Feb-17-02 | | knight: If 17.Qxd4 Re6 and if then 18.Qxc5? then Nxf3 mate. |
|
Aug-20-07 | | beenthere240: If 17. Qxd4 Nxf3 and picks up the queen. |
|
Nov-21-07 | | amprofff: How does black win the queen after 18. gxf3? 18... Re8+ 19. Be2. If 17. Qxd4 Re6 18. Be2 I can't find anything good for black. 18... Qxd4 19. Rxd4 Rfe8 doesn't work because of 20. Re4 and there doesn't seem to be anything else. |
|
Mar-31-08 | | notyetagm: Position after 22 ... c7-c6!
 click for larger viewPosition after 23 ♖d5xa5 ♕e7-d8! 0-1
 click for larger viewThis position comes right out of <QUEEN FORKS 101>. |
|
Dec-24-09 | | rjsolcruz: Napier moved his Q out early in the opening and did not castle early. |
|
Sep-07-13 | | ChemMac: Doesn't 15...f5 win a R? 16. Qe2 d3 17. R:d3 N:d3+
18.Kd2 Q:e2+ 19.B:e2 a4 |
|
Mar-05-14 | | yureesystem: Frank Marshall was much under appreciated, he truly one of great players of the past; he simply destroy a very strong master Napier. Pillsbury had a hard time against Napier. |
|
Mar-05-14 | | JimNorCal: <yureesystem>: "Marshall was much under appreciated" Well, Marshall had his troubles against Lasker, but I believe other players suffered from the same weakness. :) |
|
Jan-20-16
 | | dernier loup de T: OK, JimNorCal, Marshall was a great player, but Tarrasch, and later Capablanca too, mmm? |
|
Apr-28-18
 | | FSR: <ChemMac: Doesn't 15...f5 win a R? 16. Qe2 d3 17. R:d3 N:d3+ 18.Kd2 Q:e2+ 19.B:e2 a4> Yes! Good catch. |
|
Dec-28-20
 | | nizmo11: I think that White's move 13 must have been 13.gxf3 and not 13.exf3.
(after 13.exf3 Black is winning, while 13.gxf3 is about equal)
Interestingly, this game game is in two John Hilbert's books: "Napier The Forgotten Chessmaster" (1997, game 90), and "Young Marshall" (2002, game 62).
Both cite the original source as Marshall's annotations in American Chess Magazine, March 1898. However, the score in the first reads 13. gxf3, and the second 13. exf3, so one of them must be a misprint. |
|
Dec-28-20
 | | nizmo11: if 13. gxf3 was played then the losing mistake was 17. Rxd4
According Hilbert's books Marshall mentions 17.Qxd4: "if 17.Qxd4 Qxd4 18. Rxd4 c5 19. Re4 [19. Rd5!, Stockfish] f6 etc." but he does not provide any evaluation of the position, or does not mention that Rxd4 was a blunder. After 17. Rxd4 17...Nxf3+ he writes "Interesting combination that wins." |
|
Dec-29-20 | | sudoplatov: 17....Re6 may be even stronger than ...Nxf3+.
Marshall had lots of trouble with Napier. Napier won +14-8 with 5 draws. Other players gave Marshall trouble. Tartakower winning +7-0=11 (Marshall did win a game in a tournament not listed here.) Of course, Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine did well. (opponents score first)
Lasker +12, -2, =11 (+4-2 sans match)
Capablanca +21, -2, =28 (+12, -2 sans match)
Alekhine +6, -9, =7
Tarrasch +13, -7, =18 (+5, -6 sans match) contributing to the "Marshall was a poor match-player"
Rubinstein +11 -9 =18 (+8-8 sans match)
Nimzovich +6,-5 =9
Maroczy +11, -5, =9
Marshall was pretty strong against most others.
Janowski +28, -34, =28 (long series)
Duras +7, -8, =5
Spielmann -6, +8 = |
|
Dec-29-20
 | | nizmo11: <sudoplatov>: 17....Re6 may be even stronger than ...Nxf3+.
True if the game went as given here, but if 13.gxf3 was actually played then e-file is not open, and 17...Re6 does not have much force. |
|
Feb-05-24
 | | mifralu: < nizmo11: I think that White's move 13 must have been 13.gxf3 and not 13.exf3. > https://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/... |
|