chessgames.com

Pillsbury 
 
Harry Nelson Pillsbury
Number of games in database: 467
Years covered: 1892 to 1905
Overall record: +208 -92 =103 (64.4%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
      64 exhibition games, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (48) 
    C67 C80 C71 C84 C62
 Orthodox Defense (48) 
    D60 D63 D55 D53 D50
 French Defense (24) 
    C14 C11 C13 C12 C10
 Queen's Gambit Declined (23) 
    D31 D37 D06 D30
 Queen's Pawn Game (19) 
    D00 D05 D02 A40 D04
 French (14) 
    C11 C13 C12 C10 C00
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (51) 
    C67 C65 C60 C79 C88
 Petrov (21) 
    C42 C43
 Queen's Pawn Game (14) 
    D00 D02 D04 A41
 Sicilian (13) 
    B73 B30 B32 B58 B72
 Four Knights (11) 
    C49 C48
 Giuoco Piano (11) 
    C50 C53
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Pillsbury vs Gunsberg, 1895 1-0
   Pillsbury vs Tarrasch, 1895 1-0
   Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896 1-0
   Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1904 1-0
   Pillsbury vs Fernandez, 1900 1-0
   Pillsbury vs Maroczy, 1900 1-0
   Pillsbury vs NN, 1899 1-0
   Pillsbury vs Winawer, 1896 1-0
   Pillsbury vs G Marco, 1900 1-0
   Chigorin vs Pillsbury, 1895 0-1

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   1st City Chess Club Tournament (1893)
   Hastings (1895)
   Nuremberg (1896)
   Pillsbury - Showalter (1897)
   Vienna (1898)
   London (1899)
   Munich (1900)
   Paris (1900)
   Buffalo (1901)
   13th DSB Kongress (Hanover) (1902)
   Monte Carlo (1902)
   Monte Carlo (1903)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   pillsbury's best games of chess by bengalcat47
   Ideas by LaBourdonnaisdeux
   HNP: "A Genuis Ahead of His Time" by chocobonbon
   Vienna 1898 by suenteus po 147
   Pillsbury, the Extraordinary by StuporMundi
   London 1899 by suenteus po 147
   Pillsbury winning on f5. by nikolaas
   Monte Carlo 1903 by suenteus po 147
   Pillsbury miniatures. by CoryLetain
   Pillsbury - Showalter 1897 match by crawfb5
   Selected 19th century games II by atrifix
   Munich 1900 by Phony Benoni
   1903 Vienna by TheFocus
   bengalcat47's favorite games by bengalcat47

GAMES ANNOTATED BY PILLSBURY: [what is this?]
   Schlechter vs Lasker, 1895
   Janowski vs Steinitz, 1895
   Tarrasch vs Chigorin, 1895
   Schiffers vs Chigorin, 1895
   B Vergani vs Blackburne, 1895
   >> 18 GAMES ANNOTATED BY PILLSBURY

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Harry Nelson Pillsbury
Search Google for Harry Nelson Pillsbury


HARRY NELSON PILLSBURY
(born Dec-05-1872, died Jun-17-1906) United States of America

