|
Player: Frank Marshall
| page 1 of 1; 23 games |
 |
 |
|
| page 1 of 1; 23 games |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-01-15
 | | maxi: It makes sense. Marshall knew that if it came to another match against Capa he would almost certainly lose, but this way he could obtain and keep his US championship. Capa wanted to go ahead with his plans towards the ultimate goal of the WChampionship. San Sebastian was a logical and necessary step for him. But what neither one of them dreamed was that Capa would actually win San Sebastian... |
|
Aug-27-16
 | | offramp: Capablanca comes out of this very well. He was initially led to believe that the match was "for the U.S. Championship". It would not seem to matter that he was a Cuban because "Cuba was at this time an American possession". When a row starts he states, very diplomatically, that he is instead "Champion of the Americas" in the continental sense, and that seems to calm everyone down. Within two years he would begin his long search for a match with Dr Lasker! |
|
Mar-02-17
| | offramp: This match was played at 8 venues, as far as I can make out. The Brooklyn Chess Club hosted only games 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 and every one of them was drawn. Game 19 was drawn in 15 moves! |
|
| Apr-25-17 | | sudoplatov: Actually, Cuba was independent since 1902. During the Spanish-American War, the US declared that Cuba would become independent after the war (it took about 4 years; probably to sign all the forms). I assume that Marshall and Capablanca were friends until death; probably as there were few others in the Western Hemisphere who could talk chess to them. |
|
| Jun-16-17 | | zanzibar: The match moved around perhaps even more than the intro indicates. The first three games, beginning at 2pm, began in the large banquet room of the Ansonia, 2nd floor Broadway & 73rd. Then the first two of a series of five at Manhattan Chess Club, etc. |
|
Oct-13-17
 | | MissScarlett: <NYT>, Thursday, January 7th 1909, p.7: <Frank J. Marshall, who is on board the steamship Batavia, due to-day, has been matched to play a series of three games against Jose R. Capablanca, the young Cuban expert, at the Rice Chess Club on Saturday, Sunday and Monday.> <NYT>, January 10th 1909, Part IV p.3: <In consequence of the indisposition of Frank J. Marshall, who returned from Europe on Friday, the series of three games between him and Jose R. Capablanca for a purse provided by Felix E. Kahn of the Manhattan Chess Club was not begun yesterday as scheduled. Capablanca was on hand and will be ready at 2 o'clock this afternoon, in case Marshall is in condition to proceed.> I'm tempted to think that Marshall, who was always up for a fight, threw a sickie. Not that I'm suggesting he was scared; he was returning to America after a 20-month absence (so he could be forgiven for not having first-hand knowledge of Capa's strength), with his wife and child in tow, and the ship docked five days late due to hazardous weather. Perhaps Marshall deserves the benefit of the doubt - the <BDE> of January 15th reporting on his first public engagement, a simul in which he lost eight of thirty-two games, mentioned his 'suffering from a cold' and that he 'looked none too well physically'. The <New York Tribune> of January 21st, p.5, details the agreement for a match between Marshall and Jaffe to start January 31st: <The backers of Marshall also announced yesterday that they had the sum of $600 ready to put on Marshall for a set match against any player in the United States, Jose R. Capablanca preferred. The latter, however, will not return from his tour until March.> |
|
Feb-12-18
| | MissScarlett: The Sun (New York), July 4th 1909, p.7:
<There has been a great deal of criticism among chess players everywhere over the way in which the recently concluded Marshall-Capablanca match was managed, and especially among those whose financial aid made the contest possible.The match was one of "eight games up, draws not to count," that is, the player first to win eight games would be the victor. The first three games were played in public for gate receipts, the remaining to be contested at clubs subscribing so much per game, the management to receive 10 per cent. of the profits. The fact that Capablanca was able to win seven of the first thirteen games played, drawing five and losing but one, and should then be unable to score the final win necessary to terminate the match - drawing nine games in succession, gave rise to the widespread suspicion that these final games were "fixed," or at least that Capablanca was deliberately prolonging the match and refusing to win the final game for the purpose of making more money. Nothing could be more untrue. Nothing could place this young Cuban genius in a falser light, or do more to hurt his standing among chess players or his reputation generally. Such an offence if true would be sufficient to bar him from international tournaments, and a well known amateur expressed the opinion of many when he said that Capablanca's apparent inability to win the final game was doing less injury to his reputation as a player than to his reputation as a man. The fact is that it was Marshall and not Capablanca who was playing for the draw. As Marshall himself openly and publicly asserted, toward the end of the match he had no chance of winning out