|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Mar-28-05
 |
| tamar: <beatgiant> I didn't mean to imply that Pillsbury was lost after 22...Rc8 23 Qg3, just that the straight-forward attack after 23...h4 24 Qg7 could be parried. The variation you gave earlier 22...Rc8 23 Nde2 works against 23...Nc3, but what if 23...h4 24 Bd4 Rc2 25 Nxd5 Bc6 with a counter-attack. I liked 22...Rc8 23 Ra1 and tried to make it work because it has that Butterfly Effect that happens in the game, where events on the a file have consequences all the way over to the King. But it appears to be no more than a draw. Duplicating Pillsbury's attack is difficult because as Calli noted earlier <...maybe that its not really a king attack but a demolition of Lasker's whole position.> |
 |
Nov-07-05
|
| tamar: " A game deeply conceived and magnificently accomplished." Siegbert Tarrasch I'm still doing my cut and paste translation of the Nurnburg 1896 tournament book, going through the games, and getting the flavor from the disappointed but witty Tarrasch. Lasker spent some time at Tarrasch's house during this tournament, despite their rivalry, and is even rumored to have fathered one of Tarrasch's children, Eva, during the summer this tournament took place, according to Kamm's "Siegbert Tarrasch, Leben und Werk". What with Pillsbury's venereal disease disrupting his sleep and handicapping his play, only to lift magically in this interim where he defeated Tarrasch, Lasker and Chigorin in succession, the drama between games highlights that it is not only chess moves which determined who held the crown right after Steinitz. |
|
| Feb-04-06 |
| jaime gallegos: what a tragedy of this man, Casanova, Guy de Maupassant, Nietzche , al Capone among others died with this disease ... the famous Sir Jonathan Hutchinson, who died in 1913, saw more than a million syphilis patients in his lifetime !!! |
|
| Feb-05-06 |
| offramp: <jaime gallegos: ...the famous Sir Jonathan Hutchinson, who died in 1913, saw more than a million syphilis patients in his lifetime !!!> What was he? A journalist for Rolling Stone? |
|
May-22-07
 |
| frank124c: Does Pillsbury have anything to do with the company that makes baked goods and was Lasker the first Pillsbury doughboy? |
|
Oct-13-07
 |
| keypusher: The kibitzing here is almost as astonishing and wonderful as the game itself. :-) |
|
| Jan-03-08 |
| Zonszein: I suspect that Lasker was very lucky that he didn't play a match for the worldchampionship against Mr Pillsbury.. |
|
Jan-03-08
 |
| capatal: Ah Holmes! There's the rub! One of Pillsbury's arch rivals, possessed in Chess fear, sent a tainted tart to his rooms, upon a villainous errand...to make the beast with two backs and thus bestow the tainted gift that keeps on giving. "Diabolical!", exclaimed Sherlock," Watson, the games afoot!" |
|
| Jan-03-08 |
| Jim Bartle: "It's quite a simple affair, but it does have some points of interest, Watson." And let's not forget, Holmes and Moriarty died together by falling into the Reichenbach Fall in Switzerland during a struggle. |
|
| Jan-03-08 |
| Petrosianic: <And let's not forget, Holmes and Moriarty died together by falling into the Reichenbach Fall in Switzerland during a struggle.> Oh, really?
|
|
| Jan-03-08 |
| Jim Bartle: Yes and no.