[what is this?]
Harry Nelson Pillsbury was born in Somerville, Massachusetts, just north of Boston. He learned to play chess at the age of sixteen, when he was encouraged by family to study chess as a distraction after his mother died. Within four years Pillsbury had improved to the point of winning a three-game match from Wilhelm Steinitz in 1892 by the score of 2-1 at the odds of pawn and move. He also scored one of two wins against Steinitz in the World Champion's 20-board simultaneous exhibition. In 1893, he won a close match against John Finan Barry (+5 -4 =1) that earned him entry into his first international tournament in New York as Boston's representative. Although the congress fell through, most likely due to problems in the financial world, the so-called “Impromptu” 1893 tournament was organized in its place. Playing in his first tournament with European masters, Pillsbury barely managed a plus score and finished seventh. Pillsbury returned to New York a few months later and finished clear first in the 1893 New York Masters (sometimes called the “Manhattan Cafe”) tournament ahead of a number of American masters. Pillsbury then moved to New York and began working for the Eden Musee as the operator of Ajeeb (Automaton), a chess- and checkers-playing automaton. He held this job with periodic leaves of absence until 1898 when he moved to Philadelphia and married. In 1894, Pillsbury finished second to Jackson Whipps Showalter in a small tournament in Buffalo (Staats-Zeitung Cup) and had a poor result of =5th in a master's tournament in New York. Nevertheless, he still made a sufficiently good impression for the Brooklyn Chess Club to sponsor his trip to the 1895 chess congress in Hastings. At Hastings, Pillsbury came to worldwide attention by taking clear first over a large, strong field that included Mikhail Chigorin, Emanuel Lasker, Siegbert Tarrasch, Wilhelm Steinitz, Joseph Henry Blackburne, Amos Burn, Richard Teichmann and others. On the basis of this result, Pillsbury was invited to an elite four-player tournament in St. Petersburg, with Lasker, Steinitz, and Chigorin. Pillsbury was leading by a full game halfway through the tournament (+5 -1 =3), but fell ill during the second half, with catastrophic results (+0 -6 =3). Had Pillsbury managed to win or finish a close second he might well have secured the world championship match that eluded him. Nevertheless, this was the start of a successful tournament career that included 1st at Buffalo 1901, =1st at Vienna 1898 and Munich 1900, 2nd at Paris 1900, Monte Carlo 1902, and Hanover 1902, =2nd at London 1899, 3rd at St. Petersburg 1895-6, Budapest 1896, and Monte Carlo 1903, =3rd at Nuremberg 1896, and 4th at the Vienna Gambit tournament 1903. Pillsbury only seriously faltered at the very end, finishing =8th with a minus score at Cambridge Springs 1904, in his last tournament.

Pillsbury negotiated the final terms of the first Anglo-American cable match with Sir George Newnes, president of the London Chess Club. Sir George donated the Newnes Cup, held by the winning team each year until the next match. Pillsbury played on the first board for the US team in the first eight cable matches (+1 -2 =5). Pillsbury also helped prepare the US House of Representatives team for their 1897 cable match against the House of Commons.

Pillsbury was considered the strongest player in the US. He played two matches for the US championship against Showalter, winning both of the Pillsbury - Showalter (1897) (+10-8=3) and Pillsbury - Showalter (1898) (+7-3=2) matches. However Pillsbury was not especially eager to be named US champion: “I was not seeking the match, and even if I should win I shall leave Showalter in possession of the title; I am not in search of any title but one.” The “one” title was, of course, World Champion. Pillsbury wrote to New York following his success at Hastings that there had been some talk of arranging a title match with Lasker, but, as with so many proposed world championship matches over the years, nothing came of it. Pillsbury's inability to obtain a title match against Lasker was most likely due to Pillsbury's failure to secure enough financial backing to induce Lakser to agree to a match.

Pillsbury was accomplished at blindfold chess and often playing mutiple games blindfolded in his exhibitions. He set an early world record for number of simultaneous blindfold games, playing 20 games in 1900 in Philadelphia. He was also a skilled checkers player, and would sometimes include checkers and whist games in his exhibitions. Pillsbury's exhibitions were quite impressive for the day. Jose Raul Capablanca wrote: “The effect of Pillsbury's displays was immediate. They electrified me, and with the consent of my parents I began to visit the Havana Chess Club.”

Pillsbury played a number of consultation games over the years. Such games were sometimes played on off days of tournaments between players with no adjourned games. Pillsbury played with or against masters such as Henry Edward Bird, Blackburne, Chigorin, David Janowski, Lasker, William Ewart Napier, Georg Marco, Frank James Marshall, Carl Schlechter, Showalter, Tarrasch, Teichmann, and others.

