|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 49 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-01-09
 | | keypusher: <chancho> An antique for an antique! <tpstar> Now to do the same in real life... |
|
Apr-17-09
| | keypusher: Sympathy for Tarrasch's Luck Table in the Nuremberg book: Lasker scored some crushing wins with on the Black side of the Ruy against the tailenders, e.g. Winawer, Porges, Teichmann. One strategic masterpiece on the White side of the Ruy against Blackburne. Crushes against less-than-stellar opposition by Steinitz and Tarrasch himself. Apart from that? Losses to Janowski and Pillsbury, though neither is anything to be ashamed of, and the Pillsbury game is an eternal classic. But then swindles against Albin, Showalter, etc....the save/win against Chigorin is impressive, but how did Lasker blow such a good position in the first place? But--this is not characteristic of Lasker at his best. There are no swindles in the St. Petersburg 1895-96 tournament. At London 1899 he scores 19 wins and 7 draws (plus a loss to Blackburne). Of the 26 non-defeats, only the win over Mason is a clear swindle. Apart from that, the draw with Mason is the only other time Lasker is clearly worse, though the draw with Janowski is hairy. Still, one swindle in 26 games! Paris 1900 is similar. Apart from the loss to Marshall, he is clearly inferior only against Showalter, and has a very unclear game against Schlechter that he wins. So, one swindle from 17 games, consisting of 14 wins and 3 draws. |
|
Apr-17-09
| | keypusher: Distinction between 1894 and 1896: 10:5 and 10:2. One might think that this is because Steinitz is declining, but look at strong tournament results in this period (including 4th at Vienna 1898). Might be rather that Lasker is improving. Before first Steinitz match, no first rate opposition (Steinitz, Tarrasch, Chigorin); between matches, Hastings, St. Petersburg and Nuremberg. |
|
| May-06-09 | | Benzol: <keypusher> Scott good work on Game Collection: Phillips & Drew Kings Chess Tournament 1982 It's a great collection. :) |
|
| May-06-09 | | wanabe2000: <keypusher> Thank you for your Game Collection: Phillips & Drew Kings Chess Tournament 1982. This led me to another of your collections Game Collection: St. Petersburg 1895-96 where Lasker won with 11 1/2 (+8-3=7). I thought both were great! Thank you. |
|
May-06-09
| | keypusher: <benzol> <wanabe2000> thanks! Benzol, your Nuremberg 1896 collection helped get me interested in chess in the 1890s, which led to the St. Petersburg collection and a number of other fruitful(?) obsessions, e.g. the Tarrasch book on the 1908 championship, Emanuel Lasker's career generally, etc. So I am glad you like the P&D collection. |
|
May-10-09
 | | chancho: Don't know if you've seen this already, but if not:
http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... |
|
May-14-09
| | keypusher: <chancho> Thanks! |
|
| May-15-09 | | Calli: Speaking of Hastings, I stumbled upon an interesting interview with Pillsbury. Click the magnifying glass to see http://picasaweb.google.com/Caissa1... At least I think it is readable. If not, let me know. Also have some baseball scores in there, just in case you missed them back when. |
|
| May-16-09 | | Ziggurat: <Calli> Very interesting interview. It's surprising (to me) that Pillsbury felt that Chigorin was so clearly the strongest player in 1895. |
|
| May-16-09 | | Calli: I adjusted the picture a little because it was trimmed a little too much on the right. Yes, Pillsbury had played Steinitz, a New Yorker, and Lasker who visited in 1893. Presumably, he played them some offhand unrecorded games too. And yet, he thought he could beat them, but perhaps not Chigorin. |
|
May-16-09
| | keypusher: <Calli> This is great! |
|
| May-17-09 | | Calli: Unfortunately, I bet on the Cubs that day. Note the "amiable" British women. A source of Harry's problem? |
|
May-17-09
| | keypusher: <Calli> There is quite a lot to chew on in that article. Very striking that Steinitz, Tarrasch and Chigorin all came over to congratulate Pillsbury when he beat Gunsberg in the last round but Lasker did not. Chigorin was still playing a tough battle with Schlechter, while Lasker had won early. Lasker's illness seems to have made a great impression on people. The tournament book refers to him as "a gentleman of evident culture, but frail and delicate of health." I have only a vague idea what the argument between Steinitz and Lasker was about. I suppose it was on account of Lasker's failure to give Steinitz a rematch sooner. Very poignant to read of Pillsbury looking forward so to the St. Petersburg tournament. He refers to it as a quintangular, so I suppose at the time Tarrasch was still expected to play. Would that he had! Pillsbury comes across as very straightforward and appealing, just as one might expect. Thanks for sharing this. Where in the same of all that is wonderful did you find it? |
|
May-17-09
| | keypusher: <Calli> The baseball stuff is pretty good too! John McGraw and Baltimore got in a lot of the umpire abuse for which they were famous. Note that the teams are referred to as the "New Yorks" the "Clevelands" etc. I think team names were more in the nature of nicknames back then. Cleveland was battling Baltimore for the pennant, but would soon enter a rapid decline; in 1899 the Spiders would have the worst season in the history of major league baseball, then fold. |
|
| May-18-09 | | angslo: <keypusher: <frogbert> If you haven't been banned, terrific. As you know, I think you are a great poster. But the inderhinder bio was bad. I'll do what you say when I get a chance.> well, with due regards, why would you fall for some false accusation and propaganda against me without bothering to check with me, i fail to understand. i would not do that if i were you . you are , ofcourse, free to do as you choose to. have a nice day, keypusher !
