Alexander Cherniaev

HARRY NELSON PILLSBURY

(5 December 1872- 17 June 1906)

a genius ahead of his time

First published 2006

Copyright © Alexander Cherniaev 2006

ISBN 5-903229-03-4

OM-media
4, Lenin Sq.,
Arkhangelsk, Russia
print@ommedia.ru

ArreKcaH,D;p qepH5!eB
Harry Nelson Pillsbury. - ApxaHreJibCK, l13)l;aTeJibCTBO <<0M-3Kcrrpecc••, 2006.
- 132 c.: WI. ISBN 5-903229-03-4

T11pa>K 1000 3K3. 3aKa3 977.

000 <<0M-3Kcrrpece>•, 16300, r. ApxaHreJibCK, IIJI. JleHJ1Ha, 4

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.
 CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . 5.

Foreword . . . . . .7
Biographical note . .9
Pillsbury's autobiography . .
. . 11
A few Qlotes about Pillsbury . 15
The most remarkable simultaneous player . . 17
Best Games . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Pillsbury's tournament record . . . . . . . 107
 INTRODUCTION

The game of chess is developing quickly these days. Hundreds of high quali­
ty games are played and thousands oflines are being studied every day. We mem­
orize more and more opening nuances, become more professional and more tech­
nical. Using the databases and the analysis engines we try to answer every small
question about any position. And this progress in perception ofchess is endless and
unstoppable.
Yet we can't avoid turning our minds into the history of chess sometimes.
Why?
When I was a small boy I read everything I could about the players from 19th
and early 20th century but I would never claim that studying chess classics directly
improved my chess skills. After all, judging by today's eye one can always find mis­
takes on an early stage of those historical games. Then you simply don't use those
games to create your opening repertoire and playing style! Still I doubt that I would
become a good player ifl hadn't studied the historical development of chess.
In the past chess was a desert territory and the best players would find the best
paths and ideas using all their intellectual potential with no external aid. And this
is what we can still learn from them - the way of thinking in chess.
So, the 'chess mankind ' has turned to the history again. The most known recent
works are undoubtedly by Gary Kasparov ('My Great Predecessors') and Mihail
Marin ('Learn from the legends'). However I notice that the authors tend to con­
sider Akiba Rubinstein and Aaron Nimzovich to be the first 'non-champions' that
contributed to the chess development on at least equal basis as Lasker, Capablanca
and Alekhine. And I more or less thought in a similar way.
But when about a year ago my friend and former trainer Alexander Cherniaev
showed me the examples from Harry Nelson Pillsbury's play I got fascinated as I
understood that not only some known examples from the Carlsbad variation of the
Qyeens gambit (that can be found in any books on chess history) but the whole ap­
proach of the American genius simply resembles modern chess! Constant striving
fi>r the initiative, trying to find the best move already in the opening and playing to
the end using all the chances - doesn't it sound familiar to those who know Bob­
by Fischer's games?
Alexander Cherniaev is not only a strong chess player but also a diligent research­
er who has a feeling for chess logics and aesthetics and can always find unusual and
hidden things in almost every position. He has made a magnificent chess portrait
of Harry Nelson Pillsbury presenting his best games and with this new book we all
enrich our knowledge about the development of the game at the end of 19th - be­
ginning of 20th century. Of course, we can only imagine what a greater contribu­
tion to that development might have been done by the American genius if not for
his early desease. I have really enjoyed playing through the best moves of Pillsbury;
I hope that the readers will share my view.
Alexei Shirov, Riga,June 7, 2006
 FOREWORD

