chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
David Janowski vs Frank Marshall
Cambridge Springs (1904), Cambridge Springs, PA USA, rd 11, May-12
Tarrasch Defense: Symmetrical Variation (D32)  ·  0-1

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Get this game explained with Decode Chess
explore this opening
find similar games 81 more Janowski/Marshall games
sac: 42...Bxg4 PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: To access more information about the players (more games, favorite openings, statistics, sometimes a biography and photograph), click their highlighted names at the top of this page.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-01-04  LIFE Master AJ: <reference last message> In this line I gave an average of 5 minutes for each of White's moves, then I went and took a shower - - - hoping the computer might find something new ... if given enough time.

When I got back to the computer, and the final position of 33...Bb7; the evaluations had gone DOWN significantly. (Fluctuating quite a bit, but averaging about + 15/100 of a Pawn.) Needles to say, you cannot win a chess game with this kind of microscopic edge. <Anyone who has ever played an opposite-colored Bishop ending will know that often two Pawns ahead does NOT guarantee a win. Here we can conclude a draw with a better than 99.99% probability.)

Jun-01-04  clocked: <AJ> TRY to be objective. As you originally stated, we are concerned with PRACTICAL chances! You cannot have it both ways. Proving that best play is a draw is against your own assertion! You have already shown that best play after Kh2(!<-!?) loses. So you can't in the same spirit dismiss the alternative. I have already given more than one line of "reasonable" play that shows white has a strong attack. This is what PRACTICAL chances mean.

Most of us know that a BOOC endgame is a draw. So why do you insist in following your computer's recommendation to do so! Is the program your servant or master? The computer should suggest, not dictate. If you have looked at my sample lines you would see that the position offers certain thematic attacking possiblities...

Now let us look at your line, 33.Qc1?
Ok, how about 33.Bf6! (this shouldn't come as a shock!)

Does this win? Does black have better? That isn't the point. White DOES have PRACTICAL chances; and therefore, Ra1 is not (? or ?!) and Kh2 is not (!). Instead Ra1 is obvious and natural; and Kh2 is creative and interesting.

Aug-17-04  LIFE Master AJ: This game won the CJA award for ...
"Best Web-Based Analysis."
Aug-17-04  clocked: Amazingly, as it was the ONLY entry. Maybe next year we can submit a random chessgames page as competition.
Aug-18-04  AdrianP: <the CJA award> See my post on the previous page of kibitzing on this game in relation to the CJA...
Aug-22-04  LIFE Master AJ: <Reply>
Actually, about a dozen people wrote me e-mails, and I have gotten several letters as concern this page and CJA.

Probably was the most poignant was from a well-known author, who was going to submit his game. He told me after he saw my game, he wished me well ... and told me he was not even going to bother to submit his game to CJA!

PS Long BEFORE this game was submitted to CJA, at least 100 people have sent me an e-mail commenting on what a wonderful piece of analysis this is.

Aug-22-04  Calli: What? Clocked and I got an award for correcting 100 years of mistaken annotation. On behalf of the academy, I'd like to thank....

BTW- "CJA" "AJ" Notice the similarity...

Nov-08-04  LIFE Master AJ: <Calli>
Chess Journalists of Americal is a real institution. Their awards are very prestigious. I did not start this organization, and other than being a paid member, I have almost no say-so in this group.

The national magazine (CHESS LIFE) carried and listed these awards.

Your inferences are completely false, mean-spirited and wrong ... and only show your complete ignorance!

Nov-09-04
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: AJ, I just read your analysis for this game (see http://www.angelfire.com/games4/lif...) and it's very good.
Nov-09-04
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Clocked, yes I have. Is there a specific contraversial move that you want me to weigh in on?
Nov-09-04
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Clocked I haven't analyzed this position as deeply as you, AJ, Lawrence, and others, so I will refrain from commenting until I study it a little deeper. I'll come back with my thoughts.

But let me say this: the only thing "inane" in this discussion is not the idea of 27.Ra1 but all this nonsense about the analysis of various computer engines. Have we not forgotten Leko vs Kramnik, 2004 game 13 where ALL the computers (including 12-processor Hydra hooked into tablebase!) were convinced that Kramnik had a win when in fact it was drawn? And that was a fairly simple position that one would think a computer could manage, think how much harder it is for computers to evaluate a middlegame. The fact that Junior awards one move +0.86 pawns more than another is absolutely meaningless.

Nov-09-04
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: My gosh, I stayed up half the night analyzing this position from move 27 and I just realized I have my board set up wrong!! aaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Nov-17-04
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: <Sneaky: My gosh, I stayed up half the night analyzing this position from move 27 and I just realized I have my board set up wrong!! aaaaaaaaaaaaaah!> [Diagram?]?
Nov-17-04  drukenknight: I went to echo what Sneaky said (how have you been old boy?). I think chess engines by design are limited when they give a numerical analysis, due to the way they think, and also the way we perceive, there is probably not absolute way to weigh a game that has a) material, b) positional and c) attacking issues going on all at the same time.

A more mathematical explanation of this might call to mind the idea of non transitive sets, a simple of one goes like this: A beats b, B beats C, C beats A! (suprisingly).

Think of Frazier beating Ali, Foreman beating Frazier and Ali beating Foreman in the Thrilla in Manila.

ANother one is the voting paradox, i.e. Condorcet's theorem, that no voting system is perfect. Think of how you would rate desserts on the following basis: price, healthyness, taste.

You: "Waiter, how is the apple pie tonight?"

W: "Lovely, but the cherry tastes much better, sir"

You: "Really, then I'll have blueberry!"

Get it?

To recreat that relationship (or any non transitive relationship) mathemtically requires a minimum of 3 variables.

A numerical summary, a ONE NUMBER summary, would necessarily fall short.

So it is with computer programs or anyone who tries to assign a game a single number.

There are many many positions in chess that will turn up big numbers for one side, but that end in draw. I will show you a cool one in a bit...

Nov-17-04  aw1988: <[Diagram?]?> LOL
Nov-17-04  aw1988: Well timed, I will admit. :)

I'm still laughing.

..

Still laughing.

Nov-18-04
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: I've just got my breath back meself!
Nov-26-04  LIFE Master AJ: It was only mildly funny. Mildly!
(Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby ... now THAT'S funny!!!)
Dec-12-04  Shadout Mapes: <LIFE Master AJ: It was only mildly funny. Mildly! (Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby ... now THAT'S funny!!!)>

I pray nightly that this is a joke.

Dec-24-04  LIFE Master AJ: <sadout> Who are you kidding?
Dec-24-04  TheSlid: Hi <LIFEMASTER AJ> Love the site!

Merry Christmas!

Dec-30-04  LIFE Master AJ: Interestingly enough - Benko took a look at this endgame in the December (2004) issue of 'Chess Life,' in his "Endgame Lab" column.
Oct-06-11  I play the Fred: AJ Goldsby, August 2004:

<This game won the CJA award for ... "Best Web-Based Analysis.">

AJ Goldsby, November 2004:

<Chess Journalists of Americal <sic> is a real institution. Their awards are very prestigious.>

Edward Winter, January 2004:

<If chess is 99% tactics, chess awards are 99% tack. The obsession with handing out tinsel crowns now seems unstaunchable, and it is time to give due recognition to those chess organizations which have made the greatest contribution to turning awards into a laughing-stock. The top three winners are announced here in reverse order.

Third prize goes to the Chess Journalists of America, a <dazzlingly undemanding body> with a track-record of dispensing hundreds of awards, <often to self-nominees with no realistic hope of an accolade from elsewhere>. The winners read like a Who’s Who of who deserves nothing. The one blot on the CJA’s copybook is that a few deserving chess writers have, just occasionally over the years, found their way onto the prize-list, and such inconsistency by the Association has dashed its chances of top honours in our contest here.>

Emphases mine.

Aug-01-16  posoo: DANG a lot of fokes on dis site say dat CHUSGUMS is NOT AS GOOD NOW as it used to be, but just LOOK at dese BUFONES arguing bak and forth over NOTHING.

Only I can save chusgums.com.

Jan-10-21  nizmo11: Engines are definitely better now than 2004.
The old analysis, including <LIFE Master AJ> excellent web page pass without comment move 24. h5. However, Janowski could have played 24. Bf6! here.


click for larger view

One variation
24. Bf6! Qd3 ( 24... gxf6 25. Re3) 25. Rb3! Qf5 26. Qg3 Qg6 27. Qh3 Qf5 28. Rg3! forcing Black to play 28...g6. 29. Rg4 then avoids Queen exchange and the attack continues. This seems so strong that Black needs an earlier improvement around move 20.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 4)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·  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:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. 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.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game 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.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
"I won't even respond here, [...]!!" Starting on page 1
from Apocalypse now - Chess, Controversy and charges by Karpova
Game 393
from 500 Master Games of Chess by docjan
G393 of 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower & DuMont
from French: Instructive Games Compilation by Patca63
G393
from 500MGC3 by morwa
Game 393
from 500 Master Games of Chess by genestu
Game 393 of '500 Master Games of Chess' by Tartakower & du Mont
from Tar Pools Fredthebear Stepped In by fredthebear
June, p. 3 [Game 11] American Chess Bulletin 1904
from Published Games by Year & Unconfirmed Source 14 by fredthebear
Game 393
from 500 Master Games of Chess by smarticecream
Game 393
from Master Games - Chess (Tartakower/du Mont) by Qindarka
Game 393
from 500 Master Games of Chess by trh6upsz
Game 393
from Master Games - Chess (Tartakower/du Mont) by Sergio0106
Janowski's last chance to regain 1st place.
from Cambridge Springs 1904 games by CambridgeSprings1904
#97, after 57.h7
from Instructive Positions from Master Chess by docjan
Game 393
from 500 Master Games of Chess by hencha
0ZeR0's Favorite Games Volume 1
by 0ZeR0
393
from 500 Master Games of Chess III (part 2) by alachabre
Rook + 4 pawns vs. rook + 2 pawns
from Instructive chess endgames I by wwall
Rook + 4 pawns vs. rook + 2 pawns
from Instructive chess endgames I by Jaredfchess

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC