|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-18-04
 | | offramp: One of the 100 best games of all time. Mason was a genius at times. Romanovsky called him the greatest player of all time. I am surprised there has been no kibitzing for this one yet. |
|
Aug-19-04
| | offramp: If you don't know this game I bet you'll never guess white's weird 44th move. It is the start of a very very long combination. |
|
| Aug-19-04 | | nikolaas: This was one of the decisive games of that tournament. Janowski needed a win to reach Maróczy. When the game hadto start, Mason wasn't found anywhere. Janowsky's concurrents searched for him everywhere and they found him drunken on a bank in the park. They took him back to the tournament and he played this game. |
|
| Mar-17-05 | | Gowe: Great endgame by Mason, and <Nikolaas> i believe your history but i can't believe he was drunk when he made this beatiful match. Probably he drunk just a bit, because otherway it's impossible. This game is excellent and has an incredible combination of pieces, moves, intelligence, offensive play. |
|
| Mar-17-05 | | akiba82: He was drunk when he beat J.W.Baird at N.Y.1889. Not a bad game either. Like Alekhine he seems to have been able to play in that condition. |
|
| Mar-18-05 | | nikolaas: <gowe> I'm just quoting (and translating) the Belgian paper "de morgen". |
|
| 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! http://xoomer.virgilio.it/cserica/s... |
|
| May-10-06 | | Resignation Trap: <Calli> (and others) Our www.chessgames.com version is misdated. It should read "Monte Carlo 1902". http://xoomer.virgilio.it/cserica/s... . 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!
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Play... |
|
| 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 Rivière 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. http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing... 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. http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Play... 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). |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 50.Qxb8
icon.