< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 37 ·
|Dec-05-16|| ||cunctatorg: Imho if Lajos Portisch was as strong as Jan Timman, then ... perhaps Frank Marshall was as strong as H. N. Pillsbury. |
However Marshall's results with Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine were hardly like Emmanuel Lasker vs. H. N. Pillsbury; the reading of the score tables gives enough testimony but the real difference was the process of the construction of the attack from these attacking players.
Frank Marshall was an original, highly gifted, fascinating and "honest" attacking chess player, a real sportsman that is but H. N. Pillsbury's chess was much better!! My guess is that there are more among us, amateur chess players who know Marshall than Pillsbury and if this conjecture of mine is true, it would be -more or less- a pity.
Lajos Portisch had been a real super-grandmaster with a long and great carrier that only a minimal number of chess players could ever dream off, however he wasn't as original, imaginative, creative and efficient as Jan Timman ... or even Nigel Short...
|Dec-05-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Yeah, but Euwe was a methodical guy and contributed to the development of the (chess) computer. And though he wasn't a natural born genius -just my opinion- as Pillsbury was, Euwe became World Chess Champion. And his opponent was not the weakest one when it comes to creative chess. |
Tout est relatif.
|Dec-05-16|| ||TheFocus: Happy birthday, Harry Nelson Pillsbury!!
One of my favorite players.
|Dec-05-16|| ||jnpope: I spent the morning in Knoxville TN (on my way back from 2 weeks in FL) and I found 3 new Pillsbury games. I'd post one here tonight, but I'm tired from my drive back to Ann Arbor. Perhaps tomorrow.|
|Dec-05-16|| ||capanegra: Happy birthday, Maestro.
Carlsen-Karjakin last month was ok; but your premature departure deprived the world of what could have been one of the greatest matches in chess history.
|Dec-05-16|| ||zanzibar: <jnpope> ...
What? No info about venue, date, opponents?
Oh the anticipation!
|Dec-06-16|| ||jnpope: Here is one of the three new games I unearthed yesterday during my visit to the University of Tennessee. It was from a five board blindfold consultation simultaneous. Pillsbury scored +4=1-0.|
Site: USA Memphis, TN
White: McDonald,RA + Allies
Black: Pillsbury,HN (sans voir)
Opening: [B01] Scandinavian
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e5 6.d3 Nc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Bd2 Qc5 9.a3 h6 10.Be3 Qd6 11.h3 Bh5 12.b4 Qe6 13.Nb5 Bd6 14.c4 a6 15.Nc3 Rd8 16.Qc2 g5 17.c5 Bf8 18.Rad1 Bg6 19.Qb2 Bg7 20.Rfe1 0-0 21.Bf1 Nd5 22.d4 Nxc3 23.Qxc3 e4 24.Bc4 Qf5 25.Nh2 Kh7 26.Rd2 Qc8 27.Red1 f5 28.f4 exf3 29.Nxf3 Bh5 30.Rf1 f4 31.Bf2 Kh8 32.Rfd1 Qf5 33.Bb3 Qf6 34.Bc2 Bg6 35.Bxg6 Qxg6 36.Qc4 Qe4 37.Qd3 Qxd3 38.Rxd3 Rd5 39.Ne1 Rfd8 40.Nc2 Kh7 41.Kf1 Kg6 42.Ke2 h5 43.a4 g4 44.hxg4 hxg4 45.b5 axb5 46.axb5 Na7 47.Nb4 Rh5 48.b6 cxb6 49.cxb6 Nb5 50.R1d2 Rh1 51.Rd1 Rh2 52.Kf1 g3 53.Bg1 Rh1 54.Ke2 Kf5 55.Kf3 Rxg1 56.Rxg1 Nxd4+ 57.Rxd4 Rxd4 58.Rb1 Rd2 59.Rf1 Bc3 0-1
source: Memphis Commercial Appeal, Morning Edition, 1904.02.21, Part III, p12
|Dec-06-16|| ||TheFocus: Great, Mr. Pope!!|
|Dec-06-16|| ||Nosnibor: <cuncatorg> It is generally acknowledged that Pillsbury and Lasker halved there life time scores The one game omitted from your score was the rapid transmission game won by Pillsbury Apart from this I agree with your findings on the relevant standings on Marshall and Pillsbury despite the fact that Marshall had a slight plus against Pillsbury|
|Dec-07-16|| ||cunctatorg: <Nosnibor>: perhaps the trivial excuse regarding Pillsbury's illness is the explanation of this oddity; all these games had been played from 1900 until 1904 and during these years the severely ill Pillsbury didn't fight Frank Marshall (whom he had faced a few years ago in simultaneous exhibitions) as he did fight Emmanuel Lasker... |
Anyways though evaluations regarding chess are more reliable than the evaluations regarding politics or political history, these evaluations are neither as reliable as laws of physics nor as reliable as mathematical theorems. Regardless, the Lasker vs. Pillsbury score, the Lasker vs. Pillsbury quality of games plus Pillsbury's condition of health provide (imho) more than some evidence...
