< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Aug-09-11|| ||DrMAL: <tamar: <Simpler and perhaps stronger was 23 Nxf5 exf5 24 Nxd5, with irresistible pressure against Black's shattered position> Siegbert Tarrasch> The only thing Tarrasch shows with this remark is that he did not understand this position when analyzing nearly as well as Pillsbury did OTB.|
23.Ra1 is the only move giving white ANY advantage. After 23.Nxf5 exf5 24.Nxf5 simply 24...Rc8 gives black a lingering advantage by grace of his extra bishop. From here 25.Ra1 Be7 26.Rfc1 Rxc1+ 27.Rxc1 Be6 28.Nc7+ Kf8 29.Qf3
|Aug-10-11|| ||tamar: Overall, the advantage of 23 Ra1 is that it keeps focus on the e6 square, and does not dissipate the quality of position so painstakingly built by settling for fifth rank squares, f5 or d5.|
That said, 23 Nxd5 is another candidate move that almost works. If 23...exd5 24 Ra1 Bc5 25 Rxa4 Bxa4 26 Nxf5 and White is still in business. For example, 26...Bxe3 27 Qxe3 Rh7 28 e6 Rc8 29 e7 with lingering pressure, although Black may be able to hold.
But Black can substitute 25...Qxb6 and keep the bishop on d7, when it is very hard for White to demonstrate an advantage. 0.00/21 Rybka 3
click for larger view
|Aug-10-11|| ||DrMAL: <tamar> Yes, I initially misread your posts above thinking it was 23.Nxd5 that Tarrasch suggested. Wanting to make sure it gave no advantage, I put it on the computer overnight.|
Houdini_15a_x64: 26/84 6:57:55 98,292,255,927
+1.28 23.Ra1 Bc5 24.Nxf5 exf5 25.Bxc5 Nxc5
-0.10 23.Kh1 Nc3 24.Nxf5 exf5 25.Rb3 Bb4
-0.20 23.Nxd5 exd5 24.Ra1 Bc5 25.Rxa4 Qxb6
-0.20 23.Rbe1 Bb4 24.Rc1 Nc3 25.Nxf5 exf5
-0.28 23.h3 Rc8 24.Ra1 Bc5 25.Nxd5 exd5
-0.40 23.Nxf5 exf5 24.Nxd5 Rc8 25.Ra1 Be7
-0.44 23.Nc2 Be7 24.Nd4 Rg8 25.Ra1 Nc3
-0.46 23.Rb3 Bb4 24.Qf3 Be7 25.Nxd5 exd5
-0.49 23.Qf3 Qe7 24.Nh5 0-0-0 25.Nf6 Kb8
-0.60 23.Rbd1 h3 24.g3 Nc3 25.Ra1 Bb4
I had not seriously considered the Karpovian 23.Kh1 it or 23.Nxd5 or 23.Rbe1 give basically equal chances. 23.Nxf5 is quite Tarrasch indeed giving slight advantage to black, cheers.
"Tarrasch's 'dogmas' are not eternal truisms, but merely instructional material presented in an accessible and witty form, those necessary rudiments from which one can begin to grasp the secrets of chess." -Garry Kasparov (seems apropos here)
|Dec-26-11|| ||tamar: Tarrasch called 18...h5 "the crucial mistake", but "really just a continuation of the error at move 13" (13...g6)|
It does seem sensible to castle rather than try to expand on both wings, but it took several stellar moves in the absence of which Lasker's Go-like strategy of envelopment would have succeeded.
|Nov-09-13|| ||RookFile: The great Pillsbury, destroying the position of his worthy adversary, "root and branch".|
|Nov-09-13|| ||offramp: Root and branch, tooth and nail, mote and beam, pot and kettle.|
|Nov-09-13|| ||Chess for life: Surely this being the game of the day on the day the Anand-Carlsen match starts must have a relation to the match? Is the Chessgames.com editorial staff predicting Carlsen will perform a "full nelson" on Anand today, as White?|
|Nov-09-13|| ||morfishine: A Pillsbury favorite, at least for me. There is something hypnotic about the exchange-sac followed by the piece-sac on <e6>|
Its a wonder whenever Lasker lost. One almost expects him to draw even the most desperate positions. However, in this game, Lasker appears to have confused himself in the opening, which if nothing else, is where one would expect to find him slipping as the opening was not his greatest strength.
