|Dec-02-03|| ||Kenkaku: Pillsbury's amazing combination begins on move 17. If Lasker had not played 21. Qd1 then 21...Qh3+ 22. Ke2 Re8. The combination ends with 24...Nxd3. An overall superb tactical game. |
|Apr-18-05|| ||iron maiden: Pillsbury's first victory against Lasker, and a good one too. Lasker gets an uncomfortable position out of the opening and Pillsbury never gives him another look in. |
|Nov-15-05|| ||notyetagm: Check out the pawn structure at the end of this game. Pillsbury has two 3-pawn pawn islands while Lasker has 4 isolated pawns.|
|Nov-26-07|| ||Ulhumbrus: After 12...Ng5, White does not have his QN on d2 already. as in the game|
Capablanca vs B Kostic, 1919
so White lacks time for Bxg5 followed by Re6 and Rae1.
Instead of 14 Qc2, 14 Nd2 prepares to double Rooks on the e file.
|Nov-19-09|| ||Winston Smith: I don't understand 5.d4, why wouldn't he want to kick the knight out of the center with 5.d3?|
|Nov-20-09|| ||Buttinsky: I think White plays d4 rather than d3 for better piece mobilization, which is somehow worth allowing the knight on e4.|
|Jul-21-10|| ||jessicafischerqueen: Here is a visual description of part of this game based on reports by the <New York Daily Tribune> on December 14, 16, and 28:|
<Pillsbury made his moves with a slow, deliberate case that astonished the crowd of spectators. Suddenly, after Lasker's I 11.Bf4, all of Pillsbury's apparent lethargy vanished, and with a grand sweeping motion picked off Lasker's knight with a snap, and began playing with such speed as to show that lie had analyzed through to victory. Lasker seemed to become bewildered by his opponent's tactics, and was unable to prevent Pillsbury from bringing about a brilliant combination that forced the game shortly.>
|Jul-21-10|| ||TheFocus: This was Pillbury’s surprise opening, having never played it before in tournament or match play. It stood him in good stead; during his career, he scored eight wins, four draws and seven losses as Black, and scored one win and two losses against it. |
His results inspired other American players, such as Marshall and Kashdan to adopt this opening.
His wins included such players as Lasker, Tschigorin (twice), Charousek, W. Cohn, H. Wolf, and Delmar.
His losses included Steinitz (twice) Maroczy, Eisenberg, W. Cohn, Mieses and Showalter.
His draws included Steinitz, Lasker, H. Wolf, and Teichmann.
As White against it, he defeated Schlechter but lost to Marshall and Teichmann.
|Aug-24-11|| ||cloutier: stunning!|
|Jan-16-15|| ||RookFile: The Petrov is a good opening. Black gets that e4 pawn off the board early. He is certainly fighting for the center, and that c8 bishop comes right out and finds good work to do.|
|Jun-25-16|| ||SimplicityRichard: <RookFile: The Petrov is a good opening.>|
I never contemplated playing any opening reputed to drawishness or dullness for that matter. I somewhat reluctantly took up the Petrov as I began to coach youngsters and encouraged them to respond to 1.e4 with ..e5 as a way of introduction to open games. I myself never bothered with ..e5 and began straight with the Sicilian. My advice and recommendation to the learners was simple; the Petrov avoids tonnes of study against Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano, Scotch, Vienna, Four Knights etcetera.
Amazingly, I am winning just as many games with the Petrov as I do with the Sicilian Kan and Dragon. I am simply stunned and in-love with the Petrov.
The Petrov is simple, solid - hard to break down yet in some variations explodes into Kingside attacks against the White King. I have a penchant for Kingside attacks. It's a great understated and unfairly maligned opening. And it's tendency to draw is I suspect only at the highest levels.#
|Jun-25-16|| ||offramp: <SimplicityRichard>, have many people played 4.Nxf7 against you? I think that's a good move.|
|Jun-25-16|| ||RookFile: In my experience, and this may seem surprising, 4. Nxf7 leads to a draw more often than not, if both players know the opening.|
|Jun-25-16|| ||offramp: <RookFile: In my experience, and this may seem surprising, 4. Nxf7 leads to a draw more often than not, if both players know the opening.>|
I think that is the same with me. I don't play the Petroff but when my opponents do, I bet they <hate> 4.Nxf7.!
As you say, it's only good enough for a draw... But there is a lot of chess between move 4 and move, say, 40.
|Mar-12-17|| ||Mr. Blonde: 4. Nxf7. The Cochrane Gambit, yes. Especially tricky when it comes to blitz. Maybe also in standard games. If you are interested, you should take a look at some of Alvis Vitolins games: he had a superb score with it, I believe.|
|Mar-12-17|| ||sudoplatov: The reason for d4 rather than d3 is that White hopes to show that the tempo Black gained by putting the Knight on e4 loosens the position too much. After d3 the position is symmetric with White having only the move advantage. It's a lot like the French Exchange or the Double King's Indian; White has the extra move but Black has the better opportunity to break symmetry.|