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



Annotations by Stockfish (Computer).      [21915 more games annotated by Stockfish]

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: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.


Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-16-04  clocked: Yes Botvinnik always failed to include hash table information...

When refuting my analysis I need the same information <AJ>, or wait, maybe just a line. Oh actually that may be too much... how about just a move?

This comment was auto-generated using Fritz 9 beta
1 terabyte allocated for hashtables
running on Intel wetware
30 seconds
eval: 3.14 in my favor

May-16-04  LIFE Master AJ: <clocked>
I haven't seen any real anlysis that meets the criteria I have already stated.
May-16-04  clocked: That'w why Kasparov lost the Deep Blue...
May-16-04  clocked: Qe4! Fritz 7 Depth 16 3.16
time, hardware, hashtables are just components of depth.

can black improve? probably, but YOU have shown NOTHING with NO analysis beyond the gospel on your website

Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessical: <Clocked> I have looked at your line, and I have one suggestion:

From the stem game: <27.Ra1!?> Qf8 28.Rxa7 R8c7 29.Rxc7 Rxc7 30.Re3 Kh8 31.Qf4 <b5> 32.Rg3 Ra7 33.Bf6 gxf6 34.exf6 Ra1+ 35.Kh2 e5 36.Qe4

I cannot see any advantage in playing <31...b5> here. I believe that Black could play <31...Ra7> 32.Rg3 Ra1+ 33.Kh2 Bc6 saving a move. It is hard to say who is better here, probably White?

May-16-04  clocked: To continue <Chessical>'s line 34.Rc3 Bd5 35.Rc7 Kg8 36.Be7 Qe8 37.Qg3 (not Bd6? f5! Qh4 Bxg2!! Kxg2 Qa8+ f3 Qa2+ Qf2 Qb1) Ra8 White maintains the pressure, I am not trying to prove a win; only to refute the "inane" comment. 38.Bd6 Qd8 39.Re7 Qc8 40.Qf4 Qf8 41. f3 and White has set-up the capture Rxe6
Premium Chessgames Member
  Calli: Looking at it again, I think Janowski rejected Ra1 because he did not want to exchange rooks. The irony is that the rook exchange actually helps white because he gets to play Re3 without interference. Compare with Re4 etc in the actual game. In <Clocked>'s line, white has lasting pressure and, IMHO, full compensation for the pawn.
Jun-01-04  LIFE Master AJ: <everyone>
Now that I have a new machine - INTEL 3.4 GHz - I went over my initial analysis.

Fritz 8.0 (running under ChessBase), with 250 MB of RAM for the Hash-table, (a nice round number); ... we get the following line: 27.Ra1, Qf8; (prolly forced)
28.Rxa7, R3c7; 29.RxR/c7, Rxc7; 30.Re3, Bc6; 31.Rc3, Kh8; 32.Qf4, Rc8; 33.Qc1, Bb7. "~" After nearly 15 minutes, the computer sees a tiny, (miniscule); edge for White ... yet any Master worth his rating would tell you that this position is almost certainly drawn.

This completely vindicates everything I said earlier. Kh2! was the only PRACTICAL chance to win this game.

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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  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!

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: AJ, I just read your analysis for this game (see and it's very good.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Clocked, yes I have. Is there a specific contraversial move that you want me to weigh in on?
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.

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!
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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: I've just got my breath back meself!
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 4)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 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, 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?]
#97, after 57.h7
from Instructive Positions from Master Chess by Jaredfchess
from 500 Master Games of Chess III (part 2) by alachabre
Rook + 4 pawns vs. rook + 2 pawns
from Instructive chess endgames I by Jaredfchess
#97, after 57.h7
from Instructive Positions from Master Chess by Phony Benoni
Janowski's last chance to regain 1st place.
from Cambridge Springs 1904 games by CambridgeSprings1904
Rook + 4 pawns vs. rook + 2 pawns
from Instructive chess endgames I by wwall
G393 of 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower & DuMont
from French: Instructive Games Compilation by fredthebear
June, p. 3 [Game 11]
from American Chess Bulletin 1904 by Phony Benoni
Game 393
from 500 Master Games of Chess by hencha
Game 393
from 500 Master Games of Chess by trh6upsz
from 500 Master Games of Chess III (part 2) by trh6upsz
from 500MGC3 by morwa
Cambridge Springs 1904
by suenteus po 147
Game 393
from 500 Master Games of Chess by smarticecream
Las Mil y Una Partidas (1001 Chess Games)
by K9Empress
"I won't even respond here, [...]!!" Starting on page 1
from Apocalypse now - Chess, Controversy and charges by Karpova
Tarrasch defence
by lapsusmanus
Game 393
from Master Games - Chess (Tartakower/du Mont) by Sergio0106
Game 393
from Master Games - Chess (Tartakower/du Mont) by Qindarka

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 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC