|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-18-07 | | Archives: <"Marshall's startling Queen offer occurred at the end of what looked like a Master-versus-'C' player game."> - Soltis Is a nice final move though. Would I find it in an OTB game? It isn't a deep move in the slightest but it is a move which I can easily seeing myself overlook. |
|
Mar-03-07
 | | tpstar: "It is not strange that a game as old as chess should have its fabulous legends. Columbus's voyage to America, for example, according to one tale, would not have been possible had not King Ferdinand of Spain managed to retrieve a lost game (with the assistance of one of Columbus's well-wishers). A battle in the Revolution could have been won had a British general not pocketed a note during a chess game, in which he was much absorbed, warning him of the approach of the Americans. One myth has made the rounds so often that it has gained wide currency through reiteration, even though there isn't a grain of truth in it. It concerns the famous brilliancy at Breslau in 1912 in the game Marshall-Lewitzky [sic]. On his twenty-third move, the late U.S. champion won fantastically by subjecting his Queen to capture in three different ways on one move. This was dubbed the most beautiful move ever made on the chessboard. Enthusiastic spectators are alleged to have showered the board with gold pieces. But Caroline Marshall, who ought to know, disclaims knowledge of even a shower of pennies." I.A. Horowitz, "All About Chess," 1958. Note the clever pun "currency" and see previous posts about wagering which may have inspired this fable. |
|
| Mar-03-07 | | Calli: Its difficult to know for sure, but Carrie is probably right. Andrew Soltis in "Frank Marshall, Chess Champion" (McFarland, 1994) had Marshall's original notes for the "My Fifty Years in Chess". Marshall says only that he received "a purse" after the game. Why did he get money after the game? Apparently, some Russian nationals like P.P. Saburov and Alekhine bet that their countryman Levitsky would win. After the game, they dumped their coins on board to pay off Marshall. The story was recounted by Walter Korn in "American Chess Heritage". Korn was not present but told the story as it was circulated around Europe. Still, why didn't Carrie Marshall see the payoff? And why did Marshall after the publication of the book insist that the shower of gold story was true? The rumor has always been that Fred Reinfeld helped with "My Fifty Years in Chess", so perhaps it was he who exaggerated the facts a bit and Marshall simply loved the idea. |
|
Sep-17-07
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: I had no idea there was any controversy over the Shower of Coins. Marshall himself claimed that the story was true in one of his collections of games. Then again, he *was* one heck of a fine story teller. Carrie Marshall might not have been a witness to the game itself. Judging from Marshall's own book, it appears that she rarely if ever traveled with him to Europe. We can be pretty certain she did not travel with him in 1914. Marshall was one of the first five "grandmasters" of chess, a title bestowed by some Russian noble on the top five finishers of the St. Petersburg 1914 tournament. Marshall sent a photo of the five men to her annotated "The Five Woodpushers" which implies that she was in the USA. After St. Petersburg came Mannheim 1914, a tournament that ended prematurely thanks to the outbreak of WWI. The Russian players were interned, the German players went to the front, and the rest were invited to make themselves scarce, in Marshall's words. Carrie was not present there, so it is possible that she wasn't at the 1912 Shower of Coins. Still, the possibility exists that Marshall told an "embellished" version of the truth to the public, and the more precise version to his wife. It isn't that huge a fib, and I for one will prefer to cling to the tall tale. |
|
| Oct-23-07 | | srinivas6195: the best move ever !!!!!!!!! Qg3!!!!!! |
|
| Oct-23-07 | | gus inn: for the first and only time in his entire chesslife Marshall gave 3 !!! to a move , when he annotated this game . |
|
| Nov-07-07 | | Ragh: Great move Qg3!!! Capturing black queen with either pawn will lead to a mate within 2 moves.. 24.fxg3 Ne2+ 25.Kh1 Rxf1# or 24.hxg3 Ne2# If QxQ, then Ne2+ Kh1 Nxg3+ Kg1 (forced) Nxf1 gxh1 and black is up a full piece going into the endgame. |
|
| Jan-02-08 | | zenpharaohs: It appears that Levitsky went wrong with
20 Qh5? as opposed to 20 Qe4
And Levitsky made things worse with
21 Re5? as opposed to 21 Bxe6+
here Marshall lets him off with only
21 ... Rh6 as opposed to 21 ... Rxf2
but Levitsky again shovels his own grave with
22 Qg5? as opposed to 22 Bxe6+.
Once all that is done, the grave is dug, and Marshall puts Levitsky's other foot in it. 22 ... Rxh3
Now there are no good moves for Levitsky and his position is lost. Since 23 Re4
would at least prevent
23 ... Qg3,
it is reasonable to assume that Levitsky didn't see it coming. It does not matter though, since that leads to 23 Re4 Qc7
24 f4 Qb6
25 Kh1 Rc3
which drops another pawn without any improvement in Levitsky's prospects other than possibly staying out of the list of victims of "top ten moves of all time". In the event, Levitsky does play
23 Rc5
and what is still interesting is not so much the much admired correct answer given by Marshall 23 ... Qg3
but that Marshall has many other alternatives that win. He could, for example, have exchanged the queen in another way 23 ... Qe3
24 Qxe3 Rxe3
25 Rc7 Ra3
the only difference being a tempo. Now with this tempo, Levisky would have been able to decline the exchange of rooks for an exchange of pawns. In fact, this is not the best alternative that Marshall had to 23 ... Qg3, but is shows that there was more than one way to win a piece by exchanging queens in that position. |
|
| Feb-03-08 | | DarthStapler: I just would have liked to see the look on Levitsky's face after Qg3 |
|
| Feb-14-08 | | dickduval: Marshall's Queen move was positively scintillating without a doubt. There was also the possibility of a Knight Fork.
In any case, Marshall was in his prime at the time, and just gaining a piece advantage would have given him the game. |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | braimondi: Amazing game! |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | dovif: dickduval
I don't think a piece advantage give him the game, I think it is more that checkmate advantage |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | Shinermatt: <dovif> If 24.Qxg3, white avoids immediate mate, but ends up in a piece-down endgame. ie. 24...Ne2+ Kh1 25.Nxg3+ Kg1 26.Nxf1 gxh1, or 26...Ne2+ allows black to keep his extra piece. |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | Ryan Razo: Game of the Day.. again! Are there other games who landed GotD twice? |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | PinnedPiece: To all who buy into the line that Marshall was playing a patzer here; <A contemporary of Mikhail Chigorin he [Levitsky] was Russian Champion in 1911.> --player bio |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | GMNick: For the last few days the game of the day has presented us with some true classics. Its a shame we can't have games like this one 24/7! |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | whiteshark: A Queen's block on g3 can be found in Alekhine vs NN, 1911 |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | WickedPawn: 23... Qg3!!. One of the most amazing moves in the history of chess. |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | MrMelad: Happy 4th of July to all Americans, may freedom and democracy prevail. |
|
Jul-04-08
 | | OBIT: So you think this idea of dropping the queen on g3 or g6 in front of three unmoved pawns is unique? Not hardly... check out the following games in the database: First, this isn't even the only time Marshall dropped his queen in front of that pawn phalanx, since there is also
Marshall vs Allies, 1914. Admittedly, though, the queen sac in this one looks a little suspect. Those of you who think the Marshall-Levitsky game is marred by the fact that the queen sac does not actually force mate will undoubtedly prefer Rossolimo's finish in
Rossolimo vs P Reissmann, 1967. This time the move really does force mate. Also leading to a forced mate is this game from an Alekhine simul: Alekhine vs Supico, 1941. This one proves that Alekhine could do anything Marshall could do, except blindfolded and while playing other games simultaneously. The queen sac also appears in W Cohn vs G Marco, 1907. By the way, the loser is the same Marco who lost in Marshall's most famous swindle, Marshall vs G Marco, 1904 (already mentioned by <Whitehat>, above). It seems that even when Marco wasn't losing brilliant games to Marshall, he was losing to Marshall's legacy. From postal play, there is this nifty game: Wade vs E W Bennett, 1942 The last one I can find is A W Fox vs H E Bauer, 1901. The noteworthy feature of this game is that A W Fox became the subject of intense public suspicion after several brilliancies, all attributed to Mr Fox, appeared in "American Chess World". The editor of the magazine denied the claim by saying, “Some lively speculation has been indulged of late as to the authorship of those remarkable games attributed to a Mr Fox. Of itself the rumor that they are spurious is not wanting in virtue, for it shows us there are still those who believe their eyes. They pounce upon these delicacies as contraband having run the blockade of their most exalted notions. To be told, without any gilding of the pill, that you are the suspected author of certain charming conceits is, to put it mildly, an equivocal compliment. This is the writer’s position, however, and as he relishes a good joke, the intimations are forgiven. Information concerning Mr Fox can be had by inquiry at the Washington, DC Chess Club. When we take to depositing unicorn eggs on the chess fraternity, the scribes may expect a product not less amiable than estimable.” |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | zb2cr: Nice to see this game again. I note I had previously posted a suggestion that after
24. Qxg3, Ne2+; 25. Kh1, Nxg3+; 26. Kg1, Black should play 26. ... Rh6, threatening to go up by a whole Rook. A reply by <capablancakarpov> claims that 27. Re1 is the best reply. Reassessing, I think my original suggestion has merit, but is probably not the best. I now think that Black's best is 26. ... Rc3. White has to do something about his Rook, and his c2 Pawn is threatened. Two obvious tries to avoid the loss of a Pawn and keep from swapping down both lose a Pawn: a. 27. Ra5, a6 reinstates the threat on the c2 Pawn. b. 27. Re5, Rxc2; 28. Rxe6, Rxf2! taking advantage of the vulnerable back rank. So it looks as though White's best is to tamely swap Rooks with 27. Rxc3. c. 27. Rxc3, Nxc3. Now the White Rook is nailed to f1 and his a-Pawn is threatened. 28. a3, Rd8 threatening ... Rd2 and it seems White will not be able to avoid the loss of another Pawn. |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | jovack: epic win |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | DeltaHawk: damn. two rooks and a queen hammering down the king's defenses. |
|
| Jul-07-08 | | kevin86: Happy Fourth! Firewoeks and gold pieces are worthy celebratory ornaments for this one! |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | mty1637: Maravillosa jugada que es posible porque todas las piezas negras estan coordinaadas hacia el ataque del rey blanco..Muy bella jugada |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
