William Pollock vs Siegbert Tarrasch (1895)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

William Pollock vs Siegbert Tarrasch
Hastings (1895), Hastings ENG, rd 13, Aug-21
French Defense: Steinitz Attack (C00) · 1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	969 more games of Tarrasch
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: To access more information about the players (more games, favorite openings, statistics, sometimes a biography and photograph), click their highlighted names at the top of this page.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Feb-13-05		tjipa: A wonderful game! Tarrasch blundered on move 11 and got a healthy tactical beating! Also, I think, the old Steinitz system 1.e4 e6 2.e5 is undeservedly neglected nowadays.

Feb-13-05		hintza: <I think, the old Steinitz system 1.e4 e6 2.e5 is undeservedly neglected nowadays.> Well, Tarrasch's 2...f6?! looks rather dubious here. After 2...d5! (instead of 2...f6?!) the best White can do is transpose into the Advance Variation with 3.d4. If 2...d5 3.exd6, then simply 3...Bxd6 gives Black a small lead in development and a very comfortable position.

Apr-15-07		keypusher: Pollock also beat Steinitz in this tournament. He "threw himself" against the top players at Hastings. His results were uneven, but the games were always exciting. W Pollock vs Lasker, 1895 Steinitz vs W Pollock, 1895 W Pollock vs Chigorin, 1895

Nov-14-11		DrMAL: Thanx <FSR> for pointing out game in H Charlick vs W Tullidge, 1887 I agree with statement above, idea of 2.e5 is underrated move, at least for club play, one could go wrong as Tarrasch (surprisingly!) did immediately here with 2...f6 as noted above 2...d5 transposes to Advance French and is most common reply. With 2...c5 game transposes to Charlick gambit 1.e4 c5 2.e5 with reply 2...f6?! instead of "normal" move 2...d5 that Charlick made unique via 3.exd6 (Opening Explorer). Here is eval after 3.d4! probably best. Houdini_20_x64: 28/70 56:02 34,289,460,444 -0.22 3. ... c5 4.Bd3 g6 5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.Nf3 Nc6 -0.22 3. ... fxe5 4.dxe5 Nc6 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bb5 Nge7 With 3...c5 it is still weird opening resembling French (f6 instead of d5). After 4.Bd3 strong move (4.dxc5 has also been played I do not think this is as strong) Tarrasch's 4...f5?! is (suprisingly poor!) attempt to make position look like Dutch but this would already be a key tempo behind. 4.g4 was very interesting it sharpens game, but maybe 4.d5 was even better, here are evals before and after strong 4.g4 move. Houdini_20_x64: 26/81 23:54 15,031,382,961 +0.61 5.d5 d6 6.Nf3 dxe5 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 Houdini_20_x64: 26/69 1:11:22 43,020,787,861 -0.32 5. ... cxd4 6.gxf5 Qa5+ 7.Kf1 Qxe5 8.Nf3 Qc7 Game was interesting double-edged battle with ups and downs. For example, 11...exf5?! tilted edge back to Pollock but he played 12.cxd4 instead of 12.Nb3 difficult to see big advantage this would gain. After 12...Be7?! however, Pollock played 13.Nf3! for big advantage anyway and then, with 13...Kd8? instead of 13...d5 it looked like beginning of end, but series of minor inaccuracies allowed Tarrasch to survive. 18...b6? was losing move, it weakened black K enough for end to follow even with inaccuracies. Tarrasch played poor game (for him) from outset but Pollock still gets credit for persistence and overall strong play, nice game for him!

May-16-14		ljfyffe: Pollock's game with Tarrasch was splashed over a whole page of thr St. John Globe. He stopped in the city on his way over to Hastings and was a guest of John DeSoyres.

Jun-07-14		ljfyffe: Or perhaps, it was one of the other City papers of the time. It was a number of years ago when I read the article.

Jan-02-17		Tuvix: Hi, I have a copy of Encyclopedia of chess openings 1st edition book C, and on page 12 it says that: 1. e4 e6 2. e5 f6 3. d4 c5 4. Bd3 f5 5. g4 cd4 6. gf5 Qa5 7. c3 Qe5 8. Ne2; is from Steinitz-Winawer, Wien 1882. Is this a mistake in the book, or maybe the games have the same openings?

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.