|Dec-12-16|| ||todicav23: Pillsbury was one of the biggest talents in the history of chess. He learned chess at 16 (many players are already grand masters at that age). Despite this handicap he still managed to get to the top and only illness stopped him from becoming World Champion candidate. He is one of the greatest players who never become World Champion.|
|Dec-16-16|| ||Mr. Blonde: I don't really get how you people are actully comparing Marshall and Pillsbury. In his prime, Harry play much better chess than Marshall ever did, in terms of positional judgement and even in attacking resources. Pillsbury knew when to attack. Marshall attack at any cost. Compare both of them against a wall called Lasked. Marshall was a Tal without that positional sense. Harry was a guy looking for the initiative from a positional perspective, kind of reminds me of the active possitional style that Fischer had in the 70's. In addition, in terms of natural ability, Harry MUST be seen as a Morphy or Capablanca. The guy was just a freak of nature! And his chess was super accurate and modern looking for his time. I don't know what you guys think of all of this. To my eyes, Pillsbury is the "middle step" between Morphy and Capa in terms of style. My english is not my mother language, so I apologize if there are grammar mistakes, but I think you all understood me. Thank you for your time.|
|Mar-07-17|| ||MissScarlett: <Pope>, when's the book out?|
|Jun-01-17|| ||zanzibar: <
[Event "Brooklyn CC blindfold simul"]
[Site "BCC, 146 Montague St., Brooklyn NY USA"]
[Round "board 3/16"]
[White "Pillsbury, Harry N."]
[Black "Clarence, S. / Thompson, M. J."]
[Source "BDE 1900.10.21 Sun p11"]
[GameTime "7:30 - 10:30 pm"]
[Director "John D. Elwell (Pillsbury's NY manager)"]
[Notes "Allies members of Dutch Arms Club"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.a3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Bf4 Nge7 7.Nbd2 Ng6 8.
Bg3 a5 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Nxf3 Bc5 11.h4 Qe7 12.Qa4 O-O 13.O-O-O Rfd8 14.
Qb5 Ngxe5 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Qxb7 Rab8 17.Qe4 Bxa3 18.Rd2 Bxb2+ 19.Rxb2
(White to move after 15...Nc6xNe5)
click for larger view
r2r2k1 /1pp1qppp/8/pQb1n3/2Pp3P/P5B1/1P2PPP1/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16
Pillsbury played 16.Qxb7?? and Black pounced.
|Jun-01-17|| ||zanzibar: "Inside of two hours [Pillsbury] caused the surrender of Avery at Board 16, amid hearty applause, the game lasting twelve moves."|
[Round "board 16/16"]
[White "Pillsbury, Harry N."]
[Black "Avery, T. M."]
[Source "BDE 1900.10.21 Sun p11"]
[GameTime "7:30 - ~9:30 pm"]
[Director "John D. Elwell, Pillsbury's NY manager"]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 Bh4+ 5.g3 fxg3 6.O-O d5 7.Bxd5
gxh2+ 8.Kh1 Nf6 9.Bb3 Bg3 10.e5 Nd5 11.Nc3 c6 12.Ne4 1-0
(Position after 12.Ne4)
click for larger view
rnbqk2r /pp3ppp/2p5/3nP3/4N3/1B3Nb1/PPPP3p/R1BQ1R1K b - - 0 12
This continue seems to hold material for the longest (?):
12...Bf4 13.Nd6+ Kf8 14.d4 Bxc1 15.Qxc1 f5 16.exf6 Be6 17.fxg7+ Kxg7 18.Bxd5 Bxd5 19.Nf5+ Kf7 20.Kxh2 h6 21.Qf4 Kf8 22.Nd6+ Ke7 23.Nxb7 Qd7 24.Ne5 Qxb7 25.Qf6+ Ke8
|Jul-04-17|| ||zanzibar: The 2006 dedication of a new grave marker has gone off-line, use this archived version instead:|
|Jul-12-17|| ||MissScarlett: <<Pope>, when's the book out?>|
And you expect me to buy it, you uncivil wretch!?
|Jul-13-17|| ||MissScarlett: <We revert to the complex list of words which Pillsbury is said to have learned [...] It has yet to be established when the list first appeared in print. [...]
