< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Mar-19-05|| ||Max Lange: My computer sez that 36. a5? is a bad move by Mason, better is 36. b5! I have to agree. The pawn cannot be taken. |
|Mar-19-05|| ||FLCLlove: <Max Lange>
1.Mason won this game...it seems that it wasn't a bad move and worked out!
2. 36.b5!? is met by 36...c5!! 37.b5xa6 Qb6xa6 and black eventually advancing the c and d pawns, causing white a lot of trouble. a5 was to prevent those pawns bashing up his position.
|Mar-19-05|| ||Calli: <Janowski needed a win to reach Maróczy>|
Very difficult since Maróczy didn't play at Monte Carlo 1901!
|May-10-06|| ||Resignation Trap: <Calli> (and others) Our www.chessgames.com version is misdated. It should read "Monte Carlo 1902".|
Maroczy finished first, with 14.75 points, followed closely by Pillsbury (14.5 points) and Janowski (14.0 points). It was played using the De Riviere system of scoring.
|May-10-06|| ||Calli: <RT> Thanks! That explains the game. Still doesn't look like he would catch Maróczy with a win over Mason, but then again I don't know the scoring system.|
|May-10-06|| ||keypusher: Here's another nice Mason combination, though not much compared to the one here!|
J Mason vs Bird, 1895
I think Mason's 43rd move in this game is as pretty as any I have ever seen.
J Mason vs Winawer, 1882
|May-10-06|| ||Resignation Trap: In the May 1952 issue of <<Chess Review>> Hans Kmoch and Fred Reinfeld wrote an article "Tall Tales of Teetotalers" and the given conditions of this game are different from the ones given by <nikolaas>.|
<The connoisseurs will take Marshall's exploitation of the missing pipe cleaner as nothing short of masterly [in Marshall vs Burn, 1900 ]. But we are by no means finished with the problems raised by tobacco. You can also chew it, as did James Mason , the Irish master who lived in this country for several years and won the Fourth American Chess Congress at Philadelphia, 1876. Though his other successes were only moderate, Mason was a player of considerable gifts. (Unfortunately, abstemiousness was not one of them) Emanuel Lasker had a high opinion of Mason. When analyzing a position, Lasker would say, half-jocularly, half-seriously: "Now what would Mason do in this position?" On this point, as on so many others, David Janowski was in furious disagreement with Lasker. It was beyond Janowski's understanding how a civilized man could chew tobacco, and he consequently considered Mason an outcast. Janowski might have been more tolerant if the "outcast" had not beaten him consistently. Janowski was choleric enough at the best of times, but a beating from Mason made him frantic - to the amusement of others besides Mason.
|May-10-06|| ||Resignation Trap: <One of the most remarkable of these encounters was the game which Mason won from him at Monte Carlo, 1902. Mason was in a hurry to leave and had to retire from the tournament before it was finished. as he was in poor health - he died three years later - a forfeit or two was a matter of indifference to him. But one of his unplayed games was with Janowski, and he hated to forfeit a sure point. He made no bones about it: "I can't leave the tournament before beating Mr. Janowski.">|
<Janowski was not the man to skulk away from a challenge. He considered himself the strongest player of all time - and unlike some others who have made the same claim - was always ready to take on anyone. Burning with eagerness to beat Mason, he agreed to play him out of turn. He promised everyone that he would trounce Mason just as easily as he always had - pardon! - would have done previously if some absolutely incredible things hadn't happened. <<Ma parole!>> (I give you my word.) Nobody took this too seriously , especially as Janowski, who was no Frenchman, pronounced it <<ma paroy>>.>
|May-10-06|| ||Resignation Trap: <To make Janowski more disconsolate, Mason received the First Brilliancy Prize for this game and then defeated him again a few months later in the tournament at Hanover [Janowski vs J Mason, 1902 ] - and that, despite the fact that Janowski won the tournament ahead of Pillsbury, Marshall, Chigorin and Mieses, among others!>|
|May-10-06|| ||keypusher: <Janowski was not the man to skulk away from a challenge. He considered himself the strongest player of all time - and unlike some others who have made the same claim - was always ready to take on anyone.>|
Behold the power of positive thinking!
