| Buffalo (1901) |
|
Buffalo, NY, United States; 12 August 1901—17 August 1901
1 2 3 4 5 6 Score Place/Prize
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1 Pillsbury •• 11 11 ½1 1½ 11 9 1st $100
2 Delmar 00 •• ½1 1½ 11 ½1 6½ 2nd-3rd $30
3 Napier 00 ½0 •• 11 11 11 6½ 2nd-3rd $30
4 Howell ½0 0½ 00 •• 11 ½1 4½ 4th $12
5 Marshall 0½ 00 00 00 •• 11 2½ 5th $8
6 Karpinski 00 ½0 00 ½0 00 •• 1
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Introduction
The masters' event from the New York State Chess Association Congress, this was held from August 12-17, 1901 in Buffalo as a six-player, double-round tournament and ended in a convincing victory for Harry Pillsbury. Missing Game
Rd 9 Marshall–Karpinski 1-0
Credit
Original collection: Game Collection: 1901 Buffalo, by User: Calli.
|
|
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 29 |
     |
 |
|
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 29 |
|
|
|
| Dec-16-16 | | offramp: Marshall had come third at Paris (1900) where he beat Lasker ( Marshall vs Lasker, 1900 ). So this was a bad result for him. Pillsbury won by a large margin, despite the strong field. |
|
| Dec-16-16 | | TheFocus: Marshall was not Marshall in this tournament. |
|
Dec-06-20
 | | KEG: The game Napier-Delmar (Round 4) is said here to be "unavailable." But a score of the game is given in the Tournament Book, said to be from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. I was going to annotate the game, but I question the accuracy of the score. The game--as given--is so bad that it is hard to believe it was contested between the players who ultimately tied for 2nd-3rd. Fearing that I do that providing notes on this score would be nonsense, I have decided to let it rest. |
|
Mar-11-23
 | | jnpope: W Napier vs E Delmar, 1901
<KEG>, sorry I didn't notice this sooner. I had to pull out my photocopies of the BDE, taken from microfilm, as the online versions that I could find are mostly illegible. My photocopy is clear and distinct (and it also matches the same game published in the <New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung>. I don't see anything "so bad". Both sides play a number of weak moves, but nothing that screams blunder-fest. I even used the CG Stockfish analysis program to double check and it didn't find anything hideous about the game as printed in either source. |
|
Mar-13-23
| | KEG: <jnpope>Thank you for your research. I haven't looked at the Napier Delmar reported game in over two years. But, in light of your comments, I will get to it in due course and give you my impressions. |
|
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
