Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Buffalo Tournament

Harry Nelson Pillsbury9/10(+8 -0 =2)[games]
Eugene Delmar6.5/10(+5 -2 =3)[games]
William Ewart Napier6.5/10(+6 -3 =1)[games]
Clarence Seaman Howell4.5/10(+3 -4 =3)[games]
Frank Marshall2.5/10(+2 -7 =1)[games]
Louis Karpinski1/10(+0 -8 =2)[games]
* Chess Event Description
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 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————

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

Original collection: Game Collection: 1901 Buffalo, by User: Calli.

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 29  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Marshall vs W Napier 0-1461901BuffaloC53 Giuoco Piano
2. L Karpinski vs C S Howell ½-½521901BuffaloC67 Ruy Lopez
3. E Delmar vs Pillsbury 0-1641901BuffaloA01 Nimzovich-Larsen Attack
4. Marshall vs C S Howell 0-1661901BuffaloC54 Giuoco Piano
5. Pillsbury vs Marshall 1-0331901BuffaloD02 Queen's Pawn Game
6. E Delmar vs L Karpinski ½-½671901BuffaloB20 Sicilian
7. E Delmar vs C S Howell 1-0381901BuffaloD02 Queen's Pawn Game
8. L Karpinski vs W Napier 0-1501901BuffaloC80 Ruy Lopez, Open
9. W Napier vs Pillsbury 0-1351901BuffaloC78 Ruy Lopez
10. W Napier vs E Delmar ½-½601901BuffaloC41 Philidor Defense
11. W Napier vs C S Howell 1-0361901BuffaloD00 Queen's Pawn Game
12. C S Howell vs Pillsbury ½-½561901BuffaloB30 Sicilian
13. L Karpinski vs Marshall 0-1271901BuffaloC43 Petrov, Modern Attack
14. E Delmar vs Marshall 1-0391901BuffaloC26 Vienna
15. Pillsbury vs L Karpinski 1-0341901BuffaloB45 Sicilian, Taimanov
16. C S Howell vs L Karpinski 1-0611901BuffaloB45 Sicilian, Taimanov
17. W Napier vs Marshall 1-0371901BuffaloC43 Petrov, Modern Attack
18. L Karpinski vs E Delmar 0-1581901BuffaloC43 Petrov, Modern Attack
19. C S Howell vs Marshall 1-0431901BuffaloD06 Queen's Gambit Declined
20. Pillsbury vs W Napier 1-0471901BuffaloC66 Ruy Lopez
21. Pillsbury vs E Delmar 1-0571901BuffaloC00 French Defense
22. E Delmar vs W Napier 1-0211901BuffaloC32 King's Gambit Declined, Falkbeer Counter Gambit
23. Marshall vs Pillsbury ½-½561901BuffaloC22 Center Game
24. W Napier vs L Karpinski 1-0461901BuffaloB45 Sicilian, Taimanov
25. Pillsbury vs C S Howell 1-0421901BuffaloB58 Sicilian
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 29  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
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.
Premium Chessgames Member
  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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  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:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. 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.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

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, 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