| Aug-13-04 | | Everett: Hey! Who has that compilation on zugzwang games. I think this would be a good one. |
|
| Aug-13-04 | | iron maiden: Thanks Everett, this is a nice one. |
|
| Aug-13-04 | | Everett: My pleasure iron maiden. BTW, did you see the Metallica movie? Not what one would expect, but excellent, imo. I'm currently looking for a Larsen game that featured Zugzwang as well, and when I find it, I'll post, so it'll show up on the search on the main page. |
|
| Oct-26-05 | | patzer2: The exchange sacrfice 26. Rxa6! forces a winning passed pawn combination. While the final game position on the surface may appear some aspects of zugzwang in the final position, it lacks a decisive feature. White's win does not depend on a Black move to weaken the position. Whether or not Black is compelled to move, White's passed pawn will decide the outcome. Here's some analysis using Fritz 8:
<26. Rxa6 Bxa6 27. Rxa6 Rc7> (
27... Rb8 28. Ra7 g6 29. Bd6 Rb6 30. Bc7  ) <28. Bxb5+ Kf7 29. Ra8 Kg6 30. Be8+
Kh7 31. b5 Ng6 32. b6 Rb7 33. g3> (33...Ne7 34. Bb5 Rg6 35. Re8 Ng8 36. Bc6 Rf7 37. b7 )
1-0
|
|
Apr-26-10
 | | Benzol: My info has this game played at a New York State Association Tournament in 1901. Apart from a spell what is hex? |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | TheFocus: <Benzol> Correct. Buffalo 1901. |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | Calli: hex meaning six. It was a hexagonal or 6 player double round tournament. Pillsbury 9.5; Delmar, Napier 6.5; Marshall 4; Howell 2.5; Karpinski 1. |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | Calli: A quick collection: Game Collection: 1901 Buffalo Looks like we have 22 of the 30 games played. |
|
Apr-27-10
| | Benzol: <TheFocus> <Calli> Many thanks guys. Hexagonol isn't something I'd normally have thought of. OK so maybe I'm a bit dozy these days. :) <Calli> a fine collection BTW. Any chance of the missing games turning up at some stage? |
|
Apr-27-10
 | | NM JRousselle: This has to be one of the worst games of Marshall's career. I can't believe he did not exchange his bad bishop on b5 on move 9. |
|
| Apr-27-10 | | Calli: <Benzol> I don't how many games exist. There is a book 1894 & 1901 Buffalo by J.S.Hilbert from Caissa Editions, but I don't have it.¹ ¹I know thats hard to believe :-) |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | TheFocus: I have the book and will check it out. If the other 8 are in there, and I don't remember any missing ones right off-hand, then I will post the scores here, but it would be on Monday. Maybe sooner. |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | TheFocus: <calli> I am pretty sure that there no missing games from Buffalo 1901, and I will try to post them tomorrow. When I do, why don't you upload them to CG? I like your game collections. I have downloaded a lot of tournaments and matches from Google, but I see you have many that I do not, so I will go and download them. I love Google Books. I have downloaded almost 200 books and magazines. Saved a bundle by not having to buy them. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | TheFocus: OK, here are the first four games.The only game missing is Marshall-Karpinski, round 9. The game-score was never found. The Boston Morning Express of August 17, 1901, said that Karpinski played against a Queen's Gambit and lost in a Pawn ending on the 50th move Karpinski - Howell