While there is general agreement that Pillsbury died of syphilis, when he contracted the disease is debatable. Syphilis shows great variability in its time course across patients and can easily mimic symptoms of other diseases, so a definitive answer is unlikely. Pillsbury was ill during the second half of the St. Petersburg tournament, which was attributed to influenza at the time. He was also quite ill during the Nuremberg tournament, and, of course, during Cambridge Springs. He suffered two strokes during the last year and a half of his life.

Pillsbury wrote no chess books. He wrote occasional newspaper reports on tournaments and matches and wrote a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Although there are few known correspondence games played by Pillsbury, one of the early correspondence chess organizations in the US was named in his honor (Pillsbury National Correspondence Chess Association).

Wikipedia article: Harry Nelson Pillsbury


 page 1 of 19; games 1-25 of 467  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Steinitz vs Pillsbury  1-037 1892 BostonC51 Evans Gambit
2. Pillsbury vs Steinitz 1-066 1892 Odds match (pawn and move)000 Chess variants
3. Pillsbury vs Steinitz  0-133 1892 BostonC51 Evans Gambit
4. Pillsbury vs Steinitz  0-136 1892 Odds match (pawn and move)000 Chess variants
5. Pillsbury vs Steinitz  1-031 1892 Odds match (pawn and move)000 Chess variants
6. Steinitz vs Pillsbury 0-130 1892 BostonC30 King's Gambit Declined
7. Pillsbury vs E Delmar 1-039 1893 1st City Chess Club TournamentD00 Queen's Pawn Game
8. Showalter vs Pillsbury 0-131 1893 1st City Chess Club TournamentC60 Ruy Lopez
9. Pillsbury vs Taubenhaus 1-030 1893 10, New YorkD00 Queen's Pawn Game
10. J C Halpern vs Pillsbury 0-167 1893 1st City Chess Club TournamentB30 Sicilian
11. Pillsbury vs F J Lee 0-160 1893 7, New YorkB01 Scandinavian
12. F Young vs Pillsbury 1-016 1893 BostonC62 Ruy Lopez, Old Steinitz Defense
13. Pillsbury vs L Schmidt 1-041 1893 5, New YorkD04 Queen's Pawn Game
14. Pillsbury vs N Jasnogrodsky 1-027 1893 9, New YorkD00 Queen's Pawn Game
15. Pillsbury vs D G Baird 1-032 1893 1st City Chess Club TournamentD00 Queen's Pawn Game
16. A Hodges vs Pillsbury  1-042 1893 1st City Chess Club TournamentC60 Ruy Lopez
17. Albin vs Pillsbury 1-061 1893 13, New YorkB73 Sicilian, Dragon, Classical
18. Pillsbury vs A Ettlinger 0-151 1893 1st City Chess Club TournamentC14 French, Classical
19. Albin vs Pillsbury  0-141 1893 1st City Chess Club TournamentD02 Queen's Pawn Game
20. J M Hanham vs Pillsbury  1-052 1893 2, New YorkC55 Two Knights Defense
21. Pillsbury vs J W Baird 1-053 1893 1st City Chess Club TournamentA83 Dutch, Staunton Gambit
22. Pillsbury vs Showalter 1-039 1893 12, New YorkC67 Ruy Lopez
23. E Delmar vs Pillsbury  1-025 1893 4, New YorkC46 Three Knights
24. Pillsbury vs J M Hanham 1-031 1893 1st City Chess Club TournamentD00 Queen's Pawn Game
25. Pillsbury vs Gossip 1-047 1893 1, New YorkC25 Vienna
 page 1 of 19; games 1-25 of 467  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Pillsbury wins | Pillsbury loses  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 18 OF 30 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Oct-13-11  I play the Fred: <I remember in one of Chernev's books he wrote that Capablanca manhandled tacticians, and gave his heavy plus scores against a number of them. I thought it very disingenuous that he omitted mention of Spielmann.>

Maybe the omission of Spielmann was through carelessness rather than a deliberate choice. Chernev's comment to this effect (maybe he made it in another book - I only own two Chernev books IIRC) came in the book <The Most Instructive Chess Games of All Time>; there was not a Spielmann game among them - again, IIRC.

