|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-01-09
 | | TheFocus: <CambridgeSprings1904> I would agree. Because of Lasker's convincing win, maybe other players did not seek to venture it in play. Pillsbury must have seen some value in 7.Bxf6, and studied it and prepared it. Certainly Napier bears this out. It is great that Pillsbury was able to finally use it in his last tournament game against Lasker. Sweet revenge. What we are rewarded with are two fine brilliancy wins to enjoy. |
 |
Jul-20-10
 | | jessicafischerqueen: Thanks for all those valuable posts on the notorious <7.Bxf6> lore you guys. Very good scholarship, all combined. |
|
Aug-01-10
| | jessicafischerqueen: Here is what Pope's biography of <Pillsbury> has to say about the stories surrounding the notorious "saved innovation" in this game: <(Pillsbury) was also able to score one final brilliant victory over the World Champion, Emanuel Lasker.The <<<legend>>> about the last mentioned game, started by Georg Marco, is that Pillsbury had discovered an improvement in the game that Lasker had won brilliantly during the St. Petersburg tournament, and had waited patiently for eight years to seek revenge with this novelty. Credibility is given to this story by (the recollections of William Napier (as reported by Soltis and Smith): "We played the position whenever we met, which was often. Years we played it, here and abroad. It became a bore." Opinions vary as to the validity of this story. The general argument is that if Pillsbury had possessed the analysis, prior to Cambridge Springs, he would no doubt have used it in one of the several important tournaments in which he and Lasker competed. The problem with this argument is that from 1896 until 1903 Pillsbury was expecting to play Lasker for the world championship title. If Pillsbury was to wrest the title from Lasker's grip he would have needed this novelty, and other improvements he had discovered, to achieve victory over Lasker. Indeed, Pillsbury had many opportunities to use his discoveries, but winning a single tournament was not his goal. Pillsbury's health after 1903 had become seriously questionable and the 'Hero of Hastings' possibly knew that this tournament would be his last chance to defeat Lasker.> |
|
Aug-01-10
 | | chancho: A Pillsbury vs Lasker match would have been an epic.
Sadly, for Chess, another great match that was never meant to be. |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | ughaibu: Let's assume that such a match would've happened around 1900, is there any reason to think that Lasker wouldn't have won, fairly easily? |
|
Aug-02-10
| | jessicafischerqueen: <ughaibu> I think you are surely correct- by 1900 <Pillsbury> was already plagued by frequent, and serious, flare ups of his illness. I think the only time he would have had any chance against <Lasker> was straight after Hastings 1895. But it's all academic since <Pillsbury> did in fact have a serious illness that may have started to show itself already by St. Petersburg 1896, according to some, at least. Also, <Lasker> took so much time off for his other career(s). And who could blame him? There was ZERO money for top chess players at the turn of the century- at least compared to the financial conditions for today's elite players. And, tragically, <Lasker> ended up dying in penury anyway. I think we'd all have liked to see a Match against <Tarrasch> too, as many have already said. |
|
| Aug-20-10 | | LIFE Master AJ: http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-... My annotations of this game ... |
|
| Aug-22-10 | | LIFE Master AJ: BTW
I wrote the CG staff yesterday.
Move 18 (for Black) ... ... ...
IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was 18...Qb5, not 18...Qb4?; 19.NxP/e5.
