Many players have told me over the years that this was a great game of chess. (As for me, I'm not so sure.)
Marshall
did say that this was his best/favorite game of chess of the series that he
played with Pillsbury.
[ According to the book, "Life Maps
of The Great Chess Masters," (By N.
Divinsky); these two grand warriors crossed swords over a chess board a grand total of 12
times. But since one was an exhibition game, I hardly think that it is proper to count this game. The
FINAL, CORRECT
tally ... of real, OTB chess games ... is a draw! (Each had five wins apiece, with only one draw
between them.) ]
So out of all the grand struggles these two played, Marshall gave as good as he got. And if the great ... Frank J. Marshall ... (himself) says that this is the very best game, then I will take his word for it. (!!!)
I remember playing this game over as a teenager. And to be completely frank, at that time I understood absolutely nothing about this game! And while annotating the game helps me to understand ... at least the chess part ... a little more, I am not really sure that I will ever understand everything about this epic contest. (Many of the factors surrounding the game are lost in the vagaries of time. Were these two bitter rivals, or just good friends? Played in an era when most people around the world did NOT have electricity - or for that matter, most of the other amenities!! afforded us in present time - I don't really think players of today can truly grasp all the ramifications of such chess. Chivalry ... maybe ... had something to do with it. And while I know <supposedly> modern players have a much better grasp of the game, certainly NO modern rivalry between top GM's can boast such a high number of decisive games!!!)
All I ask is that players today not be too critical of the players' conduct of this game. There are many factors, such as the possible advance of Pillsbury's condition, that could be brought to bear to try and explain the somewhat erratic course of this game. Maybe time trouble had something to do with it as well. As for the rest of the factors, we really can only make educated guesses about a contest that was played over 100 years ago!
******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* *******
NOTE: I am currently involved in a project of analyzing all the games of Linares, 2004. And while these players - possibly - play a little better than this, to be completely honest, I see little or NO improvement!!
I AM COMPLETELY SERIOUS HERE!!! Some of the games from Linares ... especially those played under severe time pressure ... are almost comedies of blunders! And several times the players - in the total absence of time pressure - completely missed strong tactical shots. And since I am trying to prepare a book manuscript, (for possible publication), I would be letting 'the cat out of the bag' to give too many examples. All I can tell you is even the very spotty analysis that is available on the ChessBase web site distinctly shows that many of the players, to include BOTH Kasparov, Leko, AND Kramnik; clearly missed MANY tactical shots. (In at least five games, Garry Kasparov missed wins ... sometimes MORE THAN ONCE!) So before you go saying that this is just very bad chess ... typical of that period, I ask that you stop, draw a deep breath, and attempt to be just a little more objective than that.
At least try, OK? (I wrote the {above} 'intro' to this game on: Thursday; May 06th, 2004.)
This is mostly a text-based game ... with just a few diagrams. You will definitely want a chess board.
Click HERE to see an explanation of some of the symbols that I use when annotating a chess game.
Click HERE to see this game in java-script replay format. (Not one of my pages! Part of c-g.com.)
F.J.
Marshall (2487) - H.N.
Pillsbury (2673)
|
|
|
*************************
Pillsbury also declines an invitation to enter the extremely wild lines of the much-feared ... "Muzio Gambit." (4...g4!?; 5.0-0!!!!??!, etc.)
{White often gambits a whole piece, for the sake of an attack.}
[ Perhaps Black could try:
4...d6!?;
{Diagram?}
here, looking to transpose into the Fischer System?
]
5.h4 h6;
6.d4 d6; 7.Qd3!? g4!?;
"This involves a certain amount of danger, as the advanced Pawns will be exposed to
attack.
On the other hand, the development of Black's KN now becomes possible." - GM Frank J. Marshall.
[ For the moves of:
7...Nc6!?; 8.c3 Qe7!?;
"~" {Diagram?}
see the game from this same event; between
Marshall and
I. Gunsberg. ]
The next few moves look reasonable
enough. (Both sides continue to get their pieces out, and guard against their opponent's various threats.)