But even if you include Spielmann's score in the tacticians group, Capablanca's score is still overwhelming. Chances are you could take a group of <positional players> who are in the same age group as Chernev's selected tacticians and Capablanca's score would have been about the same.

Oct-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <But even if you include Spielmann's score in the tacticians group, Capablanca's score is still overwhelming. Chances are you could take a group of <positional players> who are in the same age group as Chernev's selected tacticians and Capablanca's score would have been about the same.>

I agree. Which suggests that the whole notion that great player X does particularly well against players of Class Y is not worth much (even assuming Class Y has any validity). Descending to specifics, Marshall was a terrific positional player, as anyone can see by looking at his games, and Capablanca was a tactical monster. Capablanca was simply better than Marshall at everything (except maybe openings).

Oct-13-11  AnalyzeThis: I agree with the Capa comments - before he got lazy, he could out calculate anyone.
Oct-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: This game is a case in point:

Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918

Oct-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Kasparov's score against Karpov and Kramnik is also a good example of tactical players generally performing below expectations against solid positional players.

It seems to me that solid players tend to perform slightly below their true level against weaker universal players, but better against stronger universal players. In case of tactical players it's the other way around.

The reason might be that a positional player is unable to generate much pressure against weaker opponents. They undoubtedly achieve better postions in most games, but in chess, unfortunately, to get a full point one actually needs a substantial advantage, small one won't do much.

But against strong tacticians who pursuit dynamical complications and display strong preference for practicality over objectively "correct" play they fare well, as they usually have solid positions where a tactician must either be satisfied with a draw, or try to attack with the cost of weakening his position.

Oct-13-11  AnalyzeThis: Let's understand something - Kramnik and Karpov are very strong tacticians.
Oct-16-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  SetNoEscapeOn: I don't even think it makes much sense to try and classify the three K's at all. It's not "a tactical player," it's just Kasparov.

I also think there's a difference between preference and ability. Shirov and Polgar go for wild complications, but I don't think either is stronger tactically than Kramnik or Carlsen.

Oct-16-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <Syphilis brought his chess career and his life to a premature end in 1906.>

Well, well, well, at least he lived life to the full :)

Dec-05-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  brankat: Happy Birthday Harry Nelson!
Dec-05-11  King Death: Happy birthday to a genius! Who knows what might have been?

Thank you for leaving us some beautiful games in your too short life. You may be long gone but you will never be forgotten.

R.I.P.

Dec-05-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: Poor Pillsbury didn't even make it to 34. If only he'd stayed away from that hooker in St. Petersburg, he might have been the third World Champion. A great genius. Why do all the greatest Americans (Morphy, Pillsbury, Fischer) come to tragic ends?
Dec-05-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Pillsbury could be the 3rd strongest American-born chess master in history, after Fischer and Morphy.

All three had a 'classical' style- control the center, build up positional advantages, exploit tactical inaccuracies by the opponent, and once the position calls for it conjure an efficient attack with little tempo wasted.

If Pillsbury had the opportunity to player Lasker three matches, IMO he would have lost two but would have won one. Lasker (a player who thrived on imbalanced, dynamic, and tactical positions) seemed to have had difficulties when meeting head to head with strong players that played a 'classical' style, such as Pillsbury, Schlecter, Rubinstein, and Capablanca, although he would outscore all of them against mutual opponents in round robin tournaments.

It looks incredible to us but before WW2, aside for sulfa drugs there did not seem to be very effective anti-biotics against most infectious diseases. Pillsbury might as well have been executed.