Ruy Lopez
round 1
(American Chess World, Vol I, #8, pg. 165)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Rd1+ Ke8 10.Nc3 h6 11.b3 Be7 12.g3 Be6 13.Bb2 Rd8 14.Rxd8+ Kxd8 15.Ne2 Bd5 16.Nd2 g5 17.c4 Be6 18.Ne4 Kc8 19.Rd1 Rd8 20.Rxd8+ Kxd8 21.Kf1 c5 22.Ke1 Ng7 23.Kd2 Bf5 24.Ke3 Ne6 25.f3 b6 26.Bc3 Bf8 27.Bb2 Bg7 28.Ba1 Ke7 29.Bb2 Nd8 30.Bc3 Nc6 31. f4 g4 32.Nc1 Ke6 33.Nd3 Bg6 34.Ndf2 h5 35.Ng5+ Ke7 36.Nge4 Ke8 37.Nd3 Ne7 38.Nef2 Nf5+ 39.Kd2 Ke7 40.Bb2 Ke6 411.Ne4 a5 42.a4 Ke7 43.Ndf2 Nd4 44.Bxd4 cxd4 45.Kd3 c5 46.Kd2 Ke6 47.Ng5+ Ke7 48.Nge4 f6 49.exf6+ Bxf6 50.Kd3 Ke6 51.Nd1 Be7 52.Nf2 draw. Delmar - Karpinski
Sicilian Defense
round 2
(New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung, Sept. 15, 1901. Game discovered by Tony Gillam.) 1.e4 c5 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 dxe4 4.Bxe4 Nf6 5.Bg2 e6 6.Ne2 Be7 7.Nbc3 a6 8.d3 Qc7 9.Bf4 Bd6 10.Bg5 Nbd7 11.O-O h6 12.Bd2 Rb8 13.Qe1 b6 14.Nf4 O-O 15.Ne4 Bb7 16.f3 Nd5 17.Nxd6 Qxd6 18.Nh3 Qc7 19.Nf2 Ne7 20.Ng4 Ng6 21.Bc3 e5 22.Qd2 Rbe8 23.f4 Bxg2 24.Qxg2 exf4 25.gxf4 h5 26.Ne5 Ngxe5 27.fxe5 Re6 28.Rf5 Nxe5 29.Kh1 f6 30.Raf1 Qc6 31.Rxh5 Qxg2+ 32.Kxg2 Ng4 33.Kf3 g6 34.Rh4 Ne5+ 35.Kg3 Nd7 36.Rhf4 Re3+ 37.R1f3 Rxf3+ 38.Kxf3 Kf7 39.d4 Rh8 40.h4 Rh5 41.dxc5 Rxc5 42.Re4 Rd5 43.a4 Rf5+ 44.Ke2 Rd5 45.Rc4 Rc5 46.Rxc5 Nxc5 47.a5 b5 48.Ke3 Ke6 49.Kd4 Na4 50.Be1 Nxb2 51.Kc5 Nc4 52.Kc6 Na3 53.Kb6 Nxc2 54.Bc3 b4 55.Bb2 f5 56.Kxa6 f4 57.Kb6 f3 58.a6 f2 59.a7 f1(Q) 60.a8(Q) Qf2+ 61.Kb5 Na3+ 62.Bxa3 bxa3 63.Qe8+ Kd5 64. Qg8+ Ke4 65.Qe6+ Kf3 66.Qc6+ Ke2 67.Qc4+ Ke1 draw. Delmar - Howell
Queen's Pawn Opening
round 3
(Chicago Tribune, September 1, 1901. Game discovered by Tony Gillam). 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c3 e6 4.e3 Nc6 5.Bd3 f5 6.Nbd2 Nf6 7.b3 Be7 8.Bb2 a6 9.h3 b5 10.a4 b4 11.c4 Ne4 12.Rc1 O-O 13.Bb1 a5 14.dxc5 Nxc5 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.exd4 Ne4 17.O-O Ba6 18.Nf3 Rc8 19.Bd3 Bf6 20.Ba1 dxc4 21.Bxc4 Bxc4 22.bxc4 Rf7 23.Qe2 Qe8 24.Qa2 Rb7 25.Qb3 g5 26.Rfe1 h5 27.Rc2 g4 28.Nd2 Nxd2 29.Rxd2 gxh3 30.c5 Re7 31.Rde2 Rd8 32.Rxe6 Rxe6 33.Rxe6 Qf7 34.Qe3 hxg2 35.d5 Rxd5 36.Bxf6 Rd1+ 37.Kxg2 Qg6+ 38.Bg5 1-0. Napier - Delmar
Philidor's Defense
round 4
(Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 8, 1901)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nd7 4.Bc4 Be7 5.Nc3 Ngf6 6.Be3 c6 7.Qd2 Qc7 8.O-O b5 9.Bd3 a6 10.Rad1 Nf8 11.Ne2 Bg4 12.Ne1 exd4 13.Bxd4 c5 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.f3 Be6 16.c3 rd8 17.Nf4 c4 18.Bb1 Ng6 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.exd5 O-O 21.Qh6 Rfe8 22.Rd4 Bf8 23.Qh5 Re5 24.Bf5 Bg7 25.g4 Qc5 26.Nc2 Rde8 27.Rfd1 Rxd5 28.Kf1 Rxd4 29.Nxd4 Qe5 30.Bxg6 hxg6 31.Qxe5 fxe5 32.Nc6 Bf8 33.Rd5 f5 34.gxf5 gxf5 35.a4 Kf7 36.axb5 Ke6 37.Rd2 axb5 38.Rg2 d5 39.Re2 Kf6 40.f4 e4 41.Rd2 Re6 42.Nd4 Rb6 43.Ne2 Rd6 44.Nd4 b4 45.cxb4 Rb6 46.b5 Bc5 47.Nxf5 Kxf5 48.Rxd5+ Kxf4 49.Rxc5 Rh6 50.Rxc4 Rxh2 51.Rc6 Rxb2 52.Ke1 Kf3 53.b6 Rb1+ 54.Kd2 e3+ 55.Kd3 Rd1+ 56.Kc4 e2 57.Rf6+ Ke3 58.Re6+ Kd2 59.Kc55 Rc1+ 60.Kd6 draw. I will post the remaining three games tomorrow. |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | TheFocus: And here are the last three games. Enjoy!
Howell - Karpinski
Sicilian Defense
round 6
(Chicago Tribune, September 15, 1901. Found by Tony Gillam.) 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Bg5 Ke8 9.O-O-O Bb4 10.e5 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Nd7 12.Bc4 h6 13.Bh4 b5 14.Be2 Bb7 15.f4 Nb6 16.Rd4 Nd5 17.Rhd1 Kd7 18.c4 bxc4 19.Bxc4 Kc7 20.Be7 Ne3 21.Rd7+ Kb6 22.R1d4 Bc8 23.Bd8+ Kc5 24.Be7+ Kb6 25.Bd8+ Kc5 26.Be7+ Kb6 27.R7d6 Nf5 28.Rd8 Rxd8 29.Bxd8+ Kc5 30.Re4 Ba6 31.Bxa6 Rxd8 32.Bd3 Rd4 33.Rxd4 Kxd4 34.Kd2 Ne7 35.c3+ Kc5 36.g3 Nd5 37.Bh7 Kc4 38.Bg8 Nxc3 39.Bxf7 Ne4+ 40.ke3 Nc5 41.f5 Kd5 42.fxe6 Nxe6 43.Bxe6+ Kxe6 44.Ke4 c5 45.a3 g6 46.a4 a5 47.g4 g5 48.h3 c4 49.Kd4 c3 50.Kxc3 Kxe5 51.Kc4 Kf4 52.Kb5 Kg3 53.Kxa5 Kxh3 54.Kb5 Kxg4 55.a5 h5 56.a6 h4 57.a7 Kg3 58.a8(Q) g4 59.Qh1 h3 60.Qg1+ Kh4 61.Qf2+ 1-0. Karpinski - Delmar
Petroff's Defense
round 7
(Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 15, 1901)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.e5 Ne4 5.Nxd4 d5 6.Bd3 Bc5 7. Be3 Nc6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bxe4 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Qh4+ 11.g3 Qxe4 12.O-O Bh3 13.Rf2 Qxe3 14.Qd2 Qb6 15.c3 O-O 16.Qd4 Rae8 17.Na3 Be6 18.Qxb6 axb6 19.Nc2 c5 20.Re1 Rd8 21.Rf4 Rd7 22.Rd1 Rfd8 23.b3 b5 24.b4 cxb4 25.Rxb4 c6 26.g4 Ra8 27.a3 Kf8 28.h3 Rc7 29.Rf4 c5 30.Kh2 Rca7 31.Rdf1 Ra4 32.Kg3 Ke7 33.Rxa4 Rxa4 34.Rf4 Ra5 35.Kf2 Bd7 36.Ke3 Ke6 37.Kd3 Be8 38.Rf3 Ra4 39.Re3 Bc6 40.Kd2 Re4 41.Rxe4 dxe4 42.Na1 Bd5 43.Ke3 Kxe5 44.Nc2 f6 45.Ne1 g6 46. Ng2 f5 47.g5 Bb3 48.Nf4 Bd1 49.h4 Bf3 50.nh3 Kd5 51.Nf4+ Ke5 52.Nh3 Bg2 53.Nf4 Bf1 54.h5 gxh5 55. Nxh5 Bh3 56.Nf6 f4+ 57.Ke2 Bf5 58.Kd2 h6 0-1. Howell - Delmar
Two Knight's Defense
round 8
(New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung, September 8, 1901 and Chicago Tribune, October 6, 1901. Found by Tony Gillam.) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O d6 6.Nxd4 Be7 7.Nc3 O-O 8.Be3 Ng4 9.Qe2 Bf6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bd2 Be5 12.f4 Bd4+ 13.Kh1 Nxh2 14.Qh5 Nxf1 15.Rxf1 a5 16.Rf3 a4 17.f5 h6 18.Bxh6 d5 19.Rg3 Qd6 20.Bxg7 Bxg7 21.Qg5 Qe5 22.Bxd5 bd7 23.Bc4 Ra5 24.Nd1 Re8 25.Qg6 Rd5 26.Bxd5 cxd5 27.Qg5 Kf8 28.Ne3 Bf6 29.Qg8+ Ke7 30.Nxd5+ Kd8 31.Qg4 Rh8+ 32.Rh3 Rxh3+ 33.gxh3 Qxb2 34.Nxf6 Qxf6 35.h4 Qa1+ 36.Kh2 Qxa2 37.h5 Qxc2+ 38.Kh3 Qc1 39.Qh4+ Ke8 40.Qg3 Qh1+ 41.Kg4 Qxe4+ 42.Kg5 Qf5+ 43.Kh6 Qf6+ 44.Kh7 Bf5+ 45.Kg8 Kd7 46.Qg2 Qd8+ 47.Kg7 Qc8 48.h6 Ke7 49.Qg5+ Ke6 50.Qf6+ Kd5 51.h7 Bxh7 52.Kxh7 Qh3+ 53.Kg7 Qe6 54.Qf3+ Kc4 55.Qf4+ Kb3 56.Qxc7 Qg4+ 57.Kf8 Qc4 58.Qg3+ Qc3 59.Qf2 f6 60.Kf7 a3 61.Qb6+ Ka2 62.Qf2+ Qb2 63.Qf1 Qc3 64.Qe2+ Ka1 65.Qf1+ Ka2 66.Qe2+ Ka1 67.Qf1+ Ka2 68.Qf2+ Qb2 69.Qf1 Qd4 70.Qe2+ Kb3 71.Qb5+ Kc2 72.Qe2+ Kc3 73.Qf3+ Kb4 74.Qb7+ Kc5 75.Qa7+ Kd5 76.Qxa3 f5 77.Qa8+ Ke5 78.Qh8+ Kd5 79.Qa8+ Kd6 80.Qd8+ Kc5 81.Qc8+ draw. |
