|Nov-10-05|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: The position around the 15th move is interesting.
15...Qxg2 looks tempting for Black but in fact results in Black either getting mated or a loss of his queen. If 15...Qxg2, then 16.Qf3! Qxf3 17.Rg1+ Kh8 18.Bg7+ Kg8 19.Bf6+ Qg4 20.Rxg4#
|May-01-07|| ||RonB52734: <EA> I just came across a website that refers to this as the "Pittsburgh Trap." Neither that website nor I knows why it has that name. http://www.chesscircle.net/forums/g...|
|Jul-27-08|| ||JoergWalter: RonB52734 - Never mind the name. Maybe there is a Pittsburgh in Czechoslovakia - just as it is the home country of the original Budweiser beer.
Actually the trap/"emperors analysis" was presented as "the game" in Reti's "Masters of the chessboard" (p 211). Another example how Reti's mistakes are copied ever since.|
|Nov-09-08|| ||keypusher: Three interesting kibitzes on this page. I looked in Hoffer's tournament book to see if it would reveal why this is called the Pittsburgh Trap, but instead Hoffer wrote that Black couldn't play 15...Qxg2 because of 16. Kd2(?). White is still winning after 16....Qxf2+ 17. Kc1, but obviously 16. Qf3 is much stronger, and prettier as well.|
|Nov-09-08|| ||keypusher: And here is some more on the Pittsburgh Trap. Best explanation seems to be a screw-up by Irving Chernev -- it should have been called the Philadelphia Trap.|
|Nov-10-08|| ||JoergWalter: Thanks for the comment keypusher. And what is more: the cited game Capablanca-Teichmann shows to me again how well Capablanca knew Pillsbury's games and openings. This is normally not mentioned in the books.|
|Jul-27-10|| ||sevenseaman: Irrespective of the non-traceability of its origins the name looks apt as Black K is unable to escape from g8. <EmperorAthualpa> thanks you for your 15...Qxg2 comment - an interesting detour. Chess comments unfortunately have a time-warp.|
|Jan-10-16|| ||MissScarlett: <Actually the trap/"emperors analysis" was presented as "the game" in Reti's "Masters of the chessboard" (p 211). Another example how Reti's mistakes are copied ever since.>|
<The game> appeared in this 1906 <Los Angeles Herald> article, so it presumably reached Reti in this form via a circuitous route:
|Jan-10-16|| ||zanzibar: That's a pretty good catch <MissS>, but is it truly the first corruption of the game score (assuming <CG> is correct)?|
And how likely would it be that Reti have would utilized an LA newspaper as his source?
(Lots of subjunctives in that last sentence)
|Jan-10-16|| ||MissScarlett: <And how likely would it be that Reti have would utilized an LA newspaper as his source?>|
Unlikely, I would say. By <circuitous route> I meant to imply that the path of transmission was likely to be a twisted one.
|Jan-10-16|| ||zanzibar: OK, just checking.
More likely would be two independent corruptions just to demonstrate a nice combo for the student.
Poetic license - known to happen on occasion in chess. Of course I blame Blake!
|Jan-21-17|| ||KEG: A wonderful game by Pillsbury, who never lets Lee recover from his poor sixth move (6...b6?). While Lee's subsequent errors hastened his demise (13...Qd6 would have been much better than Lee's actual 13...Qe4), this does not detract from Pillsbury's forceful refutation of 6...b6.|
As EmperorAtahualpa and keypusher discovered years ago, had Lee tried to recover his pawn with 15...Qxb2, he would have been crushed by the wonderful 16. Qf3!! As keypusher has also correctly noted, Hoffer's proposed 16. Kd2 also wins, but is nowhere nearly as efficient and nowhere near as aesthetically pleasing as 16. Qf3!!
The closest thing to an error by Pillsbury in the game was his 16. 0-0 (16. Qf3 was stronger). But Lee failed to seize his hint of a chance and missed 16...c5. After his 16...Kh8, Pillsbury finished him off neatly.
After Lee's 24. Rg6, Pillsbury had numerous ways to finish off his opponent. His actual 25. Rxf6 may not have been the faster (he could have played 25. e4 or 25 Rdc1), but--as we have come to expect--Pillsbury chose the most gorgeous way to close out the game.
|Jan-22-17|| ||KEG: And Bravo EmperorAthahualpa and keypusher for finding 16. Qf3!!--a move missed in the Tournament Book and the idea I'm sure Pillsbury had in mind for Lee had the latter played 15...Qxg2.|
And apologies for the typo in my analysis---I was of course referring to what would have befallen Lee had he played 15...Qxg2 (my 15...Qxb2 was a typo).
|Aug-23-19|| ||fredthebear: <EmperorAtahualpa: The position around the 15th move is interesting. |
15...Qxg2 looks tempting for Black but in fact results in Black either getting mated or a loss of his queen. If 15...Qxg2, then 16.Qf3! Qxf3 17.Rg1+ Kh8 18.Bg7+ Kg8 19.Bf6+ Qg4 20.Rxg4#>
"The Art of the Checkmate" by Renaud and Kahn give a slightly different game between these two players from London, 1899 with such a brilliant finish (16...Qxg2 instead of 15...Qxg2) leading to Pillsbury's Mate -- apparently the original Pillsbury's Mate (discovered check on open g-file variation; not the rook sacrifice variation) if the Black queen accepts the g2-pawn to open the file. See Game 68 on pages 130-131. Note that move variations in the book begin with 5.P-K3/e3.
Somewhere something does not add up. Perhaps the original Pillsbury Mate was post-mortem analysis, or they played a casual game on the side.
|Aug-23-19|| ||perfidious: That has been known to happen, the notorious Alekhine-Tenner encounter published as a crushing victory by the great man in his first volume of best games being a notable example.|
|Aug-23-19|| ||fredthebear: Game 68 on pages 130-131 in "The Art of the Checkmate" by Renaud and Kahn appears to be mislabeled, yet relevant. The written MOVES in the book match the blindfold simultaneous game below (with the exception that Black's 4th and 5th are transposed).|
Pillsbury - Newman
Philadelphia Chess Club 1900, 1-0.
Pillsbury vs C Newman, 1900
Curiously, Pillsbury does not play the forking sacrifice 17.Qf3! to arrange the checkmate pattern for which he is famous. He plays 17.Kd2 and wins quickly anyway.
Therefore, it appears that the original Pillsbury Mate (Bg7+ Kg8 variation setting up a discovered check on the open g-file) could have occurred in more than one Harry Nelson Pillsbury game, but actually did not materialize over-the-board.
|Aug-23-19|| ||MissScarlett: C.N. 10272: <We offer a solution to the long-standing mystery of how the ‘Pittsburg(h) Trap/Variation’ obtained its name(s).>|
|Aug-23-19|| ||gezafan: Let me point out that Pittsburgh is a city in Pennsylvania and there is a city in California called Pittsburg. They are spelled differently.|
|Aug-23-19|| ||MissScarlett: Yes , but there's a city in Pennsylvania also called Pittsburg.|
|Aug-23-19|| ||gezafan: <MissScarlett: Yes , but there's a city in Pennsylvania also called Pittsburg.>|
So things are even more confusing. Maybe there are people named Pillsbury in each of these cities.
|Aug-24-19|| ||fredthebear: It is wrong of me to use the phase "original Pillsbury Mate" on this page. (That honor apparently belongs to Adolph Anderssen, who sacrificed one rook on the g-file and mated with the second rook coming over from the queenside to the g-file, but let's not discuss that game any farther for the time being.) Just know that there is more than one variation of Pillsbury's Mate that mates with a rook. (The Morphy's Mate variations mate with the bishop on the long diagonal.)|
This page is dedicated to the "Pittsburg(h) Trap/Variation", which is a mix-up that has nothing to do with the city of Pittsburg(h); rather it's a misallocation of Pillsbury's name by Polish master Dawid Janowsky. Having grown up in Russia, it's certainly reasonable that Janowsky faced language barriers.
The "Pittsbur(h) Trap/Variation" is referenced when Black plays the weakening 6...b6 in the game above (and Pillsbury vs Newman, 1900). This provides a hole for White's minor piece penetration, which leads to exchanges and Black drops the d-pawn on 13.Nxd5.
In the middlegame, had Black played 15...Qxg2 as <EmperorAtahualpa> suggested above, the conditions are set for the sacrifice offer 16.Qf3! and Pillsbury's Mate follows if 16...QxQf3. This Pillsbury's Mate version needs only one White rook to accomplish it's task on the open g-file after 17.Rg1+.
The evolution of the misallocated "Pittsburg(h) Trap/Variation" is explained in the link that <MissScarlett> provided to Edward Winter's Chess Notes. What would we do without these two?
<MissScarlett: C.N. 10272: <We offer a solution to the long-standing mystery of how the ‘Pittsburg(h) Trap/Variation’ obtained its name(s).>
Thus, FTB has learned what chess historians have long known for more than 100+ years. Perhaps FTB has reasoned that Pillsbury never actually performed one variation of the checkmate pattern (the queen sacrifice appears to be analysis) that bares Pillsbury's name. Yet, FTB continues research on the matter to compare other sources.