Dec-05-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: <visayanbraindoctor: Pillsbury could be the 3rd strongest American-born chess master in history, after Fischer and Morphy.>

The only other contenders I can think of would be Fine and Kashdan. Reshevsky, Kamsky, Seirawan, Nakamura, Kavalek, and Browne were all born outside the United States. Players like Benjamin, Christiansen, and Evans are/were strong, but never quite world class. Marshall got destroyed in his World Championship match against Lasker, and also in matches against Capablanca and Tarrasch.

Dec-05-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Phony Benoni: <FSR> I once figured out that just one US Olympiad team had only American born players (1933: Kashdan, Marshall, Fine, Dake, Simonson). It's rather sobering to think that in the near-century since Fine's birth in 1914, the United States has produced only one world-class player, albeit a big one.

However, should a player like Nakamura be excluded when he came to the United States at the age of two before learning to play chess? A similar case could be made for Seirawan.

Dec-05-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: <Phony Benoni> Well, neither is literally American-born, but both learned to play chess in the U.S., so I suppose the U.S. can "take credit" for them - unlike someone like Kamsky, Gulko, etc., who learned to play chess in the USSR or elsewhere.
Dec-05-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Phony Benoni: <FSR> Outside of Fischer, was Robert Byrne the only other "Born American" to reach the "old" Candidates stage? He was quickly outclassed by Spassky, though.
Dec-05-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Pillsbury for the most part seemed to have battled Lasker to a standstill. Given Lasker's tendency to totally dominate his more tactical contemporaries, I would say that Pillsbury was a difficult opponent for him.>

Lasker dominated pretty much everyone. Chigorin and Steinitz are supposed to be antitheses. Lasker dominated both.

He didn't dominate Pillsbury head-to-head, but I'm not sure any conclusions can be drawn from that. Kasparov didn't dominate Gulko. So what?

Dec-05-11  Penguincw: I never knew it was his birthday today. Well, happy 139th birthday then.
Dec-05-11  King Death: <Phony Benoni> He was.

<keypusher> This is why I don't think much of the argument on another page that Maroczy was top of the heap because Chessmetrics ranked him there for over 2 years. Lasker was the nuts for 20.

Dec-05-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Phony Benoni: I once figured out that just one US Olympiad team had only American born players (1933: Kashdan, Marshall, Fine, Dake, Simonson)>

That's a surprisingly strong team! Kashdan and Dake would probably be super-GMs, Simonson would probably be a GM, and Marshall and Fine were definitely of Candidates caliber, by today's standards. If that team were to hypothetically play today's US team, I would even bet that it would win. In the first two boards, I think Fine and Marshall in their prime were stronger players than Kamsky and Naka. Kashdan and Dake have all been but forgotten, but if one goes through some of their games, IMO they were of world class caliber.

Dec-06-11  King Death: <visayan> Kashdan was known in Europe as "Der Kleine Capablanca" because of his technical skills and mentioned as a possible challenger for the world championship. For reasons I don't know about, he faded a little, Reshevsky and Fine came along and after being one of the top players in the world for a little while in the early 1930s, by 1936 he was the third best player in the U.S. and nobody talked about his chances as a top player any more.
Dec-07-11  IoftheHungarianTiger: @Keypusher: I agree with your posts. It's true that Lasker had some trouble with Pillsbury (although I still believe the official score of their encounters should be recorded at +5,-4,=5 in Lasker's favor), but if you look at them in the context of the entire chess world, there's no real debate about who merited the WC title, and who didn't.
Dec-07-11  AnalyzeThis: The moral of the story is that if you select your challengers and avoid playing the tough guys, you're a great champion.
Dec-07-11  IoftheHungarianTiger: Haha. Worked for Fischer, Lasker, and Alekhine! Maybe you're correct! Good thing we've got FIDE, however messed up it may be at times :)
Dec-07-11  Lambda: <Pillsbury could be the 3rd strongest American-born chess master in history, after Fischer and Morphy.>

It's a funny coincidence how those three all dropped away prematurely after appearing and reaching a very high standard, but all for very different reasons.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 30)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 18 OF 30 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something which violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2013, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies