< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·
|Jan-17-12|| ||King Death: <visayan> Larsen said something once that went about like this: "Lasker? He would lose badly because he would get in to positions he'd never seen before." There may have been some other disparaging comments from him about that group of players.|
|Jan-17-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: I find Larsen's attitude toward pre-WW 2 players strange because the youngest of the 1930s batch were still around when he became active. |
Larsen did not exactly force them to lose badly when they did meet; more the other way around.
When the now over the hill Larsen did meet the young rising Nunn, he creamed Nunn.
|Jan-17-12|| ||RookFile: Mikhail Tal played 95 consecutive games without a loss. That's pretty good.|
|Jan-17-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <In the course of research for a book, I made a lengthy look at endgames from a comparable period and found similar butchery, including some terrible blunders by top players such Lasker. The endgame skills of the great masters - excepting Rubinstein - are much exaggerated in books, for the reasons that Nunn gives, i.e, the understandable selection of a very small set of games for reasons of instruction and beauty>|
<Larsen said something once that went about like this: "Lasker? He would lose badly because he would get in to positions he'd never seen before.">
Here is Larsen dominating Nunn:
Bent Larsen beat John Nunn 2 to 0, with 4 draws
Here is Keres dominating Larsen:
Paul Keres beat Bent Larsen 2 to 0, with 4 draws.
Here is Alekhine dominating Keres:
Alexander Alekhine beat Paul Keres 5 to 1, with 8 draws
Here is Lasker dominating Alekhine:
Emanuel Lasker beat Alexander Alekhine 3 to 1, with 4 draws
I am pretty sure that a master as good as Lasker would have no trouble dominating Larsen or Nunn had they been contemporaries.
|Jan-17-12|| ||Shams: <visayanbraindoctor> Your transitive argument is very, very silly. One could construct such chains to prove anything.|
|Jan-17-12|| ||Shams: Viktors Pupols had a plus score against Fischer: +1=0-0|
I have a plus score against Pupols: +1=0-0
I'm sure I would have had no trouble dominating Fischer.
|Jan-17-12|| ||King Death: <Shams> Or to disprove anything. That logic gets us nowhere in trying to understand a point that can hardly be proved anyway. A really silly one is Geller and his great scores against a raft of world champions. Geller's supporters throw this in everybody's face to "prove" that he was greater than all of those players. It shatters their world though when somebody else points out that the best Geller did was a tie for 2nd at Curacao. Clearly a player so much stronger than the others should have played a match for the championship sometime if not won it.|
|Jan-17-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Shams> In this case it's not as <very, very silly> as just plain silly, because I intentionally chose some of the strongest masters of their generation. Furthermore in absolute chess strength IMO Lasker was stronger than Alekhine. Alekhine was stronger than Keres. Keres was stronger than Larsen. Larsen was stronger than Nunn. In a series of games with each other, I reasonably thought that there probably would be more of an even chance that Lasker would score better than Alekhine; Alekhine would score better than Keres; Keres would score better than Larsen; and Larsen would score better than Nunn. And indeed when I looked, I was right. |
Otherwise you are correct- the transitivity argument is silly and generally does not work.
I must admit the above was partially a bait to see if you still have bad feelings about our previous debate in this page.
I hope you see the joke. (",) Cheers and chill out <Shams>.
|Jan-17-12|| ||Olavi: I don't think a player should be measured by how often he does this: Barlov vs Geller, 1987
or what Kramnik did against the machine. I would take the blunder component out of the equation, just consider positional understanding. It's clear that when the game is considered a sport, less blunders occur - they don't consume alcohol anymore during the games ofor one thing.|
|Jan-17-12|| ||Petrosianic: <Clearly a player so much stronger than the others should have played a match for the championship sometime if not won it.>|
If he hadn't blown a won game against Fischer, he might have done exactly that.
<Geller's supporters throw this in everybody's face to "prove" that he was greater than all of those players.>
How many Geller supporters have you met? I find him to be almost forgotten, despite being one of the best players to never become world champion. A Geller fanboy? That's a new one, but I suppose there must be a couple in the Ukraine.
|Jan-17-12|| ||Shams: <visayan> <I must admit the above was partially a bait to see if you still have bad feelings about our previous debate in this page.|
I hope you see the joke. (",) Cheers and chill out <Shams>.>
No bad feelings at all, and I'll cop to being baited-- but I'm an excitable boy, and it's easy to bait me. I'm like Lee J. Cobb from "12 Angry Men". Maybe I should have you perform an amygdala transplant on me?
<And indeed when I looked, I was right.> Well, it's always nice when your hunches are borne out, and since you aren't offering it to prove anything I'll lay off. Cheers, Doctor.
|Feb-13-12|| ||brankat: I happen to be a Geller fan :-)
But then, I'm a "fan" of at least 3 dozens of masters.
|Feb-13-12|| ||Nosnibor: Pleased to note that since I provided the last known serious gamo Pillsbury against Hymes in 1905 it now appears on the db.Mention should be made of his early matches with Walbrodt and Schottlander.These were played in 1893 and although they were of short length Pillsbury was successful in both.When time permits I intend to relay some of these games over.|
|Feb-13-12|| ||Pawn and Two: <Nosnibor> We must have submitted the Pillsbury-Hymes 1905 game at about the same time. |
I submitted the game on 9/29/11, and I noticed that the game appeared in our database a few weeks later. Maybe our duplicate submissions speeded up the process! Some of my submissions have taken months, or numerous re-submissions before they appear in the database.
I would have submitted this game earlier, but I waited until I could verify that the game was played in Philadelphia.
|May-29-12|| ||Nosnibor: The following game was played in the blindfold simultaneous undertaken by Pillsbury in Hanover 1902 and does not appear in the database.White:Pillsbury Black:A Edelheim 1d4 d5 2Nf3 Nf6 3e3 e6 4Bd3 c5 5c3 Nc6 60-0 Bd6 7Nbd2 0-0 8Qe2 Re8 9dxc5 Bxc5 10e4 e5 11exd5 Nxd5 12Nb3 Bd6 13Bg5 Be7 14Bxe7 Qxe7 15Bxh7+! Kh8 16Bc2 Nf4 17Qe3 g5 18Rfe1 g4 19Nd2 f5 20Nf1 Be6 21Na5!(decoy Nxa5 22Qxe5+etc.) 21..Bd5 22Nxc6 bxc6 23Bxf5 Bxg2 24Qxf4! exf4 25Rxe7 Rxe7 26Kxg2 Rg8(26...Re2 looks better) 27Rd1 Re5 28Bc2 Re2 29Rd2 f3+ 30Kg3 Rge8 31Bf5 Re1 32Ne3 Black resigns 1-0|
|Jun-27-12|| ||ketchuplover: The past pieces feature of chesscafe.com has material on Mr.Pillsbury this month (June 2012)|
|Jul-29-12|| ||bengalcat47: Here is another beautiful win by Pillsbury against J.W.Young in 1897. This game is not in the database, so hopefully it will be included soon.
White: Pillsbury Black: J.W.Young 1.d4 d5; 2.c4 e6; 3.Nc3 Nf6; 4.Bg5 Be7; 5.e3 O-O; 6.Nf3 b6; 7.Rc1 Bb7; 8.cxd5 exd5; 9.Bd3 Nbd7; 10.O-O Ne4; 11.Bf4 a6; 12.Bxc7 Qxc7; 13.Nxe4 Qd8; 14.Ng3 Nf6; 15.Ne5 Re8; 16.Nf5 Bd6; 17.f4 Rc8; 18.Qf3 Ne4; 19.Bxe4 dxe4; 20.Qg4 Bxe5 21.fxe5 g6; 22.Nh6+ Kg7; 23.Rxf7+ Kxh6; 24.Rcf1 Rc7; 25.Qh3+ Kg6; 26.R1f5+! gxf5; 27.Rxf5+ Kg6; 28.Qg4+ Resigns 1-0 The exclamation point at White's 26th move is my own. A very impressive win by Pillsbury, and an excellent example of his skills as a fine tactician!|
|Aug-21-12|| ||Chessical: Extract from Pillsbury’s interview on page 6 of the New York Times, 29th September 1895 as given in <Chess Notes no.7760>|
"Lasker has greater analytical knowledge, but his body is too feeble to stand the strain of a long tournament. If advancing years have impaired Steinitz’s powers of crossboard play he is still as keen an analyst as ever. My game with him was the hardest I had to play in the tournament, but Tarrasch gave me a good deal of trouble...."
"I feel Chigorin to be the strongest player alive, so far as match playing is concerned. I should not feel at all troubled if I had to meet either Steinitz, Lasker or Tarrasch in a set match. I fancy my chess is as good as theirs, and if I should not beat either of them I feel pretty certain of not being disgraced. Neither would I fear Chigorin, as I have a good deal of confidence in myself...."
From the Database (Classical games)
Mikhail Chigorin beat Harry Nelson Pillsbury 8 to 7, with 7 draws.
Harry Nelson Pillsbury tied Siegbert Tarrasch 5 to 5, with 2 draws.
Harry Nelson Pillsbury tied Emanuel Lasker 5 to 5, with 4 draws.
|Oct-10-12|| ||jnpope: <He held this job with periodic leaves of absence until 1988 when he moved to Philadelphia and married.>|
I don't think so...
|Oct-10-12|| ||RookFile: Lasker did great in long tournaments, winning events such as NY 1924.|
|Oct-20-12|| ||Phony Benoni: While just looking around, I ran into a game from a Pillsbury blindfold simul that's not yet in our database, published in the <Omaha Daily Bee> for March 18, 1900. Pillsbury starts to lower the boom around move 29.|
[Event "Blindfold Exhibition"]
[Site "Lincoln, NE"]
[White "Pillsbury, Harry Nelson"]
[Black "Joyce, M L"]
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 f5 3.c4 c6 4.Ne5 g6 5.Nc3 e6 6.e3 Bg7 7.f4 Nh6 8.h4 Bxe5 9.fxe5 Ng4 10.h5 Qg5 11.hxg6 h6 12.Be2 h5 13.Rh3 Qxg6 14.Qc2 Na6 15.cxd5 Nb4 16.Qa4 Nxd5 17.Nxd5 exd5 18.Bd2 Bd7 19.Qb4 0-0-0 20.a4 Rhg8 21.a5 Nf2 22.Rf3 Ne4 23.a6 b6 24.Bf1 Ng3 25.Bd3 Rde8 26.Rc1 Kc7 27.Kd1 Re6 28.Qb3 Kb8 29.Ba5 b5 30.Bxb5 cxb5 31.Bc7+ Ka8 32.Rxg3 Qxg3 33.Qxd5+ Bc6 34.Rxc6 Qg4+ 35.Kc1 Qe4 36.Qxe4 fxe4 37.Rxe6 Rc8 38.Re7 1-0
This was board 8 of the exhibition. Probably <jnpope> knows all about it already.
|Dec-05-12|| ||brankat: R.I.P. master Harry Nelson.|
|Dec-05-12|| ||jnpope: The earliest BF win I have for Pillsbury... happy birthday Harry.|
<Mr. H. N. Pillsbury of the Boston Chess Club performed the remarkable feat of playing eight games of chess last night at the Boston Press Club, simultaneously and without sight of the boards or pieces.
This is the first time Mr. Pillsbury had done this and he is the only American, with the single exception of Paul Morphy, who ever accomplished this feat.
Not only did he not make a single error in calling his own moves, but he won seven of the eight games.
Eight tables were set up in the reading room of the Press Club and Mr. Barry, acting as teller for Mr. Pillsbury, communicated the moves to that gentleman and announced the replies. Mr. Pillsbury being in another room in the darkness.>
[Event "Pillsbury BF Exhibition"]
[Site "USA Boston, MA (Boston Press Club)"]
1.f4 e6 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 d5 5.e3 Bd6 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.0-0 Qe7 8.d4 a6 9.Be2 h5 10.c4 b6 11.Nc3 h4 12.b4 Nxb4 13.Ne5 c5 14.Na4 Bc7 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.Nxd7 Kxd7 17.a3 Nc6 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.cxd5 exd5 20.Qxd5+ Qd6 21.Qxf7+ Kc8 22.Bg4+ Kb7 23.Rab1+ Ka7 24.Nxc5 Rab8 25.Ne6 Qe7 26.Qxe7 Nxe7 27.Nxc7 1-0
<Boston Daily Globe, 1892.12.10>
|Dec-05-12|| ||talisman: happy birthday harry...r.i.p.|
|Jan-17-13|| ||Owl: Pillsbury like Chigorin favored the Knight over the Bishop but I dont think Pillsbury favored the double knights like Chigorin. I think he only favored the old school of single knight is better than single bishop.|
Does anyone have quotes about his views on knight being better than the bishop?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·