|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-25-11 | | SChesshevsky: What a great game. Impressive was White's bind with the f & d pawns. Maybe at least in this game it looks like Pillsbury had an advanced positional understanding that Tarrasch couldn't quite handle. Must have been very frustrating. Related to B vs N, it was interesting that Petrosian often liked to exchange his B for the N on f6 as White in the QGD locking in Black's bishop with the d4f2 pawn chain and then he'd go to work on the Qside. |
 |
| Oct-25-11 | | DrMAL: As much as I admire Pillsbury I sincerely doubt Tarrasch was lacking in positional understanding. But I agree Tarrasch was frustrated. Not by some mystery (he was maybe #2 in world) but because he blew a won game not just drawing but even losing. Often during game after mistake, one gets upset and plays even worse, this game shows such a thing with 40...gxf5? blunder. |
|
Oct-25-11
 | | AnalyzeThis: Tarrasch was a great chess teacher. |
|
| Oct-28-11 | | DrMAL: BTW I forgot to mention, on subject of Bs and Ns there is very good book for club player, I recommend highly, cheers. http://www.amazon.com/Power-Chess-P... |
|
| Oct-29-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
indeed -- it is a lovely book by Timman.
Something related: <Practical Endgame Play - Beyond the Basics> by Glenn Flear and <Endgame Strategy> by Shereshevsky. The Flear book discusses "NQEs" (not quite endgames) with two pieces and pawns on each side in the endgame and is illustrative of the strengths and weaknesses of the minor pieces in different material configurations; eg. 2B v. B+N, R+B v. R+N, R+B or R+N v. Q. It's a fascinating book which cannot help but improve endgame technique and an appreciation of middlegame theory. The Shereshevsky book has two important chapters on the minor piece theme: the 2 Bishops and the isolated d-pawn. Timman also looks at the IQP in endgames when he looks at B + IQP v. N. French Defence - Tarrasch Variation players (ie. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5) will testify to how important it is to know the classic endgame that can arise from this line. Black is slightly worse but can hold with good defence. Finally, Watson spends time on minor piece issues in his <Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy>. Well, that is a selection of books to study and keep busy with over the forthcoming Xmas holidays! :o) |
|
| Oct-31-11 | | kamalakanta: <DrMAL>
Hi!
I do not think that 40...gxf6 was the main mistake; by that time, Black is lost! If 40...Nxf6 41.Ne5! Qc7 42.Ng6+ Kg8 43.Nxe7+ Qxe7 44.Kh2 followed by 45.Rfg1, and the Black position is shaky....for example. after 44.Kh2 Bf7 45.Rfg1 g6 46.fxg6 Bxg6 47.Rxg6! hxg6 48.Rxg6+ Kf7 49.Qh6 white has a crushing attack....49...Ke6 50.d5+ Ke5 51.Qg5+ Kd6 52.Rxf6+ Kc7 53.Rc6+! Kd7 54.Rc7+ and the Black Queen falls! |
|
| Nov-01-11 | | DrMAL: <kamalakanta> Thanx for good ideas but after 40...Nxf6 I do not think black was lost, not even after 41.Ne5! here is computer eval showing how best Q moves transpose (they also transpose within each line between Ng6+ and Nxb3). Houdini_20_x64: 27/72 05:56 3,656,830,672
-0.52 41. ... Qc7 42.Ng6+ Kg8 43.Nxe7+ Qxe7 44.Nxb3 Rxb3 -0.52 41. ... Qb7 42.Nxb3 Rxb3 43.Ng6+ Kg8 44.Nxe7+ Qxe7 -0.52 41. ... Qd6 42.Ng6+ Kg8 43.Nxe7+ Qxe7 44.Nxb3 Rxb3
click for larger view
From here, white is up R for N+P but black counterplay leads to likely draw (45.Kh1 Rb2 46.Rxb2 cxb2). |
|
| Nov-03-11 | | Everett: <SimonWebbsTiger: @<Mozart72>
you might like to study <Rethinking the Chess Pieces> by Andrew Soltis (Batsford 2004).> As i was catching up on this thread, I thought of the same book. Many fine examples of varying values of pieces. Of note was his assessment of the growing power of rooks as the game continued, yet how they are of little value buried in the corner. It is a simplification, Soltis has it make more legit sense. Any material point system for is limiting anyway. The standard one isn't great, but we all know that nothing static can ever come close to capturing the essence of chess mathematically. <Mozart> why not look into how the best programs create value? That would be the best place to start and end this issue. |
|
| Feb-21-12 | | Rook e2: Pillsbury's Wikipedia sais this is a very famous game.. A bit exaggerated maybe |
|
| Feb-21-12 | | AlphaMale: You need a history lesson, dude:
<Feb-01-03
Premium Chessgames Member refutor: this is the introduction of the 'pillsbury attack' (Ne5 supported by f4, lines up the bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal and then brings up the queen and f1-rook to attack the black king) v. the orthodox queen's gambit declined and was revolutionary at the time and helped Pillsbury with the Hastings tournament.Aug-07-03 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.> |
|
| Feb-21-12 | | Rook e2: <AlphaMale: You need a history lesson, dude:> So it popuralized this opening but why is this game so special? |
|
Feb-22-12
| | RookFile: The noteworthy thing was that white's entire queenside was blown apart, and it wasn't clear how to attack the king. If Pillsbury was anything less than the great player he was, finding one great move after another, black would have won this game. |
|
| Feb-22-12 | | Olavi: And of course this was round two with a complete outsider beating the seemingly invincible Tarrasch. Admittedly Pillsbury's first round loss to Chigorin was a tremendous fight. |
|
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.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|
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. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 44.Qg3+
