| KEG: Pillsbury tore up the field at Buffalo 1901, winning eight and drawing two in this double round robin event. Given that Karpinski finished last, it is not surprising that Pillsbury triumphed in both their games. The circumstances of these two games, however, were unusual. For most of the tournament, the players had two games per day. This fifth round encounter between Pillsbury and Karpinski was to have been played on the evening of August 14. But on that evening, Pillsbury gave a 16 game simultaneous exhibition. His results in this exhibition mirrored those in the tournament (12 wins and 4 draws). The Pillsbury-Karpinski 5th round game was rescheduled for the following day (August 15)
and was contested AFTER the 6th and 7th rounds were played. By the time of this game, therefore, Pillsbury had already beaten Delmar and Napier (who tied for 2nd). By beating Karpinski in this game, Pillsbury racked up three wins on the same day. How often has that occurred in a master-level tournament. Compounding the scheduling issues, on August 16, after Rounds 8 and 9 were played (and by which time Pillsbury had clinched first place and Karpsinski was certain to finish last), Karpinski asked to leave early. So Pillsbury played his 10th round game that day, thus playing three games on August 16 (as he had on August 15). On that latter day, Pillsbury won two and drew one. In total, Pillsbury played six tournament games in two calendar days, winning five and drawing one (with Marshall). Given this brutal schedule, Pillsbury understanding seemed to have taken a light-hearted approach in many of his games. Many of his games--as here--wound down to endings. Pillsbury--again as here--was evidently confident that he could win even (or even slightly inferior endings) against the field here. In this game, Pillsbury chose a questionable opening variation and found himself in an ending in which Karpinski had a slight edge. Pillsbury slowly but surely made progress in the ending, and then Karpinski blundered on his 32nd move and resigned soon after. 1. e4 c5
It must have taken courage to have tried the Sicilian against so skilled a tactician as Pillsbury. 2. Nc3 Nc6
3. Nf3 e6
4. d4 cxd4
5. Nxc4 Nf6
Via transposition, a fairly normal position was reached. 6. Ndb5
click for larger view6... Bb4
6...d6 is most usual. The text was a favorite of Blackburne and Mieses. 7. a3 BxN+
8. NxB d5!
9. exd5 Nxd5
Avoiding the arguably better 9...exd5.
After 9...Nxd5, the position was:
click for larger viewPillsbury could here have gotten the better game with 10. NxN or 10. Bd2. Instead, he tried a wild shot: 10. Qg4?!
click for larger viewNow Karpinski had an easy way to thwart Pillsbury's plan (such as it was) 10... NxN
11. bxN Qf6
12. Bd2
12. Qg3 would have minimized the harm from his questionably opening play. 12... Qg6
Seeking refuge in an ending in which he was at least equal. The way to try to exploit Pillsbury's presumptuous play was with 12...e4. 13. QxQ hxQ
click for larger viewPillsbury has the two Bishops, but his Queen-side pawns are a disaster. On balance, Karpinski was certainly not worse. No matter, Pillsbury played for a win. | 
Kibitzing