To live and die in chess battles is a perfect reflection of Harry Nelson Pillsbury.
He was a great natural talent. His games were played with very deep concen­
tration. Only sometimes can we appreciate magnificent fresh style of his unexpect­
ed ideas. Few books about his career have already been written but the analysis was
not good enough.
Pillsbury was extremely popular after winning the first Hastings International
in 1895. His blind simultaneous displays around the world have been quite impres­
sive for everyone even for people who were far removed from chess.
This book presents a selection of H. N. Pillsbury's best games that I hope will
demonstrate his vision and his art.
Pillsbury's games are extremely instructive but the Soviet Chess School never
had the benefit of studying his games closely. His games were also overlooked in
Nimzowitch's classic "My System". Pillsbury was a genius ahead of his time. Em.
Lasker wrote that Pillsburywas a 'pathfinder in the thicket ofchess theory. A source
of pleasure and joy and a teacher of thousands.' I hope you will learn as much from
his games as I have.
I did my work to coincide with the hundredth anniversary of the death of the
American legend.
I would like to thank all my friends who helped me produce this book. To Edu­
ard Prokuronov for his technical assistance, to Dominic Gibbs for his help and sup­
port, to Alexander Meynell for the use of his outstanding chess library and to Dan­
iel Ellis for his help with my English.
Alexander Cherniaev
 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Reuben Fine "7he World's Great Chess Games"

I larry Nelson Pillsbury was one of the vital forces in chess history. Despite a trag­
ical ly brief career, he became one of the monumental figures in the game, a tower­
iug and distinctive personality.
'[he Boston near which he was born on December 5, 1872, was just beginning to
rode its cultural pre-eminence to New York; Pillsbury's development reflected the
change. There is no record of exactly how he became interested in chess, but we do
kuow that he learned the moves at the age of sixteen. His early surroundings were
1 hose of typical middle-class American family. Evidently chess genius can occur in
any environment.
At first Pillsbury's progress was unusual, but none too starting. He moved to
Boston, became a confirmed denizen of all chess clubs, met the strongest players,
and improved rapidly. By 1892 he was the best in Boston and - more important ­
l1ad discovered his place in life. Earlier thoughts of a commercial career were, all
his time was devoted to chess, checkers, and whist, with chess gradually crowding
out the other two.
In 1893 his professional career was already started; successes against the Ger­
man Walbrodt and Schottlaender, then on a visit to Boston, were an auspicious be­
ginning. 1894 saw him in New York where, as always, the best American and for­
eign talent was concentrated. World champion Lasker and ex-champion Steinitz,
who was Pillsbury's ideal, were there, as well as Hodges, Showalter, Delmar, Albin,
and others less well known. In the tournaments ofnext two years, Pillsbury ranked
about on a par with the top American masters, all of whom, however, were far in­
ferior to Lasker and Steinitz.
Then, in 1895, came the turning point. The Hastings Chess Club of Hastings,
England, organized the most important international tournament held up to that
1 i me, with every one of the great masters of the period, and many who were to be­
rome great later, present. Lasker, Steinitz, Tarrasch and Tchigorin were the favor­
ites. Pillsbury had at yet done nothing to warrant blind faith, yet, to everybody's
amazement, he captured first prize. It was the most sensational event since Mor­
phy's triumphal tour.
After Hastings, it was clear that the world's five leading grandmasters (though
the term was not then in common use) were Lasker, Steinitz, Tchigorin, Tarrasch,
and Pillsbury, with little to choose among them. It was not until St. Petersburg, at
the end of 1895, and Nuremburg, in the summer of1896, that Lasker demonstrat­
ed his superiority over the other four.
In succeeding tournaments, Pillsbury was always a high-prize winner, but he
could never repeat his performance at Hastings. Down to Paris, 1900, he was al­
ways second or third, after that, lesser lights managed to pass him by with increas-

9
ing frequency. Poor health was most obviously the reason. At Cambridge Springs
in 1904, he was little more than a shadow, two years later he died.
In the best five years, from 1895 to 1900, when Pillsbury was at the height ofhis
powers, he was certainly the equal to anyone. Against Lasker he always did well in
individual encounters, so well, indeed, that the chances would have been even if a
match had been arranged between the two in that period. Pillsbury was not so well
rounded as Lasker, but there are some respects in which he was greater. Pillsbury's
stature in history is that of a world champion; he never had a chance to play for the
title because of the way in which chess was organized.
His games reveal a tempestuous genius whose disappointments failed to produce
sufficient subtlety. An incredible combinative gift was his great strength; impatience,
especially in inferior positions, was his weakness. In a sense his chess and his career
fall into similar patterns. He begins with the violence of a tornado; often the resis­
tance is swept away in a blaze of brilliance - there he is at his grandest. But at oth­
er times the going is much more strenuous; then, where sheer force will not do, he
frequently collapses. For Pillsbury it was always all or nothing.
His genius is expressed in the originally and bold sweep of his attacking ideas.
Both ofthe Qyeen's Gambit and the Ruy Lopez, the two major defensive weapons
of modern master, first became popular chiefly, because ofthe treatment which Pills­
bury gave them. In the middlegame, where direct methods were applicable, he was
incompatible. But where maneuvering- tacking to take advantage of the winds -
was needed, he was less successful. In many endgames he did not feel at home. By
and large, however, his collection ofgames is one of the finest, the only reason some
others are better is that Pillsbury's covered too short a time.
Pillsbury was one of the few great masters who were satisfied with the choice of
chess as a profession. In exhibitions and tournaments he enjoyed himselfimmensely
without any of the soul-torturing which has bothered others. Because he was such
a marvelous entertainer, he was always a welcome guest. His blindfold powers and
miraculous memory were a delight to behold. For quality ofperformance, his blind­
fold display against twenty-two participants in the Hauptturnier Gust below master
class) at Hanover, 1902, is still unequaled. One of his favorite displays was to con­
duct a number of chess and checker games (he ranked among the twenty best check­
er expert in the United States) blindfold and play whist at the same time. To make it
easier, he would sometimes ask somebody in the audience to give him a list of thirty
words which he repeated backwards when he was all through. His exhibitions were
so impressive that the memories which they left are still vivid today, despite a lapse
of forty years. As an exhibitor, Pillsbury has never had a peer.
The first successes of a new star always have a dramatic quality. It is as though a
living picture were unfolding, depicting the change ofthe old order to the new. And
when these initial triumphs are scored by defeating favorites, as in Pillsbury's case,
artistic chess of the highest rank is produced.

10
 PILLSBURY'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY

from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, publishedjanuary 1, 1899

I had no intention ofbecoming the champion when I started to play chess. I had
llt'rome expert at checkers and whist, and tried chess just to see what it was like. I
became interested in it and joined the Deschappelles Chess Club of Boston when I
was 16 years old. This club was composed mostly of old men. At the time I joined
111, other member was under 30 years of age. I studied the game as carefully as I had
whist and checkers, but it was two years before I became sufficiently expert to at-
1 ract attention, even in my own club. I was recognized as an expert even before I had
1!11 1ught of contending for the championship. After I had defeated a few of Boston's
hl'st players and made a creditable showing at tournaments, both in Europe and
1\ 11 1erica I commenced to take great pride in the work and studied in earnest.
,

I might say with Byron, without being considered egotistic, 'I awoke one morn­
illg and found myself famous.' I had become a chess player of the first rank. I did
111 1t become so through design. Farne was thrust upon me. Then I had to study and
work hard to keep up the reputation I had won.
I did not learn to play chess from reading books on the game. Most of them are
written by amateurs, and their ideas did not assist me. Their tons ofanalysis are value­
less. I threw books to the dogs, when I commenced to learn and play in earnest, and
look the board itself I studied it long and thoroughly. I evolved every move I made. To
'n·iginate is the only way to be successful. A copyist never gains anything.
In New York I study the game a great deal more than I play it. While there I
rarely play one serious game a month. Every day, several hours at a time, I am bend­
i 11g over a chess board. One cannot learn too much or evolve too many new moves.
()lie ofthe first essentials to success is the power ofconcentration. One should have
such thorough control of himself that a circus parade with four brass bands might
1•ass under his window without being noticed.
For relaxation, after a long siege with the chess board, I try a game of checkers or
whist. I have not lost interest in either of them. In this connection I may say that I
:1111 t he only professional chess player who makes any pretensions at playing check­

ns. I can make a game interesting for the best checker players, and they find me a
, I i llicult person to win from. However, I do not devote a great deal of time to the
game. There is no money in it.
In playing a 'simultaneous game' of chess, as I did last night at the Office Men's
( 'lub, I make no special preparation. There I played 33 games at the same time -
1l1at is, there were 33 sets and as many players. Each of them was my opponent. I
would walk through the room and make my move. The opposing player could then
swdy the board, while I passed on to the next player and the next, making one move
a1 each table, until I had completed the entire circuit of the other 32 tables and re­
ltlrned to his. Then he would make his move in my presence. In most of the games
I was successful.

11
 Such an exhibition is not particularly exhausting to the brain. I make no effort to
retain the entire 33 sets in my mind. I look at the board. I am temporarily impressed
with it. I pass on to the next table and the former one has passed, for the time be­
ing, out of my mind. When I get back to it, though, its problems come back to me.
If any one were to change the position of one figure I would notice it.
I recall one simultaneous game I played in Springfield, Mass. One of my oppo­
nents was an old chess player. It was one ofthe rules that the player should not make
his move until I was present. He invariably moved as soon as I was gone. Then, when
I would get back to his table and ask him if he had moved, he would start to make
another move. Each time I would halt him and call his attention to the fact that he
had moved this particular figure to this particular point.
I talk on any subject and smoke as I walk through the aisles and drink beer or
do other things without regard to the games. The former impressions come to me
when I view the board.
In case of a 'blind-fold' game, however, I do not talk. I occupy a room apart from
the other players and someone announces the play. In such a game I must retain the
positions of the figures of the various boards and be ready to call my next move on
time. Here I cannot talk, but must keep my mind strictly on the game.
Chess players are, as a rule, men of brain power, but they are liable to be eccen­
tric. There was Steinitz, one of the greatest chess players the world has ever known.
He was so eccentric that one time in St. Petersburg his eccentricity was mistaken
for insanity and he was locked up. He had a stenographer who noticed his peculiar
actions. She thought he was crazy. She conveyed her ideas to the American Consul,
who accepted the stenographer's view and caused Steinitz to be locked up.
I have known him to get up at 4 o'clock in the morning and walk the floor of
his room and talk all kinds of apparent foolishness. He would raise his window in
a hotel and talk out of it to invisible people. He was working then on this theory of
telegraphing without wires.
It has often been said that Paul Morphy gave up his life because he studied so
hard to master chess. This is not true. Chess develops the mind - does not tear it
down. One of the greatest lawyers in Boston plays chess half an hour each day sim­
ply for relaxation.
Though I give much of my time to chess I do not think my brain is injured for
business. I am interested in a business in Boston and am thoroughly familiar with
the details. Since I have been prominent as a chess player I have placed all of the ad­
vertising for a number of big New York concerns and have done much other news­
paper work.
I have no set rules for food, sleep or exercise. I have always been a good walk­
er, and that is about the only kind of exercise I take. I never go into training for a
tournament, as a pugilist does for a fight, nor do I restrict myself in the way offood
or enjoyment. It is impossible for me to have rules for eating. All of my meals are
governed by circumstances. When I am in New York I have breakfast at 12 o'clock,
sometimes as late as 1. On the ocean life shifts and I have breakfast at 8 o'clock. In

12
I .ondon I breakfast at 10. In Austria, where I have attended several tournaments,
tilt' play i ng begins at 10 o'clock in the morning, and I must necessarily have break­
last an hour or two before that time.
I have to adjust myselfto these different conditions and have always done so, and
have I never found bad results from any of them.
·I he same rule applies to sleep. Before entering a tournament I make it a point to
t :1 ke a good, long sleep, but that is my only form of preparation.

Pillsbury with cigar at the Manhattan Chess Club in 1893.

 A FEW QUOTES ABOUT PILLSBURY

·I he effect of Pillsbury's displays was immediate. They electrified me, and with
tlw mnscnt of my parents I began to visit the Havana Chess Club.
J R. Capablanca
"1he Windsor Magazine"

I 'i llsbury was, after Morphy, undoubtedly the greatest chess talent in the USA.
1 1, •wever, their careers were completely different: whereas Morphy slowly, quietly
.11" I i• oylessly extinguished the candle of his life, Pillsbury aspired for the candle of
l11'. lift· to burn constantly at both ends. "Wine, women and not harmless songs, but
·.111 "I)!; cigars" - this was Pillsbury's principle oflife.

