Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 14 Dec '12 15:59
    I was looking for something else and found this old review
    I did on 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower and Du Mont.

    I picked a game at random. No.64.
    (I don't know why that number popped into my head. The other 499 are just as good.)
    And built the review around that one game.

    Thought I'd drop the game on here, it's a good and reading Tartakower's
    notes is always a pleasure.
    Much better than seeing that hideous =+ 1.89 nonsense.
    (I have added or left out nothing except to show why Black resigned.)

    Here it is including the intro. What great names some of these old Masters had.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jackson Whipps Showalter - Harry Nelson Pillsbury New York 1897

    Every manoeuvre in chess, be it in attack or defence,
    should have, as far as possible, a basic idea.
    In this game, white's main idea is the exploitation
    of the fact that Black's QB is shut in on both sides.

    Thus Black is playing up to the end without his Q side pieces
    and White takes advantage of this circumstance by bringing
    about a series of brilliant combinations.

  2. Donation ketchuplover
    G.O.A.T.
    14 Dec '12 16:41
    Talk about a Whipping 🙂
  3. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    16 Dec '12 12:29
    You picked 64 because that is the number of squares on the board.
  4. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 Dec '12 14:34
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    I was looking for something else and found this old review
    I did on [b]500 Master Games of Chess
    by Tartakower and Du Mont.

    I picked a game at random. No.64.
    (I don't know why that number popped into my head. The other 499 are just as good.)
    And built the review around that one game.

    Thought I'd drop the game on here, it's a good and readi ...[text shortened]... resigned. The finish is....} 23... Bxd7 24. Qf6+ Kg8 25. Bb3+ {mate in a few.}[/pgn][/b]
    I can assume Showalter was white here? Pillsbury doesn't usually get in these kind of disasters does he?
  5. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    16 Dec '12 17:30 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I can assume Showalter was white here? Pillsbury doesn't usually get in these kind of disasters does he?
    I believe Pillsbury has the reputation of being the better chess player.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Showalter

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Nelson_Pillsbury
  6. 16 Dec '12 23:25
    Showalter was White in that game and won it in fine style.
    These lads from times past produced some excellent games of Chess.

    They are there for all to see just sitting and waiting to be dusted off and replayed
    like a classic old blues record that has since inspired hundreds of pop hits.

    Showalter and Pillsbury had quite a few arguments from this position.


    The above game was played on the 12th March 1897 in a match.
    This one was played on the 30th March 1897.

    Showalter -Pillsbury New York 1897

    There are not many moves of White I would have rejected. Infact I would
    have taken his position expecting to find a sac-sac win.
    Indeed Showalter has a chance to sac and I’m surprise he did not take it. (18th.move)
    Perhaps all he could see was a perpetual and wanted more.
    These two played 21 games in this match, only one was a draw (!).

    Pillsbury: 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 = 1 0 1 0 1 1: 11½

    Showalter: 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 = 0 1 0 1 0 0: 9½

  7. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Dec '12 00:02
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Showalter was White in that game and won it in fine style.
    These lads from times past produced some excellent games of Chess.

    They are there for all to see just sitting and waiting to be dusted off and replayed
    like a classic old blues record that has since inspired hundreds of pop hits.

    Showalter and Pillsbury had quite a few arguments from thi ...[text shortened]... 7. Bb3+ Kh8 28. Qxg6 fxe4 {End of murkiness. The White King and Queen both hang. 0-1.}[/pgn]
    Was this match before the advent of chess clocks? Man, the games back then were all out war, bitch slapping each other across the board with not many draws! Bit different from today, eh.