P.S. I am going to post a comment in my forum regarding that. |
|
May-18-09
| | keypusher: <Angslo> With all due respect, I haven't fallen for or concluded anything. You are a stranger to me and I try not to form conclusions about people I don't know. When I saw the asterisk by my forum name I hoped <Calli> had come back to talk some more about his Pillsbury article from 1895. But I can't very well blame you for not being <Calli>. |
|
| May-18-09 | | angslo: <keypusher: <Angslo> With all due respect, I haven't fallen for or concluded anything. You are a stranger to me and I try not to form conclusions about people I don't know.> all is well then.
thanks for your polite response .
Best Regards ! |
|
| May-20-09 | | angslo: <keypusher: <frogbert> Why don't you just put <angslo> on ignore?> yes, why not!
and now frogbert will give a whole lot of reason why ignore does not work, whistle blowing does not work in some cases. then we come to my point that ignore and whistle blowing does not work with serial 'flame warriors ' like frogbert. daniel freeman himself said there is a user who is 'flame warrior' . and apparently they don't want take any actions against such flame warriors. <frogbert has flame wars with regular frequency and then says , "i leave you alone , you leave me alone. "now, he will again have a flame war soon and same drama all over again> anyway, sorry for using up your time and space , keypusher. i just got a little frustrated.
if you wish to talk about this further , you could mail me at angslo2008@yahoo.com thanks , <keypusher> and have a nice day :) |
|
| May-21-09 | | hms123: <keypusher> I think your original chessclock avatar may be back. Look on the last page about the second row from the bottom. Of course, your current version is very nice as well. |
|
| May-21-09 | | Calli: [ blame you for not being <Calli> ] I gotta be me (or maybe Sammy Davis when singing in the shower). Glad you enjoyed the interview which seems strikingly modern. Suppose I should put a link on the Pillsbury page, but I remembered your St. Pete collection so you have first. The column is online but I snipped it awhile ago. Will see if can find that link again. Baseball- tons of stuff out there, but I am more fascinated by pre-major league accounts. Grew up with the whole Doubleday myth and now you can see stuff from say 1861 and "base ball". Some even have box scores of a fashion. |
|
May-22-09
| | keypusher: <Calli> I think the Pillsbury page is the best place for that article, with maybe a link on the Hastings 1895 collection (Benzol's?) too. Incidentally, I just found a book of chess anecdotes and capsule bios by George Alcock MacDonnell on Google books. I posted a link on his page. The Rev. isn't the world's most gifted raconteur, but he's got good material. <hms 123> Thanks for the heads-up. I like my new/old clock so much, I think I'll keep it. Thanks for that too! |
|
| May-22-09 | | Benzol: <keypusher> Scott I'm having trouble trying to read all the fine print in <Calli>'s article but I've put a link to it from my Hastings 1895 collection based on your recommendation. Is there anyway I can blow it up to read it properly? |
|
May-22-09
| | keypusher: <Benzol> there is a little magnifying glass on the upper right hand side of the page with the article that will blow it up. You don't get perfect resolution even so, but at least you won't go blind. :-) |
|
| May-23-09 | | Benzol: <keypusher> Thanks. I finally managed to read it. Good article. Interesting to see what he said about Showalter. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 49 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