|
Jan-27-15
 | | tamar: Worst move of the game?
15...h5 is wild even by Marshall's standards.
But 21...Rh6 is so bad that the computer keeps trying to retract it. I can't even guess why Marshall put it there, as it is an obvious dead end. |
|
| Jan-27-15 | | morfishine: Incredible game, notwithstanding Black's inaccuracies. White, the exchange down, forces a winning Zugzwang; Black having no defense to 34.Bc6 and literally no move ***** |
|
Nov-23-20
 | | KEG: This was the second tournament game between these players, Marshall having prevailed in their game at Paris 1900 one year earlier. Here, Pillsbury--who already was in first place at 2-0--got his revenge against Marshall (0-2 going into this game) who was headed for a next-to-last place finish. Much of Marshall's play here was bizarre, but then again much of the commentary on this game overstated Pillsbury's edge coming out of the opening, and some of Pillsbury's most-praised moves here were in fact mistakes. Indeed, as I will attempt to show, Marshall was not necessarily lost until his blunder on move 23 (a move that has not received any criticism that I have found). 1. d4 d5
2. Nf3
Napier speculated that Pillsbury played this move to avoid the Albin Counter-Gambit. But the text was quite sound, and Pillsbury had encountered it before, as will be seen. 2... c5
An aggressive choice that Pillsbury himself had played against Lasker at London 1899 in a game ultimately won by Lasker. 3. e3
One might have expected 3. c4 from Pillsbury. But the text was played against him by Lasker in the above-cited game. 3... c4?!
click for larger view"?"--(Solits)
"Weak on the face of it"--(Napier)
"An experimental move which turns out ill." (Sergeant-Watts) This move was a novelty at the time, but not a good one. As will be discussed below, Pillsbury could have obtained a major edge. The move has--so far as I have been able to discern--been played only one other time (at a minor tournament in 2018). Normal and better are 3...Nf6; 3...e6. 3...Nc6 is also good. 4. Nc3
Napier and Sergeant-Watts praised this move to the hilt, but if 3...c4?! is to be refuted, White must play 4. b3! Waiting until move 6 to play b3, as Pillsbury did, gives Black time to recover a bit. 4... f5?!
Contrary to what Sergeant-Watts claimed, Marshall was not "forced" to play this a create a hole on e5. He could simply have played 4...e6 or 4...Nf6. 5. Ne5
A typical Pillsbury move, and one that worked for him throughout his brilliant career. But here, 5. b3 was stronger. 5... Nf6
6. b3
Finally! The move, however, no longer has the string he would have caused one or two moves earlier. 6... cxb3
7. axb3 e6
click for larger viewIs White better here? For sure.
Does White have anything close to a strategically won game? hardly. In any case, Pillsbury's follow-up does not appear to be best play. 8. Bb5+
This doesn't appear to accomplish much. White is probably best served by patience; e.g., 8. Bd3; 8. Be2; or 8. Bb2. 8... Bd7
9. 0-0
"Fine chess." (Napier)
But isn't 9. NxB best?
9... a6
Hard to understand why Marshall didn't just play 9...BxB. 10. Bd3
Once again, Pillsbury could and should have played 10. NxB. 10... Nc6
11. Ne2
"!"--(Soltis)
click for larger view"White welcomes the doubling of his pawns in order to occupy e5 with one of his pieces." (Sergeant/Watts) Ture enough, but Marshall need not have taken the bait. 11... NxN
Marshall would have been fine with 11...Bd6 or 11...Qc7. Now, however, Pillsbury obtains exactly what he wanted. 12. dxN
click for larger viewWhite is certainly much better here. But from this position-as I will discuss in my next post on this game-- play became ragged, and the fortunes of the players bounced back and forth until Marshall seemed to lose the thread of the game and was overrun by Pillsbury on the Queen-side. |
|
Nov-24-20
| | KEG: Post II
12... Ng4?
In his zeal to attack, Marshall misplays his hand. In order to have any sort of real attack, he should have tried either 12...Ne4. 13. f4?
Needlessly weakening his e-pawn. Pillsbury would have had much the better chances with 13. Bb2. With the text, Pillsbury gave Marshall the attacking chances he wanted. 13... Bc5!
Marshall was now back in business, and any edge Pillsbury had enjoyed was gone: 
click for larger view14. Nd4 Qh4
15. h3
Forced. The position was now:
click for larger view15... h5?
"Attack with two pieces is proverbally futile." (Napier) "15...h5 is wild even for Marshall." (<tamar>) Not only is 15...h5? wild, but Marshall missed a neat combo that would have yielded at least equality: 15...Nxe5 after which White has nothing better than 16. Nxf5 exN 17. fxN g6. If instead 16. fxN? Marshall would roll with 16...BxN since 17. exB walks into a fork via 17...Qxd4+ 18. Be3 [else the Rook falls] QxB+. After 15...h5?, the position was:
click for larger view16. Qe1
"!"--(Soltis"
"Putting an end to Black's semblance oa attack." (Sergeant/Watts) This much-praised move did indeed give Pillsbury the better game and a full respite from Marshall's attack. But even better is 16. Qf3! 16... QxQ
17. RxQ Nh6
17...BxN was no better (Stockfish to the contrary notwithstanding). 18. Ba3
"!"--(Soltis)
Pillsbury could also have played 18. c4.
After 18. Ba3, the position was:
click for larger view18... BxN
"?"--(Soltis)
"18...BxB [would have given] him at least a defensible game." (Sergeant-Watts) Actually, both the text and 18...BxB gave Marshall a "defensible" (though inferior) game. As will be seen, Marshall's fatal mistakes were yet to come. 19. exB Bc6
20. Bc5
click for larger viewPillsbury had serious pressure on Marshall's position, but he had nothing close to a won game---yet. |
|
Nov-25-20
| | KEG: Post III
20... Nf7
Sergeant-Watts here mysteriously claim that "20...h4 was necessary first." While this move would of course prevent White's 21. h4, it hardly seems any improvement on the text since White after 20...h4 gets the better game with 21. c4. 21. h4
Pillsbury would also have played the arguably better 21. c4. After 21. h4, the position was:
click for larger view21... Rh6?
