Showalter - Pillsbury, New York 1897

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.

Talk about a Whipping 🙂

You picked 64 because that is the number of squares on the board.

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]

Originally posted by sonhouse
I can assume Showalter was white here? Pillsbury doesn't usually get in these kind of disasters does he?

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

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]