< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Feb-22-12|| ||RookFile: Wow, I didn't know that he was 0/1 going into this game. He might have been tempted to play it safe, make a draw, and get on the board. Pillsbury could have very easily lost this game with one slip.|
|Feb-22-12|| ||Rook e2: Thanks for the replies Olavi and RookFile. I think it was an important game in Phillsbury's way to victory that tournament. But 'this very famous game?' Is i think still a bit exaggerated ;-)|
|Feb-22-12|| ||whiteshark: <SimonWebbsTiger> Thanks for mentioning and commenting on these phantastic endgame books.|
It is most appreciated!
|Feb-22-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Actually - historically - this is an extremely important game. |
Prior to this game, ALL of the world's leading players were quite sure that White's QB belonged on the Q-side. (Back then, most of the world's top players hailed from Europe.)
Pillsbury, "The Pillsbury Attack," (4.Bg5) and many of the beautiful games that Harry Nelson Pillsbury played along the way ... showed that 4.Bg5 was an extremely (then NEW) good, proper and correct path for White to explore in the opening.
There have been several books written about Pillsbury, if you are curious, I would suggest reading them to learn more on this topic.
|Feb-22-12|| ||AlphaMale: 4.Bg5 is not the Pillsbury Attack.|
|Feb-22-12|| ||keypusher: <Prior to this game, ALL of the world's leading players were quite sure that White's QB belonged on the Q-side.>|
Steinitz approved of Bg5 and had played it himself as early as 1873. See comments from the Hastings tournament book gathered here.
Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894
Steinitz playing Bg5.
|Feb-22-12|| ||RookFile: Moves 13-15 were characteristic of Pillsbury's attacking plan.|
|Feb-22-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <keypusher> The general thought was that the White QB ... BELONGED on the Q-side ... any chess book of that period will verify this fact.|
|Feb-22-12|| ||keypusher: <LIFE Master AJ: <keypusher> The general thought was that the White QB ... BELONGED on the Q-side ... any chess book of that period will verify this fact.>|
Correct. But that isn't what you said. Instead, you claimed that <Prior to this game, ALL of the world's leading players were quite sure that White's QB belonged on the Q-side.>
You were wrong.
|Feb-22-12|| ||King Death: <Rook e2: ...But 'this very famous game?' Is i think still a bit exaggerated ;-)>|
I agree with <Olavi> and <RookFile> on this one, this was a well known game when I was growing up as a player in the 1960s.
|Feb-22-12|| ||RookFile: I guess keypusher is technically correct. AJ's revised statement ( the general thought was ) is also correct. It's probably not worth the semantics.|
|Feb-22-12|| ||keypusher: My fault too. AJ is what he is. I do not want to mess up the kibitzing for this wonderful game. cg, if you want to delete the whole exchange, fine with me.|
|Feb-22-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: That would be cool with me as well.|
|Feb-22-12|| ||Phony Benoni: This is a great game on many counts. First, it is a struggle between two opposing plans pursued logically and ruthlessly, resulting in a thrilling conflict.|
The game may have changed the course of Pillsbury's chess career. Before Hastings, he was a relative unknown in Europe. Sure, he'd had some mild successes in the States, but what great player had the U.S. produced outside of Morphy? Most of its representatives, like MacKenzie or Paulsen, were immigrants from Europe.
In the first round, Pillsbury had lost a difficult game to Chigorin. Had he lost this one as well, would he have gone on to success at Hastings? Or would his confidence have been sapped?
Instead, he went toe-to-toe with one of the top five players in the world, and beat him unflinchingly. That had to open a few eyes, especially when he kept doing it round after round.
So what about the opening, specifically <4.Bg5>? As pointed out, it had been played before, as you can see from this Opening Explorer list:
Sixty-one appearances in our incomplete database, including three times each in the world championship matches of 1886 and 1894. Steinitz seemed to be getting fond of it in the 1890s. However, the demerits of the move were well known. Here's what Isidor Gunsberg had to say about it in the tournament book:
<"No good results from this early sortie of the bishop. The attack, or, perhaps better speaking, would-be attack, differs from similar play in the French defence, inasmuch as White has not P to K5 at his command. Generally speaking, both the first and second player in this opening require their Queen's Bishop on the Queen's side.">
(One of the highlights of my chess career was finding a copy of the tournament book in the University of Michigan Graduate Library with a pencilled comment next to the note: <"Totally wrong! This game established 4.B-Kt5 as White's best move! Gunsberg is an idiot!!"> I imagine that writer is posting on the Internet at this very moment. Such creative anachronism never dies.)
Less colorful was C.E. Ranken's comment in the 1895 <British Chess Magazine>, p. 384:
<"The early sortie of the the QB to B4 or Kt5 has now become quite fashionable in this opening, but not infrequently it leaves the Q's side rather weak.">
This is, I feel, closer to the truth, and note that it's exactly what goes on in the game. The Opening Explorer offers some insight as to what came next. Pillsbury played <4.Bg5> several more times at Hastings, and Lasker, Janowski, and Tarrasch (!) also gave it a whirl. By 1896, it's in use by a wide range of players in several different tournaments. It had become fashionable.
We all know the legends of Greasy Grey-Haired Grandmasters who have burned the Midnight Oil in the never-ending quest for the Holy Grail, a <TN> next to one of their moves. More often than not, I have the feeling that an innovation is nothing more than a player looking at a position and saying, "Oh, what the heck! This looks interesting."
While submitting games from the US Opens in the 1950s, I checked each one against the Opening Explorer to avoid duplicates. I was constantly amazed how relatively unknown players would find a move that wouldn't be introduced into grandmaster play for another 40 or 50 years. I shouldn't have been. In all probability, they didn't know the book move and just played something that looked logical and didn't dump material.
|Feb-22-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Phony Benoni> Fantastic post.|
|Aug-22-12|| ||pers0n: did Tarrasch seriously miss that checkmate in a long game?|
|Dec-11-12|| ||perfidious: A fascinating struggle in all its vicissitudes. The analysis performed by <DrMAL> with his silicon assistant-plus that of Kasparov and <Fritz> in OMGP-has uncovered some points of interest beyond those which were already analysed in bygone days.|
|Oct-10-13|| ||SeanAzarin: According to the great master and analyst E. A. Znosko-Borovsky, Black's fatal mistake was 38...BxP. If 38...RxP instead, sacrificing the Exchange for two passed Pawns, White's 42nd move and the concomitant mate threats [43 R-N8 mate, or if 42...R-K1, 43 N-B7 mate] would have been defended against by the Bishop and Black would have had time to force a pawn through to promotion on the Q side, or force White to give up material to stop said promotion.|
|Oct-10-13|| ||SeanAzarin: The exact wording of Mr. Znosko-Borovsky's analysis is:|
"The game is lost because Black lacks the help of his Bishop. If he had captured the QNP with his *Rook*, giving up the Exchange, he would have preserved his Bishop, which was so essential to the defence, and the two united passed pawns supported by the Bishop would have been more than a match for the Rook. Black had this tactical opportunity and failed to take it. Either he did not see it, or he underestimated the dangers of the situation, or he lacked the pluck to make the sacrifice. White, by contrast, did not hesitate to sacrifice a whole Knight. Black did not lose because of a faulty conception; his tactical failure in its execution was his downfall."
|Nov-20-13|| ||drleper: <SeanAzarin> Znosko-Borovsky's exchange sac doesn't appear to work, due to white having the impressive resource 42.Ne5! (38... Rxb3 39. Nxb3 Bxb3 40. Rg2 Kh8 41. gxf6 gxf6 42. Ne5!). All of black's plans on the queenside turn out to be too slow, and his king gets caught instead.|
|Jul-20-15|| ||Sally Simpson: Been reading all the post attached to this game. Hilarious. Some of you lot would start an argument in an empty house.|
I liked the bit where two lads were (to put it more politely), discussing the relative value of a Bishop v Pawns and one challenged the other to a King and Bishop v King and five pawns game. (page 8)
Much mention has been made of Gunsberg's comment about 4.Bg5.
click for larger view
"No good results from this early sortie of the Bishop..."
I have the original book of the tournament printed in 1896. What may not be too well known is that Gunsberg is still going on about 4.Bg5 as late as move 27.
click for larger view
"Now the position affords an object lesson as to the effect of White's early move 4.Bg5. The attack on the King's side, which this move was intended to promote, has apparently been met, and therefore Black begins to advance from the Queen side, where White's pawns are insufficiently supported."
No one can accuse Gunsberg of annotating by result. Infact quite the reverse. In the game:
K A Walbrodt vs Steinitz, 1895
"In the game Lasker v Steinitz, we have given our opinion about this defence , and the fact that Black is successful in this instance does not induce us to alter our views."
No idea who the 'we/our' are. The comment on the Lasker v Steinitz can be seen here.
Lasker vs Steinitz, 1895
All the games are given notes by different players from the tournament, no player being allowed to note up his own game. So you get a smashing mixture of prose and opinions. You could say Gunsberg was just unlucky in getting drawn to note up this game.
It would be good if one day Houndini Mark XXVIII proved 4.Bg4 is simply no good and after all these Gunsberg was right.
|Dec-24-15|| ||Amarande: Hardcore dogmatism seemed to be a thing around this time. Tarrasch was famous for it also (how much time did he spend trying to insist 4 Ng5 in the Two Knights was a duffer's move?), and it also wasn't just a chess thing (Henry Jones aka "Cavendish" was famous for it in his Whist treatise, even where irregular play is successful he cautions with "the result, however, is no criterion").|
|Dec-24-15|| ||RookFile: Gunsberg is not a big fan of 4. Bg5. The funny thing is nobody talks about black's ....Bb7. What exactly was that bishop good for there? Yes, I know about the Tartakower variation, but even in those ...b6 lines black's best option can sometimes be to play ....Be6. My view is the time spent moving the bishop about, finally to get rid of it for a knight, gave white time for his kingside attack.|
|May-04-16|| ||keypusher: <Sally> Gunsberg's funniest annotations that I've seen are to Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894, the last game of the 1894 championship. It disgusted Gunsberg from beginning to end. I'll post them some day. |
<RookFile> some discussion of the pluses and minuses of the bishop on b7 at Tartakower vs W Winter, 1932 and posts gathered there. Of course no one can deny that the strategy often doesn't work out too well...
|Jul-09-16|| ||Mateo: I believe at the time this game came as a huge sensation, isn't it? Tarrasch was winning and then he played some weak moves but the way Pilssbury played from move 36 until the end was simply astonishing. 44.Qg3+!! followed by the quiet 45.Kh1! was just brilliant.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·