| KEG: A quick crush by Pillsbury which--with Janowski's loss in this same 7th round--put Pillsbury very much back in the hunt for 1st place (he eventually was just nosed out by Maroczy). von Scheve had been successful as White at Monte Carlo 1901 (he tied for third--the best result by far in his career) by playing 1. d4 and seeking small slow advantages. But here, against Pillsbury, he went overboard in seeking to hold onto a gambit pawn, got an awful position, and then got blown away by a classis Pillsbury attack. 1. d4 d5
2. Nf3 c5
A form of Queen's Gambit by Black.
3. dxc5
click for larger viewSome on this site have criticized this White position, but--as <jerseybob> has correctly noted--this can't be bad (though it is hardly my cup of tea). White's position here is essentially that of Black in the Queen's Gambit Accepted with 2. Nf3 thrown in. For whatever it's worth (and in openings it's not worth much) both Fritz and Stockfish rate White as slightly better after 3. dxc5. More significantly, this move was played by Lasker and Alekhine, and was favored by Salo Flohr. If von Scheve fancied this line, that's fine for him. He lost this game not because of 3. dxc5 but because he focused on hanging onto the gambit pawn at the expense of development. 3... Nf6
4. Nc3
A natural and unambitious developing move that cannot be faulted. But 4. c4 seems more enterprising. 4... Nc6
5. a3
"?"--(Tournament Book)
"?"--(Sergeant-Watts in their book on Pillsbury [hereafter "Sergeant-Watts"]) While 5. Bf4 and 5. e3 look more promising to me, a3 here for White, like a6 for Black against the Queen's Gambit, is entirely logical and playable. This move, like 3. dxc5, was not why von Scheve lost the game. In any case, 5. a3 left the position as:
click for larger view5... d4
"!"--(Tournament Book)
Whatever the theoretical evaluation of the position, it is hard to imagine many decent players prefering to be White here: 
click for larger view6. Na4?
Awful. White would still be fine with 6. Na2, and even 6. Nb1--recommended by the Tournament Book--was better than the text. 6... e5?
Hard to believe from Pillsbury. With 6...Qa5+ 7. c3 b5 he would have had much the better game. But now, von Scheve had an excellent opportunity to turn the tables, the position now being: 
click for larger view7. b4?
The natural 7. e3 actually gives White the better game here. And even 7. c3 (recommended by the Tournament Book) was better than the text. 7... e4
click for larger viewA very strange position indeed. It is hard to figure out who is theoretically better--everything considered--but I definitely would want to be Black here, especially had I known what von Scheve was going to play next. | 
Kibitzing
sac: 20...Nf3+