|May-10-06|| ||Resignation Trap: <Calli> The De Riviere scoring system tried to discourage draws. If the players drew, they received .25 points, then the game was replayed. The winner of the replayed game received .5 points more, while if they drew, they each received another .25 points (zero for the loser in the replayed game).|
<keypusher> So chessmetrics places Janowski as #1 in the world for five months in 1904? I would have never suspected that!
|May-10-06|| ||Calli: <RT> Thanks for typing all that. As usual, the truth is far more interesting than the old standby "player was drunk..." story which seems to be told about numerous games and players. This time, however, they added a first place gravity to the game which you have proven totally false and thereby exposed the myth.|
De Rivičre was the TD and organiser for all the Monte Carlo events 1901-1904. By all accounts, he was an energetic, active man despite his age. Remember he was Morphy's opponent some 45 years before! People were shocked when he died suddenly at 75 in 1905. The Monte Carlo tournaments stopped at that point.
|May-10-06|| ||keypusher: <resignation trap> Me neither! But It appears to be a quirk of the chessmetrics system -- in the April 1904 list Janowsky was fifth at 2750, then got a bump from the Cambridge Springs tournament. Of the people ahead of him, Pillsbury and Chigorin's ratings declined because of the tournament, while Maroczy and Tarrasch were inactive. Lasker tied Janowsky for second at Cambridge Springs but was punished (by chessmetrics) for general inactivity after 1900.|
Chess ratings from Staunton, Anderssen and Morphy's time are pretty meaningless because of years w/out ratable games, but even at the beginning of the 20th century, the leading masters just didn't play that often.
|May-10-06|| ||keypusher: Lasker's chart makes for interesting viewing...looks like a slinky on steroids. |
Between about 1890 and 1920, Lasker seems to have been #1 whenever he was playing, but he wasn't playing a lot of the time.
|Jul-03-06|| ||MrMelad: Indeed, a beautiful game. Mason gives his queen in an incredibly long combination resulting in a superior endgame after the queen is regained. Very good game.|
|Aug-14-06|| ||Sleeping kitten: According to Le Lionnais this game was played on the March 6 1902.|
|Aug-14-06|| ||Pawn and Two: The Monte Carlo 1902 tournament book confirms that this game was played on March 6th, 1902, in the 19th of 21 rounds.|
In the 20th round of the tournament, Mason and Eisenberg agreed to 2 draws without playing. In the final 2 rounds of this tournament, several other players, Popiel & Gunsberg (1 game); Eisenberg & Scheve (2 games) and Napier & Marco (2 games) also agreed to draws without playing their games.
In the 21st round, Mason had a bye.
This tournament had a very exciting finish. After 17 rounds Pillsbury was leading with 12 pts, followed by Maroczy with 11.5 and Janowski with 11.
In round 18, March 4th, Maroczy (b) beat Albin (w), Janowski (b) beat Marco (w) and Pillsbury (w) drew with Chigorin (b), after Pillsbury had acheived a clear winning position.
In round 19, March 6th, Maroczy (w) drew with Mieses (b), Janowski (b) lost to Mason (w) and Pillsbury (w) drew with Marco (b).
Next followed 2 days of replays. First on March 7th, Pillsbury (b) lost to Chigorin (w), after missing a draw in the endgame. Then the next day, Pillsbury (b) lost to Marco (w), and Mieses (w) lost to Maroczy (b), after Mieses missed a draw in the endgame.
In round 20, March 10th, Popiel (w) lost to Maroczy (b), Mortimer (w) lost to Pillsbury (b) and Janowski (w) beat Marshall (b).
In round 21, March 11th, Tarrasch (w) and Maroczy (b) drew, Teichmann (w) lost to Janowski (b) and Pillsbury (w) beat Marshall (b).
In the game, Tarrasch vs Maroczy, Tarrasch hung a pawn in the opening, but Maroczy overlooked it's capture and got a slightly inferior middlegame. Towards the end of this game (35 moves), Tarrasch missed a move where he could have applied additional pressure.
On March 12th, the replay of Maroczy (w) and Tarrasch (b) resulted in a 2nd draw. In this game, Tarrasch again got a more favorable middlegame position, but the resulting endgame with Bishops of opposite colors remained drawish.
Marozcy won this great tournament with a score of 14.75, followed closely by Pillsbury with 14.5 and Janowski with 14 points.
