|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-03-06 | | EmperorAtahualpa: <I would have expected the Schinkmann game for today... (-:> <cu8sfan> Which game is that? |
 |
Jul-08-06
 | | notyetagm: <Calli: <CapablancaFan> Okay, you win, Marshall was not a great tactician, but a deep and original positional master.> I am with you, <Calli>. Marshall was one of the all-time greatest tacticians. Reuben Fine said that Marshall was THE strongest tactical player that he knew of, including Alekhine and Spielmann! The reason why Marshall did poorly in his matches with Lasker and Capablanca is because they were better chess players than Marshall, not better tacticians. Marshall's grades were like A+ for tactics and B for strategy, so when he played Capablanca/Lasker with their A for tactics and A for strategy, he was blown off the board. <Chess is not just tactics!> If chess was 100% tactics, then Marshall definitely would have been the World Champion. |
|
Jul-08-06
| | notyetagm: What a great trap Marshall sets in this game. From the notes to the game after 29 exd4: <Marshall has set a devious trap: if Black now plays
29 ... xc3? White may respond 30.  xc8+! xc8 31. xc8+  h7 32. h8+! xh8 33.  xf7+ and White is a rook to the better.> |
|
Jul-08-06
| | notyetagm: What game of the match was this? It must have been an odd-numbered game because Marshall had White in those games. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | sanyas: <notyetagm> Maybe chess is 100% tactics, and positional ideas are just a shortcut for working it out through calculation. So when strategy will do, a chessplayer can use that instead, and bypass a good percentage of those tactics. But this game was a slugfest. |
|
| Jul-16-08 | | chocobonbon: <notyetagm> Maybe someone can access the book for a direct quote but as I recall, Fine said he never knew anyone to have as good an eye as Marshall for the purely tactical in Chess. To me, if your tactics are not savored with a large dose of positional understanding they are greatly weakened. Wasn't it also Fine who said "I saw in Lasker the supreme tactical genuis"? |
|
Jul-16-08
 | | keypusher: <<Chess is not just tactics!> If chess was 100% tactics, then Marshall definitely would have been the World Champion.> Chess could be 99% tactics (or 99% calculation), as I think it is, and Marshall still might not have been world champion if Lasker and Capablanca were better at tactics than he was. I think they were. His scores against both of them were just awful. In most of the Lasker wins I am familiar with, Lasker outcalculates Marshall. I am not so familiar with the Marshall-Capablanca games, but the famous Marshall Gambit game is certainly close to 100% tactics. |
|
| Jul-17-08 | | Lutwidge: Lasker understood so well how to create difficulties for his opponents that even the most tactically gifted players (Marshall, Janowski) tended to blunder horribly against him. However, the more pragmatic players, (such as Pillsbury, Schlecter, Rubinstein and, obviously, Capablanca) fared rather better. |
|
Jul-17-08
 | | micartouse: There's also a difference between trying to force tactics and just calculating according to the position. A lot of Marshall games give the impression that he took great risks to mix it up, and that it worked against most players. Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine were all better tacticians who didn't try so hard - they just let it happen normally. They certainly didn't fear complications against Marshall either. |
|
Jul-17-08
| | keypusher: <Lutwidge> <Lasker understood so well how to create difficulties for his opponents that even the most tactically gifted players (Marshall, Janowski) tended to blunder horribly against him. > That they did, but his plus scores against both were huge -- blunders only explain a small part of it. E.g., look at Lasker's two wins over Marshall at St. Petersburg 1914. Marshall doesn't blunder, he just gets outplayed tactically. <However, the more pragmatic players, (such as Pillsbury, Schlecter, Rubinstein and, obviously, Capablanca) fared rather better.> That's an interesting point. Might quarrel with you about Pillsbury being pragmatic, but he certainly had a better score against Lasker than most! It's hard to draw conclusions about Lasker and Rubinstein, since they played each other so little. |
|
Jul-17-08
 | | chancho: Marshall won the first game in 1900 and could not win another game from Emanuel until 1940, when he was 72 years old: search "marshall vs lasker" 4 decades of frustration for Mr. Marshall. |
|
