|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jul-22-04
 |
| Calli: <Gypsy> Interesting thoughts. For another example, I think of Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896 Pillsbury doesn't attack the king or a single point but uses the entire board and, at the end, Lasker's position is left in ruins. |
 |
Jul-22-04
 |
| tamar: <Gypsy> Risking failure is not a common chessplayer trait. Spassky early in his career played like this. 27 f5 "fails" because Gunsberg can instantly cover f4 with 27...g5. 28 Nb4 fails because 28...a5 kicks it out (eventually)... 29 c6 looks good but fails because the King walks over to d6 and it never makes it to c7. 30 fxe6 fails because 30...Nxc6 removes the c pawn and keeps the King within reach of the e pawn queening square. But after all these failures, 32 e4 now succeeds because the position has been altered, and changes all those ?? into !! on the previous moves. Do you have a Bogolybov game in mind where he does something like this? |
|
Jul-22-04
 |
| Gypsy: As I said, <Calli>, <tamar>, I am exploring teritory new to me. The three games I somehow sense as being kin to this one are Pillsbury vs Tarrasch, 1895,
Bogoljubov vs J Mieses, 1925, and
Bronstein vs Gligoric, 1967. |
|
Jul-22-04
|
| Gypsy: You are probably right, Spassky in his early, "Alekhine" days, and maybe Larsen at his finest are good candidates for where to seek examples of such play. |
|
Jul-22-04
|
| tamar: Thanks <Gypsy> The Bogolubov game looks interesting, putting the Queen on every side of the e pawn until Mieses just gives up in exhaustion! I'll have to look at the Bronstein game too. Svidler has his death-defying-Pillsbury-moments in Svidler vs Topalov, 2004 |
|
Jul-22-04
|
| Gypsy: Thanks <tamar>, <Calli>. Part of your conversation was missing when I wrote my comments. (Two of your comments appeared for me only now.) I find your description of Fritz thinking process quite fascinating <tamar>. Also, the observation about the 64-square combinations is quite perceptive <Calli>. |
|
Jul-22-04
|
| tamar: <Calli> Pillsbury played unusually carefully for the first 2/3's of this game. I can see Lasker and Chigorin hovering and nodding draw draw, before White's 27th. |
|
Jul-23-04
|
| Gypsy: Ok, my randomly firing neurons finally produced the analogy I was looking for: It feels as if Pillsbury's play has certain spectral quality to it. (Think of frequency domains, Frourier transforms, holography, group representations, wavelets.) Basic themes in Pillsbury's play seem quite ordinary. But superposed together, they produce standing waves at the right places at the right times. |
|
Jul-23-04
|
| Calli: <tamar> Yes, they didn't see that at move 25, Pillsbury planned to queen his pawn at g2. It was so obvious! ;-) |
|
| Jul-23-04 |
| azaris: <Gypsy> Are you a physicist by any chance? <Calli> Once all that remains is minor pieces and pawns, the usual strategy is to queen a pawn (or occasionally knight a pawn when it's a composed problem). |
|
Jul-23-04
|
| Gypsy: Math <azaris>. |
|
| Sep-30-04 |
| ruylopez900: 30...axb4 is so tempting but 31.e7 promotes a pawn. |
|
Feb-12-05
 |
| keypusher: <azaris> here's another extreme example of screwing up an endgame. after move 39 it's going to be hard for black to win, but it's hard to imagine him losing! But that's what he does. Gunsberg vs Chigorin, 1890 |
|
Feb-12-05
|
| keypusher: Another example, this time from one of the greatest endgame players of all time. Rubinstein vs Duras, 1912
As the comments make clear, though, both players showed a lot of skill and creativity, but Rubinstein simply overpressed. |
|
| Oct-17-05 |
| Nightwalk: Prior to studying this game I considered Pillsbury to be a good and steady player, but lacking the spark of genius that characterized the play of his fellow Americans Morphy and Fischer. This dispelled me of my doubts. |
|
| Jun-17-06 |
| GeauxCool: The endgame clinched first prize for Pillsbury: illustrates 30. onwards. -Fine |
|
| Sep-10-07 |
| gmgomes: This is a very important game: This was one of the most strong tournaments in history, which field included Chigorin, Lasker, Steinitz, Schelecter etc.
It was played in the last round and it is said that Pillsbury was playing for a draw, with quick exchanges.
Then, he realized that Chigorin - who was in 2nd at that point, only 0.5 point behind him - was winning his game and he was forced to "squeeze" a win to be sole winner! |
|
Mar-13-08
 |
| Knight13: 27. f5!! is impossible! |
|
| Feb-22-09 |
| newzild: This is one of the best pawn endings I've ever seen. Should be a Sunday puzzle, I reckon, maybe from move 29 onwards. |
|
Mar-05-09
 |
| A.G. Argent: <gmgomes> <...realized...Chigorin...was winning...and...was forced...to...win> Yes, right at 26...Nb8. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastin...
So <newzild> is spot on. |
|
Mar-05-09
 |
| TheDestruktor: Now look at the position just after move 20, and tell me that something spetacular was about to happen. Who would believe? |
|
Jul-24-09
|
| Knight13: In the book "The Most Instructive Games of Chess" by Chernev the author mentions the names of Lasker, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Janowsky, Mieses, Blackburne, Teichman, Schiffers, Bardeleben, Walbrodt, Gunsberg, Marco and Burn. Why did he leave out Mason and Bird and others? Bird scored the same points as Gunsberg, and higher than Mieses and Marco. Mason tied with Janowski and Burn and was ahead of the names I mentioned above in this paragraph. Why is Chernev discriminating these players by not listing them but instead lists people who did worse or about the same in the tournament? |
|
| Jul-24-09 |
| RookFile: He just made a mistake, that's all. |
|
| Aug-06-09 |
| vulcan20: 36...h5? denies White of the true combination. 36...Ke7 is much more interesting, and the forced continuation would be 37. Kc4 b3 38. axb3 a3! 39. Kc3 f5 40. gxf5 h5 41. b4 g4 42. b5 h4 43. b6 a2 44. Kb2 g3 45. hxg3 hxg3 46. d6+! Kxd6 47. b7 Kc7 48. b8=Q+! Kxb8 49. e7 a1=Q+ 50. Kxa1 g2 51. e8=Q+ 1-0. White wins by just a check! |
|
| Nov-08-09 |
| gauer: Left with lack of space on both wings at his 38th move, white in B Richter vs Tarrasch, 1888 0-1 soon needs to deal with the prying quartgrip break with c(5 -> 4 -> 3). The resulting  structure features a similar grip in the game above (empty b2 & allow the c3 Pawn to post guard there, a potentially expensive to remove). White instead initiates the exchange, but a 2nd break with b4 allows his  s to be corralled, rather than merely his s.Use of the quartgrip, however, requires the essential element of space to convert to an initiative, when Kudrin vs R Douven, 1989 1-0 backfired after 30 ... f5 & 31 ... g5, & the defences soon fell. Adding space to create mobility for Pawns is featured in an extreme example of a doubly-discovered checkmate in G Gundersen vs A H Faul, 1928 1-0 & the idea of the quick-silver of Sam Loyd, reminiscient of the amount of few tempi it took to escort that Queen's Bishop's in A Murariu vs Mecking, 2008. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