In the last 4 rounds, Maroczy had scored 3.25 points, while Janowki scored 3 points and Pillsbury 2.5.
I believe Pillsbury's poor finish was due to fatigue from a long tournament and the advanced stage of his fatal illness which would soon require him to retire from tournament play.
|Aug-14-06|| ||Pawn and Two: Based on his tournament position, with only 3 rounds to go and trailing both Maroczy and Pillsbury, Janowski had to play for a win. |
Certainly his 12th move 12...0-0-0, instead of 12...0-0, was very risky.
Tartakower had this to say about Janowski's 12th move.
<A most infrequent case of castling on the Q side for Black in the Ruy Lopez, but the originality of this plan does not signify its soundness. Castles KR is better.>
|Aug-14-06|| ||Pawn and Two: In his above comment, FCLlove noted:
<36.b5!? is met by 36...c5!! 37.b5xa6 Qb6xa6 and black eventually advancing the c and d pawns, causing white a lot of trouble. a5 was to prevent those pawns bashing up his position.>
Actually, 36.b5! would be white's strongest continuation. After 36.b5! c5 37.Nc6 Re6 or Qb7 38.Rb2. After 37.Nc6, Fritz 9 rates white's position as (2.88) (16 ply).
|Aug-14-06|| ||Pawn and Two: After White's 40th move, 40.Qe1, Tartakower states in, 500 Master Games of Chess:|
<The unpinning of the Knight could have been effected more cautiously by 40.Qd2, for after the text move Black had a countercombination by 40...Bxb4, e.g. 41.Bxb4 Qxd4, etc., or 41.Nxc6 Kxc6 42. Bxb4 Qd4, etc.>
However, after 40...Bxb4 41.Bxb4 Qxd4, White is winning after 43.Bc3.
Even stronger for White is 40..Bxb4 41.Nxc6! Kxc6 42.Bxb4 Qd4 and now 43.Qh4! or 43.c3! is winning for White.
Both 40.Qe1 and 40.Qd2 are good moves, and Tartakower may be correct in stating that 40.Qd2 may be slightly preferable, however, the countercombinations he then provides for Black are clearly inadequate.
|Aug-14-06|| ||Pawn and Two: Tartakower states in 500 Master Games of Chess that White's 41st move, 41.Nb3 was a trap.|
Actually, this trap has a large flaw in it. Mason should not have played 41.Nb3. White has a strong advantage at move 41, but needs to find a different continuation for the win.
Tartakower states after 41.Nb3:
<A trap, e.g. 41...Bxb4 42.Bxb4 Rxb4 43.Nc5+ Qxc5 44.Rxb4 and White has won the exchange.>
However, after 41.Nb3? Bxb4! 42.Bxb4 Rxb4 43.Nc5+ Qxc5! 44.Rxb4 Qxc2! and the game is equal.
If 41.Nb3? Bxb4 42.Bxb4 Rxb4 43.Qc3 (best) Rb8b5 and again the game is equal.
If 41.Nb3? Bxb4! 42.Bd4 (best) Bxe1 43.Bxa7 Rxb3 44.cxb3 Bxb1 45.Bxb8 Be4. In this variation, White has won the exchange, but Black's bishops are so powerful a draw seems to be the likely result.
Mason's move 41.Nb3 was clearly an error, but Janowski's reply has set the stage up for a dramatic finish.
|Aug-15-06|| ||Pawn and Two: Regarding the move 44.bxc5, Leopold Hoffer made the following comment:|
<It was thought by the gallery that 44.Nxc5+ would be the better move, but Mason's continuation proved the more effective. 44.Nxc5+ Rxc5 45.bxc5 Qxb2 46.Rxb2 Rxb2 followed by Rxc2 or Bxc2 is not good for White.>
Tartakower in, "500 Master Games of Chess", makes no comment regarding White's move, 44.bxc5 or the alternative 44.Nxc5+.
I believe Hoffer's opinion regarding 44.Nxc5+ is incorrect.
After 44.Nxc5+ Rxc5 45.bxc5 Qxb2 46.Rxb2 Rxb2, White has a strong continuation with 47.Qh4. Then if Black continues 47...Bf5, 48.g4 hxg4 49.hxg4 Be6 50.Qh6 Rxc2 51.f5 can follow and White is winning.