Sadly, this mistake has persisted for a number of years here. Should the CG staff require it, I can mail them a copy of my photo-copy of the original bulletins and the book of this event. E. Winter, John Hillary, User: CambridgeSprings1904 and YHC, (and many others!); have all documented this fact. |
|
| Aug-22-10 | | LIFE Master AJ: See my web page - updated link given just above - for more details. |
|
Aug-22-10
| | chancho: You're right AJ. Jacques Hannak's book on Lasker has 18...QKt4 as the move played. |
|
| Aug-22-10 | | LIFE Master AJ: Yup. User User: CambridgeSprings1904 noticed this ... way back in 2004! (See the first page or so of the kibitzes.) <<<Jan-11-04> <CambridgeSprings1904:>> <Black's move 18 <<is incorrect> on this site,> as it is in most game collections.> Black actually played 18...Qb5 <(not 18...Qb4).>> |
|
| Aug-22-10 | | LIFE Master AJ: YHC = "Your humble commentator." (me) |
|
Mar-11-13
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <Kenkaku: Another famous game. Pillsbury supposedly studied his loss to Lasker in St. Petersburg (Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896) extensively, and with the help of his good friend <William Napier (who is also in this database)> came up with this new line. *** > [foregoing excerpted from post of Aug-02-03; first comment in this thread; Pillsbury's principal new idea (used for the first time in this game) was: <7. Bxf6!>.] Not only is Napier “in this database”, at this tournament (Cambridge Springs 1904) he played a very famous game against World Champion Lasker: Lasker vs W Napier, 1904. |
|
| May-12-13 | | devere: The candle burns brightest just before it goes out. This was Pillsbury's last tournament, and while declining health meant he couldn't play well every day, he was still able to win this very brilliant game against the reigning world champion. |
|
| May-12-13 | | dick50: Great series of tactical blows. Rather easy if one proceeds step by step. First two moves gain tempo by attacking loose Rooks. This is followed by discovered attack on Queen. With gain of 3 tempos, White forces are poised to attack helpless Black King. So 20 Qd4 f6(or Rg8) 21 Qxf4 Rc6 22 Ne5 etc
Black will have to sacrifice material to escape and this would be sufficient to win |
|
May-12-13
 | | M.Hassan: "Insane"
White to play 20.?
White is 2 pawns down.
20.Qd4 f6
21.Qxf4 Qc5
22.Qh6+ Kg8
23.Bh5
And difficult to work out continuation.
No time and too tired. |
|
May-12-13
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Perhaps too famous a game for a Sunday puzzle, but still worth playing over, again and again, just to study the power of the initiative, the ability to make threats. Lasker is perpetually one move away from consolidating, but Pillsbury keeps the attack rolling with one threat after another, and each threat forces Lasker to weaken his position just a little bit more to avoid even worse--until he can't avoid the worst. Also, Pillsbury seems to have taken to heart Lasker's own dictum: when you see a good move, wait, don't play it; there might be a better one. |
|
May-12-13
 | | agb2002: <An Englishman> has already said what I think (not a puzzle, but chess culture). |
|
May-12-13
 | | chrisowen: A cute inter-mezzo roast either d4 first inceed,
queen dandy be to 20.Qd4 threatens h8 rook he bin feed in so hold onto your hats right gg edge off re you target rook heffalump by deed your time, prodding off pawn up in f6 once barrier bed down in, it a 21.qxf4 low in across the middle a pivot able c5 fed in queen flap maple n pecan it is cough again syrup, to address the needs of tender visceral mast in c7,
has to be covered when 22.ne5 it now in nearly joke, at tease a wave in bottle d7 e8 white g4 or even better g5, I'd term a logical one for find cascade,
arrive the cavalry vanguard it. |
|
| May-12-13 | | Everett: <"We played the position whenever we met, which was often. Years we played it, here and abroad. It became a bore."> I had thought it was at least a bit more of an OTB creation than this. Seems Pillsbury analyzed the tar out of it. |
|
| May-12-13 | | montree: An ideal game to study pin, fork, double attack etc. Wonderful! |
|
| May-12-13 | | FlashinthePan: Doesn't 28...Rc5 instead of 28...Bd7 hold for Black? |
|
| May-12-13 | | Everett: < FlashinthePan: Doesn't 28...Rc5 instead of 28...Bd7 hold for Black?> This loses to <28..Rc5 29.Bxe6#> |
|
| May-12-13 | | FlashinthePan: Thanks Everett, I totally overlooked this move, as I was focused on preventing both the knight fork on e5 and Qh5 and missed the obvious. |
|
| May-12-13 | | Everett: < FlashinthePan: Thanks Everett, I totally overlooked this move, as I was focused on preventing both the knight fork on e5 and Qh5 and missed the obvious.> My pleasure to be of help. Many kibitzers have helped me similarly, sure you will do the same soon! Enjoy the site... |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 26.Rxf5+