| Jul-11-05 | | Whitehat1963: An interesting game! Where does Pillsbury lose his way? How could he have improved? |
|
| Jul-11-05 | | aw1988: By not getting an STD... |
|
| Jul-11-05 | | Whitehat1963: Funny! |
|
| Jul-11-05 | | spaceship: <aw1988> What a crude remark. Do you realize how moronic it is? |
|
| Jul-11-05 | | aw1988: Sorry, I kind of dismiss much of Pillsbury's career. I do not like degenerative illnesses... |
|
| Jul-11-05 | | spaceship: But why make a twisted and nasty joke? It makes you look like a punk. |
|
| Jul-11-05 | | Caissanist: Some moves of Pillsbury's which I would question:
11...bxc6: there must be some reason why Pillsbury would make this obviously antipositional move, rather than Nxc6. I can't see it, though. His ugly queenside pawns are a problem for him for pretty much the whole game. 13...Qb5: what does he get in return for the sacrificed pawn? It seems to me that 13...f3 would have at least gotten him some play for it. 15...Ba6: bad bishops don't get much worse than this, stuck off to the side away from the action. Perhaps Be6 followed by O-O would have been a better plan. 24...Nd4: this ultimately leads to the loss of another pawn and a virtually forced exchange of queens. In hindsight he probably would have been better off with 24...Bxc3 24.Nxc3 Ng5. |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | offramp: I think ...bxc6 was to try and keep the knight out of d5. Not sure about the others. |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | Calli: 24...Nd4? is bad. The rest are okay, I think. Perhaps Harry Nelson can snatch the d pawn on the move before: 23...Qf6+ 24.Kg1 Nxd4 25.Nxd4 Qxd4 26.Bxd4 Bxd4 27.Nc2 Bxe3+ 28.Nxe3 Rd4 |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | aw1988: Well I'm sorry, I didn't try to make it twisted and nasty, I had actually hoped to put a sorrowful spin on it. |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | aw1988: Well, to be fair, Pillsbury did have two superb tournament wins from 1902-1903. Still... |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | Caissanist: I believe that aw1988's point is that Pillsbury was not Pillsbury anymore in 1903, which is of course true. If the "real" Pillsbury had shown up for this game then the result would very likely have been different. |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | aw1988: Why did you delete your post and put it after mine? |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | Caissanist: offramp - tx for pointing out the should-have-been-obvious, I'm sure you're right. Perhaps this is just a lousy opening? The idea seems to be to give up the center and accept a busted pawn structure in return for kingside counterplay, but black's counterattack never gets started. |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | Caissanist: aw - my first version of the post didn't have "I believe that" at the beginning, I deleted and reposted because I didn't want to sound presumptuous. Sorry for causing the confusion. |
|
| Jul-13-05 | | aw1988: No problem at all, I just make sure on these matters. |
|
| May-25-16 | | Geesh: The quick d5 here is a little like the modern defense to KGA's Knight's openings. Black opens up his center, yes, but he gains scope for his bishops and queen. I believe a quick d5 was fashionable for a while in a few lines because white could take with the bishop, opening up a tempo on it w/ Nf6 or Ne7 if the Bishop is moved, which Pillsbury played. If the pawn took here, the bishop could have been blocked in behind it. I think Pillsbury's loss here might've had more to do with having played this defense earlier in the tournament, against Schlecter, or that King's Gambit wasn't Pillsbury's flavor (as White he preferred the Vienna and Spanish to it, and as Black he was more likely to decline it). Pillsbury was positive, up until Cambridge Springs, against Teichmann: 4 wins, 5 draws, and one loss (this one). I'm willing to say that HNP was the better player, even with the handicap of an unfortunate illness. |
|
Kibitzing