If in this line, 49. hxg4 Be4+ 50.Kg1 d4 51.Qf6 Bd5 52.e6+, and again White is winning.
When Mason played 44.bxc5, Janowski should have played Kc8 and if 45.Qe2 then Qd7.
Fritz 9 rates 44.bxc5 as a very poor choice, which gives up most of White's advantage. 44.Nxc5+ was correct and winning per Fritz. After 44.bxc5?, Fritz rated the position as (.73) (18 ply), and gave the continuation 44...Kc8 45.Qe2 Qd7.
At his very next move, 44...Rb4, Janowski goes wrong again. As noted above, Fritz 9 indicates the correct move is 44...Kc8 and White would have a difficult time to prove a winning advantage.
The Deutsche Schachzeitung also had something to say about Janowski's move 44...Rb4.
<In spite of the pawn deficit, Black does not stand worse as White is tied up on the b-file. The text is not good. The rook is better placed on b5.>
There are many flaws in this game, but it is still an extremely interesting game.
|Aug-16-06|| ||Pawn and Two: On moves 45 & 46, Janowski played two very good moves, 45.Kc8 and 46.Qd7, positioning his King and Queen on the squares also indicated by Fritz 9 as being the best defensive arrangement for Black. |
On his 45th & 46th move, Mason completed his Queen maneuver of 45.Qh4 & 46.Qf6.
Tartakower spoke favorably of Mason's maneuver. After 45.Qh4, Tartakower stated:
<White gradually gains the initiative (45.Qh4)>.
and, < The beginning of a turning movement in the grand manner.>
Fritz 9 however, indicates that Mason's 45th & 46th gave away White's small advantage.
After 47.Kh2 (mate in two was threatened), Janowski played 47...Qe6?, an error that cost him the game.
Several suggestions have been given as improvements for Black at move 47.
Tartakower suggested 47...Kc7. However, that move would have been about as bad as 47...Qe6.
After 47...Kc7? (2.12) (17 ply) 48.Nd4! Rxb2 49.Rxb2 Rxb2 50.e6! fxe6 51.Nxe6+ Kc8 52.Qh8+ Kb7 53.Qxb2+ Ka8 54.Qf6 and White is winning.
The Deutsche Schachzeitung (DSz) recommended 47...Bxc2. After 47...Bxc2 (.66) (20 ply) 48. Rxc2 Rxb3 49.Re1 Qe6 50.f5 gxf5 51.Rcf2 Qxf6 52. exf6, a difficult rook ending ensues where Black has drawing chances.
Fritz 9, however, found 2 variations for Black that lead to complete equality.
47...d4 (.00) (21 ply) 48.Nd2 Rxb2 49.Rxb2 Rxb2 50.Nxe4 Rxc2 51.Nd6+ Kc7 52.Nxf7 Qd5 53.Qxg6 d3 54.Qd6+ Kc8 55.Qf8+
And, 47...Bf5 (.00) (21 ply) 48. Rf1 d4 49. Rfd1 d3 50.Ra2 Qe8 51.Nc1 dxc2 52.Rd6 Kb7 53.Ne2.
With his next three moves, 48.Qh8+!, 49.Nd4!+ and 50.Qxb8!, Mason finishes off the game with a beautiful winning combination.
Hoffer had this to say about Mason's combination:
<The sacrific of the Queen yields an ending of singular beauty, and forms a pendant to the beautiful ending which Mason played in the Vienna tournament, 1882, against Winawer.>
The ending that followed was completely hopeless for Janowski.
Hoffer notes the following after move 65.Kxf3:
<The game was adjourned here, it being the close of the seance, to be played out the following morning; but Janowski did not turn up, and the game was scored to Mason, his opponent's time having run out.>
A wonderful game, despite the errors.
|Sep-09-10|| ||GrahamClayton: Prince Andrey Dadian of Mingrelia awarded a prize of 500 francs for the best played game of the tournament to Mason for this victory.|
|Feb-04-13|| ||SirChrislov: <GrahamClayton: Prince Andrey Dadian of Mingrelia awarded a prize of 500 francs for the best played game of the tournament to Mason for this victory.> In 1902 I think that was about $65.00 in US dollars. A lot of ka-ching for 1902!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·