8.Ng1 Qf6;
9.c3 h5; 10.Na3 Ne7; 11.Ne2 Ng6!?;
{See
the diagram - below.}
If I were just a very casual observer
of this game, I would say that Black has kept his Pawn and has no problems at all in the current position.
*************************
|
|
*************************
But sometimes, appearances truly can be ... VERY deceiving!!
12.g3!,
(hmmm, cute)
(hmmm, cute)
This is an extremely sharp and nice tactic ... that is based on the shortage of viable squares for the Black Queen. (Both Soltis and Marshall award this move an exclam in this position.)
[ After the moves:
12.0-0!? Qxh4; 13.Nxf4!? g3;
"~"
it is hard to be sure who is better.
]
12...fxg3;
{Box?}
This looks to be virtually forced for Black in this position.
[ After moves like:
</= 12...f3?; 13.Bg5 f2+; 14.Kf1 Qf3;
15.Qxf3,
15...gxf3; 16.Nf4, "+/=" (Probably - '±')
{Diagram?}
Black will probably (eventually) lose all of his Pawns on the f-file.
]
13.Rf1!, (Maybe - '!!!')
{See the diagram ... just below.}
An incredibly brave and somewhat risky decision. ('!?' - F.J. Marshall.)
*************************
|
|
*************************
Taking the Pawn on g3 was "safe and simple," according to Marshall, but instead he takes the plunge into a nearly bottomless and murky pool. Who knows where this will lead?
"Since 13.Qxg3, gives Black an easy game with 13...Be6; Marshall goes all out."
- GM Andy Soltis.
[ Or
13.Qxg3!? Qe7!;
"~" (Maybe "=/+")
{Diagram?}
and it is difficult for White to effectively defend his KP.
]
13...Qxh4;
14.Bxf7+ Kd8; 15.Bxg6!?, (Maybe too risky?)
Most annotators - to include Marco, Marshall, Tarrasch,
and Soltis - all pass this move by without any comment at all. But both captures of the Black Pawn on the g3-square deserved serious consideration here. (!!)
[
Interesting was:
15.Nxg3!?,
"~" ("+/=") {Diagram?}
and the first player could be just a fuzz better in this position.
*************************************************
Probably the best move here was:
>/= 15.Qxg3! Qxg3+;
{Box.}
16.Nxg3 Ne7; 17.Bxh5,
"+/=" ("±") {Diagram?}
and although the material is equal, I would have to say that White
is clearly better in this position.
]
15...g2+;
(hmmm)
[Is HNP better?]
{See
the diagram - just below.}
Most of my students and friends ... that I have studied this game with ... all assume that Black is winning in this position.
*************************
|
|
*************************
Maybe this was Pillsbury's thought as well? (To be honest, most programs evaluate this position as "Minus-slash-plus," meaning that Black is clearly winning.)
16.Rf2 Rf8; ('!')
"Adding a new piece to the attack, and hence even stronger than (the move of) ...Qh1+." - Jaques N. Pope.
This is obviously stronger than some Black's alternatives in this position. ('!' - GM Andrew Soltis.)
17.Be3[],
{See the diagram ... just below.}
This move looks to be completely forced for White in this position. (Many annotators - like Marco - have given this move an exclam.)
*************************
|
|
**************************
Some of the alternatives to Be3 just lose ... many of them horribly so.
[ Probably inferior is: </=
17.Bf5?! Qh1+!?; 18.Kd2 g1Q;
19.Nxg1 Qxg1;
"=/+" (Maybe - '/+')
{Diagram?}
and Black is clearly much better.
(This is a line I found in an old book ... than I noticed that the move,
17...d5!; probably just wins the game outright for Black.)
]
17...Bh6!;
(Probably - '!!')
Pillsbury finds a deeply hidden tactical resource that Marshall probably had overlooked in his calculations. (Both Marshall and Soltis award this
move one exclam here.)
"Excellent tactics by Pillsbury." - GM Andrew Soltis.
[
Possible was:
</= 17...Rf6!?,
"=/+" {Diagram?}
and Black might be better.