Besides passing on 6...Bxc5 & 7...Bxc5, Lasker played a move he had no time for, namely 9...a5?? when <9...Qc7> was much preferred while 9...Nb6 was also clearly better.
|Nov-09-13|| ||offramp: If Pillsbury had survived until WWI he would've become a doughboy.|
|Nov-09-13|| ||cunctatorg: Hi all! Any serious collection of H. N. Pillsbury's Best Games to suggest?!? Writer (and Editor) also please!|
I admire this player's play...
|Nov-09-13|| ||perfidious: <cunctatorg>: Remember a Dover paperback collection from long ago (possibly by Fred Reinfeld), but the man who would know for certain is <parisattack>.|
|Nov-09-13|| ||Pawn and Two: <cunctartorg> Check out the book, "Harry Nelson Pillsbury - American Chess Champion", by Jacques N. Pope. The editor for this book is Fred Lindsay, and the publisher is Pawn Island Press of Ann Arbor, Michigan.|
This book includes over 900 of Pillsbury's games over his entire chess playing career. Some of the games are annotated, and tournament cross tables are included for all of the major events. A biographical section and other information is also included, such as Pillsbury's article for the "Saturday Review" on the Hastings 1895 tournament.
Pope's book on Pillsbury is outstanding. It must have taken years of research and work to make this book possible.
I think the book <perfidious> is referring to is, "Pillsbury's Chess Career", by P.W. Sergeant and W.H. Watts. This is also a good book on Pillsbury, but it does not contain nearly as many games or as much information as does Pope's book. It was first published in 1922, and contains 233 games. The 1937 & 1966 editions include an additional 9 games. The 1966 edition is by Dover Publications Inc.
|Nov-09-13|| ||TheFocus: <Pawn and Two> There was a third book by P. Wenman <Great American Chess-players II. H.N. Pillsbury> by P. Wenman.|
Please note also that Nick Pope is a member here at <CG> . He is <jnpope> and has a Forum.
|Nov-09-13|| ||Pawn and Two: <TheFocus> Thanks for the information on Wenman's book on Pillsbury. I was not aware of this book.|
I do have another book on Pillsbury, "Pillsbury The Extraordinary" , by Andrew Soltis & Ken Smith, published by Chess Digest, Inc. This book includes 30 of Pillsbury's games, and a fair amount of biographical information. This book is ok, but is not as good as the other two books I listed.
|Nov-09-13|| ||TheFocus: I believe there is also a German book by Bachmann but I don't have it. I don't have Soltis's book.|
|Nov-09-13|| ||kevin86: Is this game right? Or did Lasker retreat a bishop and give his queen away?|
|Nov-09-13|| ||Calli: Schachmeister Pillsbury by Bachmann http://books.google.com/books?id=Xz...|
|Nov-09-13|| ||tonsillolith: Why does Black play <7...Nxc5> instead of <7...Bxc5> if he intends to retreat the knight back to d7, when he could instead retreat the bishop back to e7, where it eventually goes anyway?|
|Sep-15-14|| ||hoodrobin: A great Pillsbury, a sly Lasker.|
|Sep-27-15|| ||Yuleejun: Why does Lasker sac his Queen on move 26.
Can't he just move Qc8 and some how escape with his King?
|Sep-29-15|| ||thomastonk: <Yuleejun: Can't he just move Qc8 and some how escape with his King?> No. After 26.. ♕c8 27.♕xf5, Black can try to prepare an escape of the King by 27.. ♕c6 with the idea ♕xb6+. But White has 28.♗g5!, a move which already Tarrasch gave in the tournament book. This is a human solution, whereas engines suggest 28.♔h1 or 28.♖f2 with a better evaluation. Nevertheless, the human solution can be explained: Black will lose the ♗e7 within a few moves, and the horrible attack continues.|
|Jan-29-17|| ||andrea volponi: 22...Cc3!- Cxf5 exf5- Tb3 Ab4- Ad4 Cb5- e6 Cxd4- Dxd4 Th6- exd7+ Dxd7- Dg7 Dd6- Dg8+ Df8- Dg5 Txb6- Tbb1 De7- Dg8+ Df8- Dg5=|
|Sep-19-17|| ||Penguincw: Video analysis of this game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0j....|
|Dec-31-18|| ||tamar: Returning to 22...h4, which I long felt to the key error in the game|
Tarrasch's note that "other moves allow the White Queen to make the difference from g3" was frustratingly vague since an immediate Qg3 produced lines like 22...Rc8 23 Qg3 Qe7 24 Nxf5 exf5 25 Nxd5 h4 26 Qg7 Qf8 27 Qf6 Rg8 28 Nc7+ Rxc7 29 bxc7 Be7 which doesn't win for White but gets the Queen trapped.
Was Tarrasch wrong and had missed the zwischenzug 25...h4? Did Lasker miss it too?
Looking at it afresh and with stronger engine Stockfish, it appears that Tarrasch was not wrong at all in the note, but after 22...Rc8 23 Ra1! Rc3 24 Qg3 Qe7 25 Nxf5 exf5 26 Nxd5 h4 (the same zwischenzug, but White has an option here) 27 Qe1! Qe6 28 Qxc3 Qxd5 29 Qxa3 Stockfish 010918 64 1.40/38
click for larger view
So had Lasker played 22...Rc8 Pillsbury's attack could still have been played almost in its entirety with Rook played to a1 and knight sacrifice on f5 instead of e6
|Jan-01-19|| ||HarryP: This game is epic poetry on the chessboard.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·