In "The Final Problem," Holmes sacrificed his own life to rid the world of the master criminal Moriarty. This was to be the final Holmes story. But years later the public was so forceful in demanding more Sherlock Holmes that Conan Doyle wrote that he was hiding when Watson arrived at the waterfall, and went underground to wipe out the vestiges of Moriarty's network. He returned by "surprise" in "The Adventure of the Empty House." |
|
Jan-03-08
|
| tamar: "Well, then, about that chasm. I had no serious difficulty
in getting out of it, for the very simple reason that I never was in it." |
|
| Mar-01-08 |
| Mate Hunter: <Emanuel Lasker held the world championship for a record 27 years. He won nearly every tournament he played in during his reign. Furthermore, he played good chess into his late sixties. Despite his skill on 64 squares, he was considered a weak player early in his reign as world champion by many of the leading chess players of that time. Harry Pillsbury, an American, had beaten Lasker in a previous tournament. This fueled the belief that the world champion Lasker could be beaten despite the fact that Lasker's poor performance was more likely due to his recovery at that time from a serious illness. This game was a product of that time. Lasker felt he had to beat his nemisis decisively to prove to the world that he was a worthy holder of the title. Lasker's risky play resulted in a brilliant attack that so shakes Pilsbury that he lost the next four games he played in the St. Petersburg tournament.> (http://www.logicalchess.com/resourc...)The game is also called <Must Win!<>> |
|
| Mar-01-08 |
| beatgiant: <Mate Hunter>
The quote above is about Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1895, not this game. |
|
May-01-08
|
| tamar: <Simpler and perhaps stronger was 23 Nxf5 exf5 24 Nxd5, with irresistible pressure against Black's shattered position> Siegbert Tarrasch
Is this true? Has anyone tested this out? This seems to give Black some options. How would White proceed after 24...Be7, or 24...h3
|
|
May-04-08
|
| tamar: Let's see then
After 23 Nxf5 exf5 24 Nxd5 I ran some tests with Shredder 8 on Deep Analysis: 
click for larger viewnow White gets a decisive attack after 24...Be7 25 Rfc1 Rb8 26 Ra1 h3 27 Qg3 Rc8 28 Qg7 Rf8 29 Rxc8 Qxc8 30 e6! 
click for larger viewIf 30...Bxe6 31 Nc7+ Kd8 32 Rxa4 wins a piece or 30...fxe6 31 Qxe6# Or after 24...Be7 25 Rfc1 Black can try the bolder 25...Rc8 26 Rbc1 Rg8
27 Nxe7 Kxe7 28 Qh4+ Ke6 29 Qc4+ Ke7 30 Qxa4 Rxg2+ 31 Kf1 and in this wild position White is better 1.12/17 
click for larger view |
|
May-04-08
|
| tamar: So far, my analysis had proved out Tarrasch' assertion that 23 Nxf5 exf5 24 Nxd5 was "simpler and perhaps stronger" than 23 Ra1. However, Black can try 24...Rc8 which no matter how long I stretch the analysis, proves better for Black. Here is one line: 25 Qd2 Be7 26 d4 h3
27 g3 Kf8 28 Qxa5 Rc2 29 Rbc1 Rg2+ 30 Rb2 
click for larger viewWhite is stymied trying to gain an attack, and is even facing the loss of the b pawn. So I think 23 Nxf5 exf5 24 Nxd5 would lead to a more complicated game, but with prospects for Black if he plays 24...Rc8 |
|
| May-04-08 |
| sambo: What happens after 26...Qb8 27. Qxf5 Kd7 28. Nc7+ Kd8 29. e6 Bc6 (assuming that's best play for white)? |
|
May-04-08
|
| tamar: <What happens after 26...Qb8 27. Qxf5 Kd7 28. Nc7+ Kd8 29. e6 Bc6> 30 Bg5 is crushing as all of Black's heavy pieces are out of the game. 
click for larger view |
|
Jul-27-08
 |
| Ulhumbrus: 13...g6 disturbs the King side pawns without necessity, as well as moving a pawn in the opening. 13...Nb6 makes way for ...Bd7 |
|
Jan-26-09
 |
| talisman: wow...Lasker fathered one of tarrasch's children! <tamar> knows. that's the 1st i've heard of that one. E MAN U L wasuh play uh! |
|
| Sep-16-09 |
| donehung: By my count Lasker had moved one or the other knight 8 times by move 13, whereas pillsbury is completely developed. I personally would have captured c5 with the bishop on ..7 |
|
| Nov-09-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 26...QD7 27 Qxf5 Rf8 where's the win? |
|
| Nov-09-09 |
| DrCurmudgeon: <WhiteRook48> You have got to be joking. Here's the position after 26...Qd7 27.Qxf5 Rf8:
click for larger view
Perhaps if you actually look at the position instead of spewing out another mindless twitter, you might be able to see the mate in two. With a mighty effort, you might even discover there are two ways of doing it. Or am I overrating your intelligence? |
|
| Nov-09-09 |
| grz: <DrCurmudgeon> Easy on WhiteRook48 there. We may need him later. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 24.Rxa4