That website is referred to on page 56 of Blindfold Chess by Eliot Hearst and John Knott (Jefferson, 2009), which indicates that the memory experiment was conducted by Dr Threlkeld-Edwards and Professor Merriman of Lehigh University before Pillsbury began a blindfold exhibition in Philadelphia. [...] Jerry Spinrad has found the following report on page 3 of the Littleton Independent of 14 December 1900: [...] It is not possible to present a larger version here, but, loupe à l’appui, it will be seen that the memory display is said to have taken place ‘recently’ at the Northampton Club in South Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.>|
Let's push it back further one hopes, to the original source.
The Wheeling (West Virginia) Intelligencer, Thursday, October 25th, 1900, p.3:
<Philadelphia Record: The wonderful memory of Champion Chess Player Harry N. Pullsbury was shown in a difficult test at the Northampton Club, South Bethlehem, on Monday evening. [...] [H]e did not have any trouble repeating them yesterday at the Franklin Chess Club. [...]>
Unless the <Wheeling Intelligencer> was particularly tardy in picking up the story, this indicates that Pillsbury's blindfold simul took place on Monday October 22nd, he was back at the Franklin CC in Philadelphia on Tuesday, and the <Philadelphia Record> published its account on Wednesday.
The <Philadelphia Record> is not online, so this calls for some actual spadework to confirm the details above: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...
Perhaps - who knows? - Pope's already got it covered.
|Aug-14-17|| ||jnpope: <Perhaps - who knows? - Pope's already got it covered.>|
Well, I do push the earliest known report for that specific incident several days earlier as it appears in the New-York Daily Tribune, 1900.10.19, p8 (fourth column, under the Personal heading towards the bottom):
This would make Monday the 15th the closest Monday (if Monday can be believed from the Wheeling Daily Intelligencer, the NYDT says "the other day"). I am still trying to gain access to the Philadelphia Record to nail this sucker to the wall before I go to print... it's one of the few outstanding issues I'd like to resolve...
<<Pope>, when's the book out?>
Well, I just spent the weekend splitting it into two volumes (at 1480+ pages my computer was starting to choke/crash
on the manuscript).
Now that it is split I'm fighting to deal with the indexing problem. I can easily produce indices per volume, but I was really loving a single set when it was one manuscript. So the question is how to combine indices from multiple volumes. At this point each volume starts out with a page 1, but I could start the page numbering in volume 2 where I left off in volume 1 and then try to combine the indices into a single master set.... or I could just take the easy way out and force people to live with individual indices in each volume. I'm still fighting with myself on that point.
|Aug-14-17|| ||zanzibar: <Paraphrased from the Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition; section 1.105 - Separate versus consecutive pagination): the decision for whether page numbering continues or begins anew in a subsequent volume rests with the publisher. They recommend that a publication with two volumes with a combined index at the end of the second volume would be easier with continued page numbering, but that as the number of volumes increase beyond two, or where page numbers run in more than three digits, consider resetting the page number to 1 for each volume.|
With respect to the format of the cross-reference, including the volume number is preferred for ease of use, whether pages are numbered in a continuous manner or whether they restart with each volume. Generally, the format would be something like (see bears, 2:117) where the 2 represents the volume number and 117 represents the page number in that volume.>
Although it's a little interesting to note that their (i.e. CMoS's) online index uses a slightly different notation (i.e. <vol.page>):
And did you know there's an entire society devoted to indexing?
|Aug-15-17|| ||MissScarlett: <<<Pope>, when's the book out?>|
Well, I just spent the weekend splitting it into two volumes (at 1480+ pages my computer was starting to choke/crash on the manuscript).
Now that it is split I'm fighting to deal with the indexing problem. I can easily produce indices per volume, but I was really loving a single set when it was one manuscript. So the question is how to combine indices from multiple volumes. At this point each volume starts out with a page 1, but I could start the page numbering in volume 2 where I left off in volume 1 and then try to combine the indices into a single master set.... or I could just take the easy way out and force people to live with individual indices in each volume. I'm still fighting with myself on that point.>
Let me strive to make things a bit simpler: when's the book out?
|Aug-17-17|| ||jnpope: <Let me strive to make things a bit simpler: when's the book out?>|
It's like a souffle.... it'll be done when it's done. I'll ring the bell when it's ready. Assuming it (or me) do not collapse.
|Aug-17-17|| ||zanzibar: I hope <Missy> doesn't die from anticipation...|
|Aug-18-17|| ||Retireborn: You know she's waiting, just anticipating,for things that she'll never, never, never, never possess....|
|Aug-18-17|| ||MissScarlett: <it'll be done when it's done. I'll ring the bell when it's ready.>|
That would be fair comment, except for Harry Nelson Pillsbury
By way of recompense, I suggest you reserve me a complimentary copy of your book.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 37 ·