| Aug-23-04 | | Gorza: I often wonder how many players would come up with such a brilliant idea to give away a strong bishop pair to play a superior major piece ending. 15. c4! 15. Bxc6! and 17. Bxf6! are very profound moves. Rubinstein was WC material. To bad he had all those (mental) health problems. |
|
| Mar-28-05 | | Karpova: Marshall should have resigned after 32.qc5 but he went on playing. not very sportive.
another example of a lack of sportsmanship is Milan Vidmar vs Akiba Rubinstein St. Petersburg 1909. |
|
Mar-28-05
 | | Richard Taylor: I agree with <Gorza> - this is an "instuctive game" at the right time the Bishops gets translated nto a waek pawn position etc Rubinstein wins the ending (carefully defending his 2nd rank) - he was very close to being World Champion -one of the greatest players ever - I dodnt think Marshall should resign - I wouldnt expect him to he was always looking for a win or a draw - perhaps by one of his famous "swindles" - "No one ever won a game of chess by resigning." |
|
| Mar-28-05 | | Karpova: <Richard Taylor> playing over the game it becomes obvious that black doesn't have a single drawing chance after 32.Qc5 since the winning procedure for white is very easy.
This shows nothing but disrespect for the opponent (there was no swindle or anything else from black's side after 32.Qc5).
Even Rubinstein became cynical playing 53.g6.
but please enlighten me by showing great resources for black in the r+4p vs r+p endgame that emerges... |
|
Mar-28-05
 | | Chessical: With hindsight, perhaps Marshall could have held on with <22...g5!?>, e.g.: <23.Qxc6> (or 23.e5 Rh6 24.Rf2 gxf4 25.gxf4 Rg6+) 23...gxf4 24.gxf4 Rg6+ 25.Kh1 Qe2, rather than <22...Qa5> which decentralised his Q. |
|
Mar-28-05
 | | tamar: <Karpova> The lifetime score between the two was only 11-9 with 15 draws in Rubinstein's favor, much closer than Marshall's score against Lasker or Capablanca. Rubinstein had an unfortunate tendency toward blundering in winning positions
and there was a game in their 1908 match
where Rubinstein had a win with Qh5+ and allowed mate on the move with Qg8# by playing Qxd6. Marshall vs Rubinstein, 1908 1-0 Another time he allowed a bishop and knight mate in a winning endgame. Rubinstein vs Marshall, 1908 0-1 So while I agree with you that objectively there is no hope for Black after the 35th move, Rubinstein had opened that door in Marshall's mind. |
|
| Mar-28-05 | | Karpova: <tamar>
i know that rubinstein tendency towards grotesque blunders is legendary.
this is still no excuse. The two games from 1908 show that black still had some kind of counterplay and the chance of a swindle or else.
but there's nothing left in this position. you have to admit that the kind of blunder necessary to allow marshall to escape can't be committed by rubinstein.
it's quite understandable to overlook a mate but here rubinstein would have to make several complete senseless moves. |
|
Mar-28-05
| | tamar: Yeah. There is no reason to play on here.Marshall was an optimist, and probably thought he could create at least one threat, but never did. |
|
| Mar-28-05 | | Karpova: <tamar> he might have hoped for rubinstein to drop dead. |
|
Mar-28-05
 | | keypusher: Here's the ultimate in bitter-endism: Duras plays two queens down. H Wolf vs Duras, 1907
According to Kmoch 38 Rc7 would have won more quickly in this game. |
|
Mar-28-05
| | tamar: <Karpova> Marshall can be seen as a bad sport or just overly competitive, depending on how you feel toward him. He took advantage of Edward Lasker's illness during their match if I recall correctly, but it is a long time since I read his book. Anyone recall the particulars? |
|
| Mar-28-05 | | Karpova: <tamar>
marshall was just overambitious to put it mildly |
|
| Jul-25-20 | | Albion 1959: This game is nearly akin to Rubinstein v Spielmann - Vienna 1922. Where AR weakens the opponents pawns, then slowly builds up the pressure with Queen and both rooks to attack the weak pawns. The final phase is a double rook endgame, where Marshall is outplayed and overrun when the weak pawns start to be picked off one-by-one !! |
|
| Jul-26-20 | | sudoplatov: Companion game: Marshall vs Rubinstein, 1911 |
|
| Jul-26-20 | | W Westerlund: Look at the match between Lasker and Marshall. Marshall plowed on in several games in ridiculously lost positions. |
|
| Jul-26-20 | | W Westerlund: And this was a WC. |
|
| Jul-01-21 | | tbontb: The double B for N exchange is a logical consequence of 15....dxc4 and guarantees White a persistent structural advantage. The real mistake is 22....Qa5. As Rubinstein demonstrates, the game is effectively over after 23. e5 forces 23....Rh6 placing the R woefully offside and leaving the Black Q-side indefensible. Instead, the last chance is probably 22....g5 23.Kh1 gxf4 24.gxf4 Qf7 with objectively only a slight advantage to White. In the game, Black might have quietly resigned around move 30. |
|
| Jul-01-21 | | RookFile: I agree with others here, Marshall should have resigned. For my money, anything after 40. Rxa7 doesn't pass the laugh test. |
|
Jul-01-21
 | | perfidious: Marshall may have been hoping for an earthquake. Or something. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 53.g6