Alexander Alekhine

I 'ilisbury it was who brought the Petroff Defense back to favor by endowing it
w 1111 s< nne fresh aggressive turns. Amongst the attacking players of all time he oc­
, "J'i1·s a place of honor. Joining imagination to elegance, Pillsbury was one of the
f',l<':llcst masters ofblindfold play.
S. Tartakower &J Du Mont
"500 Master Games ofChess"

I I is knowledge of the opening's was unsurpassed, and he added enormously to

tl H' 1 hen ry of the Qyeen's Gambit Declined, the Petroff, and the Ruy Lopez, being
•'VI'r ready to communicate ungrudgingly to friends or rivals the fruits of his latest

""•<':lrrhes and discoveries.

L. Hoffer

I 'i llsbury's style was direct, forceful and elegant . . . his early demise a strange par­
, , I h-I to the respective withdrawals ofMorphy and Fischer.
R. Keene & N Divinsky
"Warriors ofthe mind"

I le was a chess "meteor" brilliantly streaking across the sky. Harry Nelson Pills­
Ill I ry came and went quickly, but his life and games were extraordinary.
A. Soltis & K Smith
"Piffsbury the extraordinary"

"l'i lisbury in his play was a true American. His games, free from all plodding
,l,.pt h of thought and simple in their scheme, show astonishingly big lines in their
11ndcrtakings and have a refreshing effect upon the onlooker through the energy
111 1 heir execution."

Richard Reti
Pillsbury before the start ofa simultaneous exhibition in 1897.
 THE MOST REMARKABLE SIMULTANEOUS PLAYER

Mike Fox & Richardfames "The even wore complete chess addict"

l'i IIshury would play up to 22 simultaneous games of chess and draughts blind­
fold wh ile taking part in a game ofwhist. Before the display he would ask the audi­
''" ,. fi1r lists ofwords or objects, and repeat them in the end of display. On the fa­
'""us occasion in London two professors came up with the following curious list
,,f w<mls:

Antiphlogistine No war
I 1eriosteum Etchenberg
'Etkadiastase American
Plasmon Russian
Ambrosia Philosophy
'lhrelkeld Piet Potgelter's
Streptococcus Rost
Staphylococcus Salamagundi
Micrococcus Oomisellecootsi
Plasmodium Bangmanvate
Mississippi Schlechter's Nek
Freiheit Manzinyama
Philadelphia Theosophy
Cincinnati Catechism
Athletics Madjesoomalops

Pi lisbury looked at the list, repeated the words, and then again in reverse order.
·I hl' next day he recited them again. Here's Pillsbury doing his scintillating stuff.
· 11,,. game was one oftwelve chess and four draughts simultaneously blindfold, plus
.1 game ofwhist on the side!

Pillsbury, H - Amateur

Toronto, 1899

1. d4 d5 2. li:lf3 e6 3. e3 li:lf6 4. �d3 li:l bd7 5. 0-0 b6 6. li:l bd2 �d6 7. e4 dxe4
H. lilxe4 �b7 9. li:lxd6+ cxd6 10. �f4 hf3 11. '1Wxf3 d5 12. �d6 !l:c8 13. !l:fe1 !'i:c6
1•1. .lla3 a5 15. c4 li:le4 16. cxd5 li:lg5 17. '1Wg3 !l:c8 18. dxe6 li:lxe6 19. !'i:xe6+ fxe6 20.
V'ig6+ hxg6 21. hg6#
- 25. Judd- Pillsbury, St Louis, 1899 Scotch
- 26. Pillsbury - Steinitz, London, 1899 Ruy Lopez
- 27. Pillsbury - Schlechter, London, 1899 �een's Gambit
- 28. Chigorin - Pillsbury, London, 1899 Giuoco Piano
29. Hanna - Pillsbury, Club game Washington, 1899 Ruy Lopez
30. Lasker- Pillsbury, Augsburg, 1900 King's Gambit
31. Janowski- Pillsbury, Paris, 1900 Four Knights Game
- 32. Chigorin - Pillsbury, Paris, 1900 Petroff
33. Pillsbury - Von Bardeleben, DSB-12. Kongress Munich, 1900 Ruy Lopez
34. Pillsbury -Janowski, Munich, 1900 Ruy Lopez
35. Wolf- Pillsbury, DSB-12. Kongress Munich, 1900 Ruy Lopez
- 36. Cohn - Pillsbury, Munich, 1900 Petroff
37. Pillsbury - Billecard, DSB-12. Kongress Munich, 1900 Ruy Lopez
38. Pillsbury - Howell, Buffalo, 1901 Sicilian
39. Pillsbury - Marshall, Monte Carlo, 1902 French Defence
-40. Pillsbury - Tarrasch, Monte Carlo, 1902 Ruy Lopez
41. Pillsbury - Gunsberg, Monte Carlo, 1902 �een's Gambit Accepted
42. Atkins - Pillsbury, DSB-13. Kongress Hannover, 1902 Ruy Lopez
-43. Pillsbury- Swiderski, DSB-13. Kongress Hannover, 1902 �een's Gambit
-44. Olland - Pillsbury, DSB-13. Kongress Hannover, 1902 French Defence
-45. Pillsbury - Levin, DSB-13. Kongress Hannover, 1902 Dutch
46. Pillsbury - Marco, Monte Carlo, 1903 Ruy Lopez
-47. Pillsbury - Wolf, Monte Carlo, 1903 �een's Gambit
-48. Marco - Pillsbury, Vienna Gambit, 1903 King's Gambit
49. Pillsbury - Barry, Cambridge Springs, 1904 �een's Gambit
- 50. Pillsbury- Lasker, Cambridge Springs, 1904 �een's Gambit

20
GAME 1 C67
1 1 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Showalter, Jackson Whipps
'lr llpromptu' Tournament New York,
1893
·I his was the first international tour­
"·'"'''nt of Pillsbury's career. His score
,,,,1 i, ·atcs his fighting character: 7 wins,
lr lt�scs,no draws. One shining mo-
1111'111 was this win against the strongest
!\ llll'ri can player of the time. The attrac­
t IV<' style won Pillsbury many fans espe­
' 1ally in New York.
I . c4 e5 2. ttlf3 ttlc6 3 . .ib5 ttlf6 4. O­
Il lt\xc4 5. d4 .ie7
'i . . . li:Jd6 6 . .ixc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 li:Jf5
H. \'Aixd8+ 'tt>xd8 involving into the Ber-
1''' I >cfense. This was extremely popu-
1." inthe match between Kasparov and
1\ ramnik, London 2000.
(,, 'tYe2 ttld6 7. .ixc6 bxc6 8. dxe5
lt\h7
H . li:Jf5 is met by 9. 'tYe4
. .
9. b3 0-0
10. .ib2
10 .ia3 .ixa3 11. ttlxa3 'tYe7 12. li:Jc4
. Simple and strong.
dS 13. li:Je3 f5 14. c4 f4 15. li:Jc2 ig4 16.
21
li:Jcd4 li:Jd8 17. h3 ih5 18. e6 c5 19. W/e5
cxd4 20. 'tVxh5 dxc4 21. Ei:fe1 c5 22. Wfd5
Ei:b8 23. 'tYxc4 E1f5 24. Ei:e4 Ei:b4 25. 'tYd3
with an advantage for White Roman­
ishin, 0-Knezevic, M I Yerevan 1980.
The plan with 9. b3 and ib2 next was a
Pillsbury idea, but 10. ia3 looks quite
interesting too.
10 . . . ttlc5
This was not the best answer.
More logical is 10. . . aS 11. a4 d5 12.
exd6 cxd6 13. li:Jbd2 Ei:e8 14. Ei:fel id7
15. li:Jc4 d5 16. li:Je3 .if6 17. .ixf6 'tYxf6
18. 'tYd2 li:Jc5 19. 'tYd4 'tYxd4 20. li:Jxd4
Ei:ab8 21. f3 'tt>f8 = Geller, E-Gipslis, AI
Budva 1967
10. . . d5 11. exd6 cxd6 12. li:Jbd2 if6
13. ix£6 'tYxf6 is approximately equal in
Pillsbury, H-Lasker, E /St Petersburg
1895/96
1 1 . ttld4 .ia6 12. c4 ttle6 13. ttld2
.ic5
13 . . . li:Jxd4 14. .ixd4 is preferable for
White
14. ttlxe6
A reasonable decision since the bish­
op on a6 is out of play.
14 . . . fxe6 15. ttle4 .ie7 16. 'tYg4
 16 . . . @h8 17. f4 \:W e8 18. �ad1 �d8
19. �d3
19. id4 deserves consideration.