| Jul-18-08 | | Lutwidge: <keypusher> <That they did, but his plus scores against both were huge -- blunders only explain a small part of it. E.g., look at Lasker's two wins over Marshall at St. Petersburg 1914. Marshall doesn't blunder, he just gets outplayed tactically.> Sure, most of the time Marshall and Janowski would just drift (or charge) into dodgy positions vs Lasker, but it's remarkable to me how often they would botch the few decent chances they managed to create (or stumble upon). Anyhow, I suppose Marshall and Janowski probably weren't quite as good at chess as a whole as Rubinstein or Capablanca, but it's interesting to compare, say, Rubinstein's very close match with Marshall (I forget the final score) or Pillsbury's/Schlechter's close tournament records vs Tarrasch/Janowski/Marshall to Lasker's one-sided match scores against the same trio. Of course, tournaments aren't matches, but I suspect that a Lasker - Rubinstein (Or Lasker - Pillsbury) match would have been much closer to the drawn Schlechter match than the Tarrasch/Marshall/Janowski routs. Alas, when all's said and done, there's really not nearly enough games between Lasker and his main rivals around that time to draw any profound conclusions, except that Lasker didn't play enough tournaments during his WC tenure. Oh well. :) |
|
Mar-04-09
 | | Honza Cervenka: 33...Nxc3 seems to give black sound extra Pawn with good winning chances, for example 34.Kh1 (34.Rxc3 Qxd4+ 35.Kh1 Qxc3) 34...Nxb1 35.Qxd5+ Qf7 36.Qxf7+ Kxf7 37.Rxb1 Ke6 38.Rc1 Rf7 39.g3 Kd5 and Pd4 falls. |
|
Mar-04-09
 | | Absentee: <notyetagm:
I am with you, <Calli>. Marshall was one of the all-time greatest tacticians. Reuben Fine said that Marshall was THE strongest tactical player that he knew of, including Alekhine and Spielmann!>With all due respect for Fine, players like Rubinstein, Schlechter or Alekhine himself were far better at tactics than Marshall. |
|
| Mar-04-09 | | Jim Bartle: If Marshall was in fact the greatest tactician of his era, as Fine claimed, he must have been a really horrible positional player. Otherwise how could his record against the quartet of Alekhine, Rubinstein, Capablanca and Lasker be 15 wins and 51 losses? |
|
Mar-04-09
 | | sleepyirv: Hmm... So basically Lasker didn't fall into Monday's puzzle. Not too shocking, I suppose. |
|
Mar-04-09
| | keypusher: <Jim Bartle: If Marshall was in fact the greatest tactician of his era, as Fine claimed, he must have been a really horrible positional player.
Otherwise how could his record against the quartet of Alekhine, Rubinstein, Capablanca and Lasker be 15 wins and 51 losses?> Well, exactly. And if you look at his games you quickly see that he was a quite good positional player. Here is an example of which he was rightly proud: Teichmann vs Marshall, 1911
Since he was positionally strong, I think the necessary inference is that he wasn't quite as good at tactics as the best players of his own time. Fine, who said such nice things about Marshall's tactics, also supposedly said that Lasker was the "supreme tactical genius." Capablanca's speed and sureness in calculating was legendary. And Alekhine -- well, think of all his great combinations. |
|
Mar-04-09
| | keypusher: Hmm, since Teichmann apparently missed a late draw (damn you, analytically proficient cg.com posters!) better add these. Alapin vs Marshall, 1912
Marshall vs Spielmann, 1906
The point is, you can come up with quite a few nice positional wins for Marshall. I just strolled through his best games collection for these. |
|
Mar-04-09
 | | Calli: Game Collection: My Favorite Marshalls |
|
Dec-30-09
 | | GrahamClayton: <notyetagm>What game of the match was this? It must have been an odd-numbered game because Marshall had White in those games. <notyetagm>,
This is Game 3, if the order of the index to the games of the match is correct. |
|
Jan-10-10
 | | Adriano Saldanha: With all due respect, the annotation on white´s move 29 looks somewhat dubious. In fact it was Lasker who took the pawn on 28 ...cxd4, perfectly conscious that cxd4 couldn´t be done as white looses a rook. So white could ONLY capture with the e-pawn. No trap for me, sorry if im wrong. |
|
| Jan-26-11 | | Oceanlake: I think Nimzovich studied this opening. |
|
Jan-26-11
 | | TheFocus: <Oceanlake> Why do you think that? I don't believe Nimzowitsch ever played this variation. |
|
| Jan-26-11 | | Oceanlake: The pawn formation; doubled c pawns. |
|
May-08-13
 | | oao2102: Why not 25...cxd4 26. exd4 f6 and 27...Rxc3 ? |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 30...Rxf7