Everyone dumps on this move. Indeed, <tamar> claims the move is so bad "the computer keeps trying to retract it." Either 21...Kd7 (Napier's suggestion) or the probably better 21...Nh6 would have been far superior to Marshall's misplacement of his Rook. Indeed, as will be seen from Marshall's next move, 21...Rh6? was also part of an awful plan by Marshall, as becomes clear from Marshall's next two moves. Marshall was probably not lost at this point, but he was at best on very thin ice after 21...Rh6? 22. Kf2
Pillsbury seems to have been in no rush to exploit Marshall's weak play. He could have played more dynamically with 22. Ra5 or 22. b4 or even 22. Be2 (Stockfish's choice). 22... Nh8?
More bizarre play by Marshall, who apparently thought he could conjure up a King-side attack with a later Ng6. As a theoretical matter, best for Black here was to admit his last move was garbage and just play 22...Rh8. If that is too much to ask of a human, Marshall should still not have mangled his position further by putting his Knight in the corner. 23. b4!
Preparing a Queen-side assault:
click for larger view23... b5?
Horrible play. Marshall had already messed up his King-side good and proper. With the text, he created a hole on h5 and added fuel to Pillsbury's coming Queen-side attack. Marshall might have had a chance to salvage his inferior position with 23...Rb8 or 23...Rc8. After the text, he got blown off the board by Pillsbury. 24. Ra5!
click for larger view24... Bb7?
Obviously missing Pillsbury's coming sacrifice on a6. But Marshall was lost at this point whatever he did (even the "better" 24...Ng6). 25. Rea1 Rc8
Hopeless, but I have no good suggestions for Marshall at this point, the position (after 25...Rc8) being: 
click for larger view26. Rxa6!
"!"--(Soltis")
As Napier and <patzer2> have aptly noted, after this pretty move the game was effectively over. 26... BxR
27. RxB
click for larger viewWhite's attack from here practically plays itself. |
|
Nov-25-20
| | KEG: Post IV
27... Rc7
27...Kf7 offered the stiffest resistance. But this is all relative. Black is busted. 28. Bxb5+
Pillsbury of course could also have played 28. Ra8+ immediately. 28... Kf7
29. Ra8
click for larger viewThe b-pawn now marches to victory. Marshall might have spared himself what followed. 29... Kg6
30. Be8+ Kh7
31. b5
click for larger viewThe b-pawn is a beast!
31... Ng6
32. b6 Rb7
33. g6
"Somewhat mercenary [i.e., keeping his King-side pawns intact], but there's time to spare." (Napier) Pillsbury could obviously just have won with 33. Bc6, but the text neatly emphasizes Marshall's helplessness. 
click for larger view1-0
"Black having no defense to 34. Bc6 and literally no move." (<morfishine>) "If 33...Ne7 34. Ra7."-- (Sergeant-Watts)
A pretty finish by Pillsbury. |
|
| Nov-25-20 | | sudoplatov: Marshall played Pillsbury during the latter's decline. Still, Marshall won 7-5 with 2 draws. After a pretty good 1900, Marshall seemed to play 1901-1903 at a much lower lever. (He was seen more as a flash in the pan). However from 1904 (Cambridge Springs), Marshall's play was much better though still erratic. |
|
Nov-25-20
 | | perfidious: Marshall was 24 the year of this event, so had hardly reached full flower. When Pillsbury was at his zenith (1895-96), Marshall was barely out of short pants--this merely points up why such comparisons can be risible. |
|
Nov-26-20
| | KEG: <perfidious>All true. What I find strange is Marshall's generally strong play at Paris 1900 (where he finished tied for third and defeated the two top prize winners--Lasker and Pillsbury) but his very weak play and horrendous results in 1901. Solits calls 1901 Marshall's "sophomore slump," and that's the best explanation I know of. Maybe Marshall became overconfident after playing like a world-beater at Paris 1900 and needed to be brought back to earth. By Cambridge Springs 1904, Marshall's greatest triumph, Pillsbury was already sick and no longer the powerhouse he had been during 1895-1903. A pity the Pillsbury-Marshall rivalry was tarnished by their age difference and Pillsbury's decline by 1904. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 26.Rxa6