|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
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. |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | rapidcitychess: Lasker " Gunsberg chose an interesting, but not all together sound, method of development" Source: Logical Chess move by move
Author: Irving Chernev |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | JonathanJ: why is 3.e3 just called "slav defense: general"? there are 859 games with it in this database. it should really get a name. |
|
May-20-10
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Pillsbury> had to win this game outright in order to finish first at <Hastings 1895>. It's considered to be his "Immortal Endgame"-
The trick is to find a plan to win from this rightly famous position: Pillsbury to move
click for larger view: |
|
| Dec-24-10 | | Llawdogg: Wow! Fantastic endgame play by Pillsbury. |
|
Sep-30-11
 | | PaulLovric: why 16. Ke2 instead of O-O? |
|
| Sep-30-11 | | whitecrow: <PaulLovric> I think it's part of his endgame plan. After eliminating all the rooks, white king is much more powerful in the center than g1. |
|
Sep-30-11
 | | al wazir: Even though he had white, from the outset of the game Pillsbury made strenuous efforts to trade down. He must have known that he had a won ending. But how? |
|
| Sep-30-11 | | beatgiant: <al wazir>
I don't think it's necessarily a won ending at, say, move 20. For example, 20...Nb8 21. Bd2 Nc6 looks drawish, at best. |
|
| Sep-30-11 | | newzild: <al wazir: Even though he had white, from the outset of the game Pillsbury made strenuous efforts to trade down. He must have known that he had a won ending. But how?> He traded down because he thought a draw would be good enough for first place. Then he noticed that his main rival, Chigorin, was winning his game and threatening to catch up. So Pillsbury started playing to win in the ending. |
|
| Sep-30-11 | | Nilsson: I think the big misstake by Gunsberg was in the exchange, if instead 25...Nxc5 and black is ok.
/JN |
|
Sep-30-11
 | | kevin86: A pawn ode:push for the show,promote for the dough. In this game "the doughboy" promotes his pawn to win. |
|
| Sep-30-11 | | Llawdogg: How did Pillsbury get this good? |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