****************************************************
Most of my students play the move ...Qh1+; in this position.
For example:
</=
17...Qh1+!?; 18.Kd2 Qxa1;
19.Bg5+ Kd7;
"~" {Diagram?}
with a position that the boxes are unclear on. One gives White
as being better, one gives Black as having the superior game, etc.
]
18.Bxh6!!, (hmmm) {See the diagram, just below.}
"Paradoxically, this is best." - GM Frank J. Marshall
*************************
|
|
**************************
This move has the additional psychological advantage of appearing to be just a gross blunder! (Soltis only gives this move one exclam here.)
[ After the seemingly good Ng1, Black has a shocking response:
18.Ng1 Rf3!!;
"-/+" {Diagram?}
and Black should probably win. - G. Marco.
******************************************************
Or White could try:
18.Bf5!? Bxf5!; 19.Bxh6!?,
{Diagram?}
Maybe the only real try here for White - Marshall gives only the
ghastly PxB?, which loses immediately.
( Not </= 19.exf5?? Re8!; "-/+" )
19...Re8!;
"/+" {Diagram?}
and Black is probably winning in this particular position.
{A.J.G.} ]
****************************************************************************
Now many of my students still want to play the Black Queen in to the corner, (the h1-square); with check, but the second player has a much better move here!
18...g1Q+!;
19.Nxg1 Qxf2+; 20.Kd1 Qxg1+;
According to various programs, Black is winning in this position ... and by a very wide margin. (Five-to-ten points!!!)
HOW DO YOU MANAGE TO - - - {eventually} WIN THIS GAME MORE THAN A ROOK DOWN ... AGAINST ONE OF THE GREATEST PLAYERS WHO EVER LIVED???
21.Kc2 Rf2+;
22.Bd2 Qxa1; {See the diagram
... just below.}
One {former} Internet student ... who is now just likes to go over a game when I have time ... spent several hours looking at this game one night.
(I was just showing him the moves, he had
no real clue who the players were.)
When we reached this point, I asked him what move he would play as White. He kept insisting that the only real play for White ... was to offer a resignation at this point. This is all the more humorous as this player's next official USCF rating should be OVER 2000!!
*************************
|
|
**************************
"The fantastic massacre has left Black with a Rook and the exchange ahead; with two Passed Pawns as well. But this material advantage is somewhat academic, as White's counter-attack now sets in. Due to Black's lack of development, his King must pretty well fend for himself." - F.J. Marshall
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
According to an article in an old German chess magazine, ( 'Weiner Schachzeitung' ? );
the audience was quite noisy here. One player related that one fellow was taking bets ... trying to guess on which move Marshall would resign!
23.Qe3! Rxd2+!;
24.Qxd2 Bd7!?; {See the
diagram - just below.}
This is a very natural-looking move for Black in this position ... and is the FIRST choice of several computer programs here.
*************************
|
|
**************************
Several <modern> annotators have criticized this move, and suggested a move like ...c6 instead. But suffice it to say that some of their analysis is simply dreadful.
"Black ... with an extra Rook, is still not quite safe. But he would be safer after 24...c6. Now we have a classic example of Marshall's ability to increase the level of complications until his opponent drowns in them." - GM Andrew Soltis.
[
Interesting was:
(>/=) 24...c6!?;
{Diagram?}
but with moves like Qg5+ and e5 on tap for White,
the
first player has a ton of play for the material deficit.
]
25.Qg5+ Kc8;
26.Bf5! b6!?;
This move looks to be nearly forced for Black, and is the first choice of several
strong
computer programs. ('!' - GM Frank J. Marshall)
('!' - GM Andrew Soltis.)
According to the tournament book, Pillsbury was very short of time for his last 5-10 moves before the T.C.
**************
[
The move of:
26...c6!?;
{Diagram?}
might allow some counterplay for White based on the weakness
of Black's d6-square.
***********************************************************
Several friends and students suggest that Black swap Bishops on f5 here,
but as Marshall pointed out, this would only lead to a draw.