against such a handicap, and consequently the best that he could do would be to draw as many games as possible, thereby prolonging the match, and owing to the terms of agreement making more out of it. And in this, for a time at least, he was successful; for it is no easy thing to give the odds of a draw to a master of the Marshall calibre, or in other words to win a game of chess from an opponent who is trying simply to draw the game and not win it. Had the match been played for a side bet or "backing" or for a fixed purse subscribed to by clubs or individuals, or both, there would have been a settled amount for the winner and for the loser and neither side would have had anything to gain by playing for the draw or unnecessarily prolonging the match; both sides would have played for a win from start to finish and the subscribers would have received full value for their money. It was not until all available funds were exhausted - the referee, Felix E. Khan, having ordered the players to continue even though without compensation - that Marshall lost the final game and with it the match.> |
|
| Mar-09-18 | | BorisBadenov: I would like to say "thank you" to the posting members commenting on this match that occurred over 100 years ago. I just discovered the controversy surrounding it since the books I have do not explain WHERE this match was held. Now I see it was held in several cities over several months. No wonder! One book I have, Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, says that Frank Marshall was given to strong drink, which affected his ability to be consistently at his best playing games. It seems to me this page of our history goes a long way to highlight the nationalism and prejudice that was strong in the USA 100 years ago, and it's not too hard to believe that Americans in the USA would not care to recognize any "foreigner" from Cuba, no less, as the US Champion of ANYTHING, let alone this obscure game of chess! IMHO. In any event, what strikes me about Capablanca is that he cherished close friendships among chess masters and amateurs alike worldwide, and was a great model of how to be a gentleman in tournaments. He didn't lose too often but when he did, he lost gracefully! His unfortunate, premature and tragic death by heart attack in the NY Manhattan Chess Club during the War, 1942, deprived the world of more artful games for which he was renown, as well as any more books he could have written. This match of 1909 sheds light on his character and helps us to know that he was far-sighted enough to set his sights higher than the US Championship, especially when the organization of US chess was still in its infancy. |
|
| Mar-09-18 | | Petrosianic: <It seems to me this page of our history goes a long way to highlight the nationalism and prejudice that was strong in the USA 100 years ago, and it's not too hard to believe that Americans in the USA would not care to recognize any "foreigner" from Cuba, no less, as the US Champion of ANYTHING, let alone this obscure game of chess!> You're letting your own prejudices color the discussion. There's nothing odd or unreasonable about having to belong to a country to hold its national championship. You've never seen a Canadian hold the Cuban Championship, have you? |
|
| Mar-09-18 | | Petrosianic: The whole story behind this match is more or less as follows: 1) Max Judd, who had held the US Championship briefly in the early 1890's tried to organize a tournament for the US Championship, hoping to win it himself, but in fact Marshall won it. 2) But there was a big hue and outcry against Judd's tournament because the reigning US Champion, Pillsbury, although ill, was still alive. Everyone regarded it is a pirate tournament. 3) When Pillsbury died, Marshall seemed to regard himself as US Champion, maybe because of this tournament, maybe just because he was obviously the best US Player, maybe both. 4) Marshall played a match against Capablanca for the US Championship, expecting to win it, but instead getting toasted. 5) After losing, Marshall challenged the validity of the match, arguing Capa was ineligible to be US Champion as he was not a US Citizen. Capa argued that he was planning to become one. 6) The whole matter was submitted to the much respected Walter Penn Shipley for arbitration. Both sides agreed to let Shipley decide who was US Champion. Shipley ruled that as a non-citizen, Capablanca couldn't hold the title. But Marshall wasn't the champion either. According to Shipley, when Pillsbury died, the title reverted to the last person to hold it: Jackson Showalter. 7) Marshall quickly nipped off to Kentucky and challenged Showalter to a match, which he won. Capa gave up his plans to become a US Citizen. |
|
| Mar-09-18 | | zanzibar: Seems like a pretty good recap by <Petrosianic> |
|
Mar-10-18
| | MissScarlett: More like a nightcap. His posts always have a somnolent effect. East European Jews took over the New York chess scene to such an extent by the 1920s that Capa was probably seen by the Yankees as 'one of us'. |
|
| May-18-18 | | machuelo: First, Cuba was not a United States possession in 1909 as mentioned by Off ramp. Second it is no true (Cassianist) that Marshall lobbied for Capablanca to be invited to San Sebastian 1911. It is clear in the book "José Raúl Capablanca, A Chess Biography", McFarland 2015, that the person who invited Capablanca was his compatriot Manuel Márquez Sterling, at the time lessor of the Gran Casino of San Sebastian and the person which the idea of the tournament. Before 1911 and under the pseudonym of M. Marquet, the Cuban was the creator of the tournaments in Ostend, Belgium, and at the same time lessor of the casinos of that city. |
|
Aug-19-18
 | | mifralu: Marshall challenged Capablanca to decide the title "Pan-American Champion" in February 1916. https://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/... <My match in 1909 with Capablanca was, as your chess writer knows, simply a series of exhibition games under the auspices of a chess publication played eight months before I won the United States chess championship from Showalter... > https://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/... |
|
| Feb-23-22 | | Caissanist: Of course Marshall did publicly advocate for Capablanca's invitation to San Sebastian. I don't know, and I doubt anyone knows, whether this played into the decison of Marquez and/or the other organizers to invite Capa. |
|
| Jul-19-23 | | generror: I can't help but feeling mild amusement, but also a little contempt, for Marshall's behaviour surrounding this match and US Championship title. In the end, he got the title by playing an elderly Showalter who had barely played for ten years. He then only defended his title once in nearly 30 years; and unlike good old Showalter, declined to take part in the tournament which decided the new champion (I guess so he could say he was never officially beaten). No doubt that he was the strongest player in the US during all that time, but come on, have some dignity, man! Spine. Backbone! Balls! Something! Anything!! Or, to paraphrase everyone's favourite grandmaster: <Frankly, terrible.> :) |
|
| Dec-10-24 | | Mathematicar: I am interested, is there is a book on the match? Of course, preferably from one of the masters involved, but I would be very pleased if there is any such book. |
|
Dec-10-24
 | | beatgiant: <Mathematicar>
Winter's notes cite two books on the match. <Imre König’s book on the match (San Francisco, 1955). The match book published in Stockholm in 1916> (https://www.chesshistory.com/winter...) I found the WorldCat entries for those:
https://search.worldcat.org/title/4...
https://search.worldcat.org/title/5...
Koenig's book is showing as available in New York Public Library. |
|
| Dec-11-24 | | stone free or die: It kinda doesn't make sense for a match book to come out 17 years after the match, and in Swedish. What's the story? |
|
Dec-11-24
| | beatgiant: <What's the story?> No idea, but the detail in the WorldCat entry shows the book is part of a series, "Stockholms schackförbunds bibliotek. Afdelning IV. Matcher." I don't know Swedish, but guessing from the cognates, it seems to mean "Stockholm Chess Federation library, Section IV, Matches." <17 years after the match> A typo? It was 7 years after the match. Chess news spread more slowly in those days, and Capablanca's fame grew a lot during those years. I see nothing surprising in this timing. |
|
| Dec-11-24 | | Olavi: The Swedish magazine from 1916 is available online. There seems to be no index, so would have to browse through it, and 1917 too. https://schack.se/forbundet/tfs/ark... |
|
Dec-11-24
| | beatgiant: <Olavi> What are we expecting to find in the magazine? A book review? Or you guess the book was republished there? |
|
| Dec-11-24 | | Olavi: The question was <What's the story?>. Well perhaps the story could be found there. Because yes I do think it unusual that they publish such a book, hence. |
|
| Dec-11-24 | | stone free or die: FWIW - I make a distinction between a <tournament book>, officially sanctioned in some manner versus a "book about the tournament". For example, I think a English penny publisher (Morgan) put out lots of books about chess tournaments that were just samplings of the best games. Etc, etc. Reading through the post updates, I see that the Swedish book is one of a series, which makes sense to me, and explains the delay. (Now I'm curious about other titles in the series) What's a bit unusual is that <World Cat> gives the match book authors as <Capablanca> and <Marshall>. Is this correct? Surely there must be an unrecognized editor somewhere in the vicinity. * * * * *
<beat <Z: 17 years after the match> A typo? It was 7 years after the match.> Thanks for the correction.
(Regretfully, I made sloppy mistakes like that too often. It's possible I even screwed up the subtraction rushing.) |
|
| Dec-11-24 | | stone free or die: Could some please inform <Edward Winter> that the details of G-16 in the match are known? <Is there any hope of finding the missing details for game 16?> <Latest update: 11 December 2024.> https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... It was 56 move Petroff with Capablanca taking 1 hr 35 min as White, and Marshall taking 2 hr 18 m. https://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/... (column 6) <BDE 1909-05-22 pS5c6_22> Could someone also inform <CG> that G-16 was a Petroff, and not G-22? |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
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.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament 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. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
