|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-22-06 |
| fenmastah: <suenteus po 147: <Resignation Trap> <<If 51...Rb1+ 52.Kg2 Kg6, then it's over after 53.Qe6+ Kh5 54.Qxe4 Rb2+ 55.Kg3 c2 56.Qxh7#. If, after 53.Qe6+, Tarrasch plays 53...Kg7, then all Pillsbury has to do is start checking the king around, harvesting pawns until the fateful fork at Qxe4, collecting the troublesome rook>>
Your line may not work if a double check places the rook at b2 instead of b1. It then becomes untouchable and the prospect for promotion is powerful. If 51...Rb1+ 52.Kg2 Rb2+ (not Kg6) 53.Kg3 (Kg1) Kg6, then black will aim for promotion on the c-file. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~White to move~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
click for larger view |
 |
Jul-27-06
 |
| notyetagm: What a tremendous battle!
|
|
Jul-27-06
 |
| tamar: There are some games that you can see players improve before your eyes. This one is fascinating because Tarrasch played more solid moves than Pillsbury, but succumbed to a spurt of sustained tactical ingenuity that showed Pillsbury was a different player at Hastings than before. |
|
| Mar-22-07 |
| hscer: Does White have anything winning if 51...Rb1+ 52. Kg2 Rb2+ 53. Kf1 Kg6 ? |
|
| Mar-22-07 |
| wharfrat: <hcser> White would play 53.Kg3 and if then 53...Kg6, White wins after 54.Qc6+, Kf7; 55.d5, c2; 56.d6, b3; 57.d7, Rb1; 58.d8(Q), c1(Q); 59.Qcf6 mate. Trying to stop the d-pawn doesn't help: 55...Rd2; 56.Qb7+, Kg8; 57.Q:b4, etc. |
|
| Mar-23-07 |
| FHBradley: <RookFile:> You seem to be somewhat obsessed with Steinitz's treatment of the Evans Gambit with black. Do you think that's all he ever did, spending his entire adult life trying to figure out how to beat the beastly Evans? <what happenned is that when Lasker
beat Steinitz, he felt the need to
build Steinitz up to give his own
title legitimacy. So, he wrote
all these nice things about Steinitz,
and people afterwards started to
get the idea that if Steinitz had
ever played Morphy, Morphy wouldn't
have beaten him silly.>
How did you come up with that? The great Steinitz hoax? |
|
| Aug-21-07 |
| sanyas: <RookFile> Against Morphy Steinitz would probably have played the Hungarian Defense. |
|
| Aug-22-07 |
| docofthree: the genius of morphy aside you must consider steintz the father of postional play.in open tactical battles its hard to pick anyone who has ever lived over morphy.pillsbury was underrated and i believe had more than likely chances of beating lasker if they played 1895 to1900 |
|
| Jan-10-08 |
| twin phoenix: I will be a true radical and say that modern chess actually started with the great Philidor! take a look at the classic B+R v.s.R ending attributed to him and you will see modern ideas of outflanking and deflection. (wish i knew how to post the position. it's too complex for just a quick look however...)
Morphy was a chess genius. 100 yr.s ago, today, and will still be 200 yrs.s from now. He's like jimi hendrix to the guitar. everyone since him has been influenced by his play... |
|
| Jan-10-08 |
| RookFile: As I said, let's end the other topics, and focus on Pillsbury, Tarrasch, out of respect for Pillsbury's wonderful accomplishment. By the way, did Pillsbury ever play a game, (win, lose, or, draw) that wasn't extremely interesting? |
|
| Apr-22-08 |
| guymonod: <<We are all familiar with the film dramas, in which the hero or the heroine is in imminent danger of death, whilst at the same time other developments are taking place with a view to rescue. The audience follows the action and counter-action in breathless suspense, for to all appearances the rescuers will arrive on the scene too late. Only at the very last moment, when all hope has been abandoned, is the tragic end averted. A similarly exciting drama is offered in the following game...> > (R. Reti, Masters of the Chess Board) |
|
| Jun-18-08 |
| Lutwidge: The Hastings tournament book has this game annotated by (of all people) Gunsberg and some of his comments illustrate the state of theory at the time. For instance, Gunsberg has this to say about 4. B-Kt5: "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 Kt at his command. Generally speaking, both the first and the second player in this opening require their Queen's Bishop on the Queen's side." |
|
Dec-29-08
 |
| Ulhumbrus: Richard Reti annotates this game from the position after 28 Ne2 in his book "Modern ideas in chess". |
|
| Dec-29-08 |
| AnalyzeThis: A lot of people have annotated this game. |
|
Dec-29-08
 |
| Phony Benoni: In the Hastings 1895 tournament book, Gunsberg annotated this game and criticized Pillsbury's 4.Bg5. Many years ago, I came across a copy of the book in the University of Michigan library in which somebody had scrawled a comment to the effect of: <"This note is completely wrong! 4.Bg5 is the strongest move for Whtie in this position, and this game proves it! Gunsberg is an idiot!> May Caissa save us all from the infallibity of critical hindsight. |
|
Dec-29-08
 |
| Calli: <Phony> Didn't you notice that note was signed "HNP"? |
|
| Dec-29-08 |
| AnalyzeThis: Gunsberg was strong enough to give Steinitz a hard time. His point is that the absence of the bishop from the queenside should give black opportunities for counterplay. Ironically, a strong system for black is the Cambridge Springs Defense, with Pillsbury himself used. |
|
| Dec-30-08 |
| andrewjsacks: AnalyzeThis speaks well indeed. All true. And do not forget, opening theory advances... |
|
| Dec-30-08 |
| GrahamClayton: <Kenkaku>This game is considered one of the great contributions to QGD theory. In addition to what refutor mentioned, throughout this tournament Pillsbury popularized 4. Bg5, which had been largely disregarded up to this point. Hi Kenkaku,
What moves other than 4.  g5 had been played up to this point? |
|
Dec-30-08
|
| Calli: Common was 4.Nf3, usually followed by Bf4. See Queen's Gambit Declined (D37) It might be interesting to examine the early games to see of there is a game that transposes into a Pillsbury attack formation. |
|
Dec-30-08
|
| Ulhumbrus: If many people have annotated this game, Reti's annotations may count as one of the best. I don't remember all that I saw in the book, but on 28...Qa4 29 Ng4! threatens a sacrifice on f6. On 29...Nd7 30 R4f2! I don't recall seeing Reti's analysis but one variation is 30...Qxa2 31 Nf4 Bf7 32 Ng6+ Bxg6 33 fxg6 h6 34 Nxh6 gxh6 35 Qxh6+ Kg8 36 Rf4!! and Black appears to have no satisfactory answer to the threat of 37 Rf4-h4 followed by 38 Qh8 mate. |
|
| Feb-21-09 |
| WhiteRook48: where did Tarrasch blunder? |
|
Jul-23-09
 |
| Knight13: <pillsbury was underrated and i believe had more than likely chances of beating lasker if they played 1895 to1900> I don't think so. Pillsbury cracked after 1895 and was playing catch-up to his 1895 strengh ever since, while Lasker continued to improve. |
|
| Jul-23-09 |
| docR: you may want to check pillsbury's record against lasker.I still contend a match between HNP and lasker between 1895 and 1900 >50% chance HNP wins. but of course we'll never know. |
|
Oct-01-09
|
| Ulhumbrus: <WhiteRook48: where did Tarrasch blunder?> He probably didn't. However he may have made a positional error by playing 16...Ne4 instead of 16...Nf6-d7. The reason why 16....Ne4 is a positional mistake is that it allows White to play Bxe4 whereupon the recapture ...dxe4 closes the centre. With the centre blocked White can prosecute more easily a King side attack without diatraction. By contrast if Black plays 16...Nf6-d7 keeping the central e file open, after 16...Nf6-d7 17 Bxe7 Qxe7 18 Qg3 it is not so easy for White to play f5 followed by a pawn storm without diatraction after eg 18...Nxe5 19 fxe5 f6 20 exf6 Qxf6 or 18...f6 19 Ng4 Kh8 |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 44.Qg3+
