Harry Pillsbury vs Frank Marshall (1902)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Harry Pillsbury vs Frank Marshall
Monte Carlo (1902), Monte Carlo MNC, rd 21, Mar-11
French Defense: McCutcheon. Bernstein Variation (C12) · 1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	13 more Pillsbury/Marshall games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: If you missed a Game of the Day, you can review the last year of games at our Game of the Day Archive.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE. [CLICK HERE]

Aug-05-04		tayer: 21. ... ♖xc3 is a fatal mistake.

Aug-06-04		ashalpha: Yes it was, though if he was going to play on 22...Rxd3 would have given stiffer resistance. When 23. Kxd3 would be met with 23...Bb5+ and then Nc4.

Aug-24-24		NM JRousselle: 22... Rd3 is met by 23 Bb4+

Mar-02-25		KEG: This last-round game had the potential to cause massive upheavals in the standings. Going into this final found, the scores of the leaders were: Maroczy -- 14.25 Pillsbury -- 13.50 Teichmann-- 13.25 Janowski -- 13.00 Tarrasch -- 11.50 Tchigorin -- 11.50 *** Marshall -- 11.00 Wolf -- 11.00 Schlechter --11.00 Tchigorin had a bye in the final round, so his score would not change. Meanwhile, in the other two crucial last-round games, Janowski defeated Teichmann, and Maroczy and Tarrasch were to square off. Pillsbury, even if he lost, could finish no lower than tied for third. With Janowski beating Teichmann, Pillsbury would finish third if he lost (or tied and lost the replay), but was guaranteed at least second if he won. In that eventuality, he would have to await the result of the Tarrasch-Maroczy battle. Meanwhile, Marshall had a chance to take 5th place if he won and everything else worked out in his favor. This all means that Pillsbury, with a chance at first if Tarrasch beat Maroczy, would be playing for a win. Sadly, the exciting contest we might have expected was ruined when Marshall hung a piece on move 21, giving Pillsbury an easy win. To the extent there is anything of interest in the game, it is what occurred before Marshall's incredible oversight. 1. e4 e6 In his disastrous match trouncing by Lasker in 1907 (8 wins for Lasker and 0 wins for Marshall with seven draws), Marshall did comparatively better when he played the McCutcheon Variation of the French as Black (1 win and three draws). Interestingly, much the same opening had occurred earlier in this tournament when Pillsbury played Reggio. The latter, at least initially, got a decent game against Pillsbury, apparently encouraging Marshall to play the same opening here. 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 The McCutcheon Variation. 5. e5 The usual move against the McCutcheon, though Lasker played 5. exd5 in three of the aforesaid games in his match against Marshall and 5. e5 in the other. 5... h6 click for larger view 6. Bh4 The "normal" move here is 6. Bd2. Arguably even better is 6. exN. The inferior text (Sargeant/Watts over-react and assign it a "?") was played by Pillsbury in his game against Reggio, perhaps encouraging Marshall to go into this line. Pillsbury, however, DID win his game against Reggio, and decided to repeat the experiment here. 6... g5 7. Bg3 Ne4 8. Nge2 c5 The move played by Reggio in the game Marshall was mirroring. It is probably not best (8...h5; 8...f5; 8...Bd7; 8...NxB all seem superior to the text) The position was now: click for larger view 9. a3 BxN+ Marshall's improvement on Reggio's play (who tried 9...Ba5). 10. NxN NxN 11. bxc3 click for larger view Having emerged with approximate equality, Marshall had no reason to be dissatisfied with the course of the game thus far. As for Pillsbury, he had made a career of winning theoretically even positions, so he was probably confident in his chances despite his failure to achieve any significant edge from the opening.

Mar-03-25		KEG: Post II 11... Qa5 The engines all like this move which was first played (so far as I am aware) by Lee against Janowski at London 1899. But I have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and therefore know that the seemingly logical attack on the White c3 pawn would ultimately prove Marshall's undoing. Nor just because of this (which is, of course, theoretically worthless), I much prefer the simple developing 11...Nc6. 12. Qd2 Clearly best. It left: click for larger view 12... cxd4 This only helped Pillsbury untangle his weak Queen-side pawns. It also leads to an endgame which--at the time of this game--was much more of a Pillsbury forte than for Marshall. 13. cxd4 QxQ+ 14. KxQ Nc6 click for larger view 15. c3 As the game went, this move ultimately lured Marshall to his demise. But I nonetheless much prefer 15. Ke3 or 15. h4 to placing the White c-pawn on this potentially vulnerable square. 15... Bd7 "Black changed pieces too freely, and has now the inferior pawn development"--(Marco) I disagree, while White--with the two Bishops--may be nominally better here, it is White with his backward c-pawn that has the more problematic pawn structure. 16. h4 As always in the endgame, Pillsbury is here looking for action. 16... Ke7 click for larger view 17. hxg5? This can't be right. It ultimately leads to a trade of Rooks on the h-file and a dissolution of Pillsbury's small advantage. Better were 17. f4; or 17. Rb1; or 17. h5. 17... hxg5 18. Bd3 Typically, Pillsbury was confident he could win an even endgame, even with reduced forces as here. 18... Na5 click for larger view 19. Ke2 Setting a trap into which Marshall soon fell head-first. 19... RxR 20. RxR click for larger view Pillsbury had at this point at most a modest edge. It is therefore shocking to relate that Marshall managed to get himself a dead-lost position within two move, as I will relate in my next post on this game.

Mar-04-25		KEG: Post III 20... Rc8 Marco in the Tournament Book suggested 20...Nc4 "trying for Bishops of opposite colors." This notion looks good to me, but the text--putting pressure on the backward White c-pawn--is also OK (provided Black doesn't do something stupid). 21. f4 Indirectly defending the c3 pawn. Of was Pillsbury setting a trap. The position was now: click for larger view Even a beginner should see that the c3 Pawn is poison, at least for now. But: 21... Rxc3?? "A childlike blunder"--Jakobetz in his recent book on Maroczy. 22. Be1 Duh: click for larger view Now Marshall loses his Knight (or the exchange) and the game is lost. The balance of the game is of little interest. 22... Rb3 Whether this or 22...RxB is "better" is a moot point. In either case, Black is busted. Pillsbury chose the line that at least superficially seems to promise the most counter-play. 23. BxN Rb2+ click for larger view 24. Bd2 24. Kf3 or 24. Kf1 are simpler, but the outcome would be the same. 24... gxf4 25. Rb1 Putting an end to any even remote attacking hopes Marshall might have had (e.g., 25...Ra2 26. Rxb7 spells fini). 25... RxR 26. BxR click for larger view With Black's f4 pawn about to fall and in the absence of any possible counter-play from Black, it is hard to understand why Marshall played on (unless Pillsbury had limited time to meet the move-30 time control). 26... Kd8 27. Bxf4 Kc7 28. Bd3 b5 29. Bd2 Kb6 30. Bb4 a5 Pillsbury had managed to reach move 30. Marshall nonetheless chose to play on for a few more mover. 31. Bc5+ Kc6 32. Kf3 Bc8 33. Kf4 click for larger view 1-0

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.