</= 26...Bxf5?; 27.Qg8+ Kd7;
28.Qf7+ Kc6; 29.Qd5+ Kd7;
30.Qxf5+ Ke7;
"=" {Diagram?}
with a draw by "perpetual check."
(Actually ... the game is a draw
after the exact, same position has
been repeated three times.)
( But not: </= 30...Kc6??; 31.Qb5#. ) ]
**************
27.Qg8+ Kb7;
28.Bxd7 Nxd7;
29.Qd5+ c6; {Box?}
Once again this move looks to be forced ... and is the first choice of the CB program, Fritz 6.0.
************
[ Interesting was
...Kb8!?; but it is hardly the simple win that Marshall
thought it was.
Space - and time - does not allow for a detailed examination of this
position, so I provide just one sample continuation:
29...Kb8!?; 30.Qg8+ Nf8!;
31.Qxf8+ Kb7; 32.Qf7! h4!?;
{Diag?}
Saving the Pawn - - - but this allows White to get back into the game.
(Black has many moves that were probably better than this, I only use
this move to
make a point.)
33.Nb5!,
"~" ("+/=")
{Diagram?}
and White has very good play from this particular position. ]
************
After White's next move, I think that all the annotators have assumed that the move ...Rd8; is then forced, but is it really? (The boxes want to play the rather bizarre "...Knight to b8.")
30.Qxd6 Rd8!?; 31.d5! Rf8?!; {See the diagram - just below.}
---> In the heat of the battle ... Black loses his way. ( '?' - F.J. Marshall )
*************************
|
|
**************************
Marshall (and GM A. Soltis) quoted a famous {piece of} analysis of the Viennese amateur Dr. Kaufman, and claimed that Black could win from this position ... but a careful check with several (different) computer programs reveals that this assumption is probably completely and totally incorrect.
[ Black had a line that might have allowed him to save half a point.
For example:
>/= 31...Nc5!!;
32.Qxd8 Qf1!!;
33.dxc6+ Kxc6;
Up to here, this is all ORIGINALLY the work of
Dr. Kaufman.
But here Kaufman advised the very silly Nb1?,
(And both Marshall - and even
Soltis - follow along with this silly move.).
But a check with ANY strong program will reveal this move is unnecessary!
34.Qc8+! Kd6; 35.Qd8+! Kc6[];
36.Qc8+, ("=") {Diagram?}
and the position appears to be a rather obvious draw here.
*******
This line is a rather substantial improvement over the analysis that Marshall gave here.
( But the move of >/= 31...Ka6!!!;
followed by 32...Qf1!!; might actually win
the game for Black! And as far as I can determine, I may be the
first person to
make this discovery. {A.J.G.} ) ]
Now White plays a very pretty idea which allows a forced win ... by the rather odd strategy of allowing his King to be driven all the way to the edge of the board!!
32.dxc6+ Ka8[];
This is completely forced.
[ But not: </= 32...Ka6??; (blunder) as then the simple 33.Qd3+, comes, and it is mate next move. ]
33.cxd7 Rf2+!?;
This seems to be Black's only real hope of obtaining any play.
34.Kb3!,
(very nice)
It is possible that Pillsbury thought that this move was impossible.
[ </= 34.Qd2? Qxb2+!; ("-/+") ]
34...Qxb2+;
35.Ka4!, ("+/-")
Black Resigns here. (1-0)
Pillsbury threw in the towel, he was a good enough player to know when he was thoroughly beaten.
[ After the moves: 35.Ka4! b5+; 36.Ka5! Qxc3+; 37.Ka6!, "+/-" it is obvious that Black is lost. ]
Marshall says of this game:
"This was the best and the most exciting of all my games with Pillsbury. It was cut and thrust all the way!"
- GM Frank J. Marshall ('My Fifty Years of Chess')
(In a later article for 'Chess Review', Marshall called this ... "one of my finest and most memorable wins.") At the end of this contest, Marshall then adds the comment: "A very delightful encounter, equally creditable I believe, to both masters."
*******
Soltis calls this game ... "a strange mixture of brilliance and blunders."
(Hmmmmm.)
[ Originally I bristled at this comment. But the simple, plain truth ... after spending nearly two weeks of ... "on-and-off" work with this game ... I am willing to admit that Soltis is probably correct.
]
*******
"The tournament books says that this game was easily one of the most exciting and brilliant of the whole of the tournament, but lost the brilliancy prize to Mieses-Pillsbury ... "for questions of soundness."
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
My take on this game? It is truly a clash between two legends of the game. Both players went all out for the win. It was a no-holds-barred type of contest where a few errors were probably inevitable. I'd take a game like this, over some cruddy GM, 12 move ... "draw-by-agreement," (draw by mutual cowardice?); ... from any of the so-called more modern ... "Super Tournaments," ... any time!!!
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
I used many books to annotate this game ... I also found an old disk that had many games (Of Marshall's) that I had started to analyze around 1996 or 1997. (Most were incomplete.)
I also had many friends and {former} Internet students that were kind enough to send me copies of old magazines, newspaper articles, and material from various archives, like: the "John G. White Chess Collection" from the Cleveland Public Library, the Library of
Congress in Washington, D.C. and also the "Schmid Collection" in Germany. (And several libraries in New York.)
************************************************************************
But the following books were the were the most important to me ... and I give them in the order that they were used.
# 1.) "My Fifty Years of Chess," ('The triumphs of an American Chess Champion'); By GM Frank J. Marshall. Copyright (c) 1942. Republished by Hardinge - Simpole Publishers, (of the UK); - in 2002. Copyright © 2002. ISBN: # 1-84382-053-6
# 2.) "Harry Nelson Pillsbury," ('American Chess Champion'); by Jaques N. Pope. Copyright (c) 1996. Published by Pawn Island Press. (Ann Arbor, Michigan; USA.)
# 3.) "FRANK MARSHALL, United States Chess Champion," (A Biography with 220 games). By GM Andrew Soltis. Copyright (©) 1994. Published by McFarland & Co; Inc. Jefferson, NC / NY, USA / London, UK ISBN: # 0-89950-887-1; lib. bind.
*******
{I also have a copy of this game's analysis from the original book on the tournament.}
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I.
Copyright (c) A.J.G; 1997 - 2007.
Copyright
(©) A.J. Goldsby, 2008.
All rights reserved.
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
I saw the above game a long time ago, probably in the book, "My Fifty Years of Chess." (Many years ago, an original member of the Pensacola Chess Club had this book, and was kind enough to lend it to me for a few weeks.) Of course I studied it briefly, but I did not really understand it. (See the intro to this game.)
A few years later, it was re-printed in some magazine. I went back and made a further study of it then.
To annotate this game, I tried to access every possible resource. When I began my big project on Marshall, I did not have many books on him. I have tried to buy as many books that were available, as well as using my network of friends and chess contacts intelligently to gather as much information as possible. It took me approximately three months to complete this game ... but I was only doing it a little at a time. (!)
My analysis reveals a few new minor points, but nothing really major. {At least as far as I am concerned.} But the most important point is that all the available resources were consulted, and the analysis was conducted with a strong computer program like Fritz 8.0 always running in the background. If you have any questions about this analysis, or any comments at all, please feel free to contact me. And if you enjoyed this page, please be sure to tell a friend!
This (web) page
(basic HTML) was created in (late) March, 2004.
This page was last updated on 04/02/14
.
(Final
format and posting completed on: Monday; May 10th, 2004.)
***
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my Home Page for this site.
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my End-Game School on this site.
***
Click HERE to return to my page on Frank J. Marshall.
Click HERE to go to ... or return to ... the Electronic Archive & Museum. (For Marshall.)
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my page on Paul Morphy.
***
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my Geo-Cities page on the Best Chess Players who ever lived.
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my page on the Best Chess games of all time.
(Or click the 'Back" button on your web browser.)
*******
Buy a BOOK from "Amazon-dot-com" and help me in the process!!!
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 1985 - 2014. All rights reserved.
(This game was only previewed by a few people, no one seemed interesting in responding - especially in the time limit I set.)
