem to bear that out. |
|
Feb-01-07
 |
| ianD: Great game I love the number of pins and threat of forks in this game. Nice tactical game using simple principles. |
|
| Feb-01-07 |
| laskereshevsky: No one was able to out-played Lasker in his best years, unless HARRY NELSON......In the 4 players round-robin at ST.PETERSBURG 1895/96 ( LASKER STEINITZ PILLSBURY TCHIGORIN ) after 3 rounds pillsbury was clearly on the edge, LASKER was pushed in 2°place by a =1 -2 against him....As well-know in their 4°round inconter finally LASKER was able to win ( to acheive it was necessary one of the ever-best LASKER'S game....) after what PILLSBURY ( infortunately..) collapsed, and newer was like before. |
|
| Feb-01-07 |
| laskereshevsky: In the same 1896 at NUREMBERG, PILLSBURY was clearly in the shadow, as show the 8°round placings: Walbrodt 6.5 on 8
Lasker 6/7 Steinitz 6/8
Tschigorin 5/7 Tarrasch-Janowski 5/8
Maroczy 4.5/7 Schlechter 4.5/8
PILLSBURY 4/7 Blackburne-schiffers 4/8
.....8 Players
BUT, when they meet at the following 9°round, HARRY, like a bull in the arena, crashed EMANUEL in a 1°brillancy prize game...( in a 171 game's tournament....) |
|
| Feb-01-07 |
| laskereshevsky: In the above game, at the 1904 CAMBRIDGE-SPRINGS tournament...the same story!!!
at the 5°round the pairing show:
Janowski 4.5
Marshall-Lasker-Teichmann(!)-Mieses(!!) 4
PILLSBURY-Schlechter-Showalter 2.5
......8 Players
At the 6°round another PILLSBURY's masterpiece......in the last years of H.N.P. life,looks like LASKER was the "TORERO'S RED CAPE" shaked in front of the "AMERICAN BULL"..... CHAPEU, MOUNSIER HARRY......
( from a LASKER estimator...) |
|
May-07-07
 |
| FSR: This game is the chessic equivalent of Lesley Gore's song "Judy's Turn to Cry," the sequel to her song, "It's My Party." At St. Petersburg Pillsbury was crying, but here it's "Lasker's Turn to Cry." |
|
Oct-23-07
|
| notyetagm: 25  e2-c4!, 26  f1xf5+!
One tactical blow after another, very powerfully played by Pillsbury. |
|
| Dec-25-07 |
| CambridgeSprings1904: The story described by <chancho> above has been described as a myth by some commentators, and it may well be. However, the tournament bulletin, which was published the day the game was played, says this, "Ever since the St. Petersburg tournament in 1896, Pillsbury had carefully treasured a variation in the Queen's gambit declined which he some day hoped to try on one man in an important game. The player he had selected was none other than Dr. Lasker and in the sixth round the grand opportunity presented itself and the surprise was sprung." http://home.wi.rr.com/etzel/cs1904.... |
|
| Dec-25-07 |
| RookFile: Pillsbury was definitely one of the most interesting players ever, either as a person, or his games. |
|
Dec-25-07
 |
| Calli: "Pillsbury had countless opportunities to give his new line the practical test" As I recall, Napier analyzed it with Pillsbury. Cambridge Springs 1904 according to Napier was Pillsbury first opportunity to play it. Napier related that Pillsbury complained to him during the game that "He's playing the only damn scheme that you never tried" or words to that effect. |
|
| Mar-01-08 |
| sombreronegro: 25 Bc4 . A tactical feast. The e6 pawn is pinned and the bishop is immune on c4 because of Ne5+ forking the queen and king. The g4 Knight is safe on its square because of the rook pinning the f5 pawn. |
|
Mar-01-08
 |
| Shams: looks to me like white's extra pawn would be tough to convert if black allows the queen trade, e.g. 7... xd4 8.xd8 xf3+ 9.exf3  xd8 10.cxd5 b4 11.dxe6 xe6. 
click for larger viewBlack has nice bishops and can either isolate the c-pawn or add pressure with ...Rc8 and ...Ke7. |
|
Jan-16-09
 |
| blacksburg: Fischer vs Najdorf, 1962 anyone else see an strange similarity between these 2 games? |
|
| Apr-18-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: Lasker got hammered here. |
|
Oct-02-09
 |
| keypusher: <Hannak>
<"Pillsbury had countless opportunities to give his new line the practical test"> Typical Hannak. According to the database, Pillsbury got precisely zero opportunities between the 1896 and 1904 Lasker games. The closest he got was Pillsbury vs Mieses, 1902, but Mieses played 5....Be7 instead of 5....cxd4. I think <ughaibu> pointed this out already, but Pillsbury had white against Lasker once more at St. Petersburg and also at Nuremburg 1896 and London 1899. He played 1. e4 each time. |
|
| Nov-25-09 |
| WhiteRook48: the Primitive variation? |
|
| Nov-25-09 |
| TheFocus: Some myths never die, do they? It is a commonly accepted myth that Pillsbury discovered Bxf6 and waited eight years to spring it on Lasker. The truth is that Pollock discovered the move and printed it in British Chess Magazine in 1896 during the tournament. His and Mason's notes later made up the book St. Petersburg 1895-96, printed in 1896. The surprise is that no one else ever tried it until this game, unless no one else ever had the opportunity. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