19. . . 'I:W g6 20. \:W e2 ib7

20 . . . d5? 21. exd6 cxd6 22. E1g3 win-
ning material.

21. E1g3 \:W f5 22. E1h3

22. c5? ia6-+
22 . . gf7?
.

22 . . . c5 was the right move.

23. E1h5 'I:W g6 24. tilg5 ixg5 25. lhg5 34. ig5!
\:W h6 26. 'I:W g4 g6 34. ih6 Wfff7 35. E1g5 E1g8 and the
game is not over yet.
26 . . . @g8 was not very helpful either. 34 . . . dxe5 35. E1h6 E1e7 36. if6 +
27. E1f3 E1df8? (27. . . g6) 28. E1h3 E1xf4 E1g7 37. ixe5 @g8 3 8 . Wffxe6+ \:W f7 39.
29. 'I:Wxf4+- ixg7
1-0

8
7 GAME2 000
6

5
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Jasnogrodsky, Nicolai
4

3 'Impromptu' Tournament New York,

2 1893

l. d4 d5 2. e3
In the beginning of his career Pills-
·

27. f5 gx f5 28. E1fx f5 E1xf5 29. \:W x f5
E1f8 30. \:W g4 c5
Unfortunately for Black it is too late.
31. h4
After this move Black is totally help­
less.
31 . . . E1e8 32. icl \:W f8 33. �h5 d6
bury used this variation.
2 . . . tilf6
2 . . . e6 3. id3 l2Jf6 4. f4 id6 5. l2Jf3
b6 6 . 0-0 0-0 7. c3 c5 (7. . . ia6!?) 8. l2Je5
Wffc7 9. l2Jd2 l2Jc6 10. E1f3 ib7 11. E1h3
cxd4? 12. ixh7+! CLJxh7 13. \:WhS E1fe8
14. Wffxh7+ @f8 15. exd4 f6 16. l2Jg6+
�f7 17. E1g3+- 1 -0 Pillsbury, H-Han­
ham, J I The Master's Chess Tourna­
ment, New York 1893
3. id3

22
 l 'apablanca played once 3. tLld2 e6 4. 15 . .bc3 lLla4!?
.!id.l rS 5. c3 lLlc6 6. f4 �d6 7. lLlh3!? 0- 15 . . . 0-0-0
1 I H. 0-0 lLle7 9. <;t>h1 �d7 10. tLlf3 with
lwllcr chances.
L. .ig4 4. f3 �h5 5. c4 c6 6. �c3

16. a4 gde8 17. a5 � c4 1 8 . �xc4

dxc4 19. gfb 1 g5 20. gb4

7. �h3 �bd7
7. . . �g6!?
H. �[4 .ig6 9. �xg6 hxg6 10. f4
I 1layed with a modern mentality.
10 . . . .ib4 11. �f3 �b6 12. cxd5
12. c5 lLla4
12 . • • exd5 13. 0-0

20. . . gxf4?
20 . . . g4!? 21. '1Wd1 (21. �e2? '1Wxf4;
21. '1Wf1 tLld5 (21 . . . E:h5!?) 22. E:xc4
lLlxe3 23 . .be3 E:xe3 Black is OK.) 21. . .
E:h5 is strong. lf21. '1Wg3 . . . E:h5 still de­
serves attention.

21. exf4 lLle422 . .ie1 �d6?

22 . . f5 was a better try.
.

13 . . . �c7 23. f5 �e7

11 . �e7 deserves attention with the
. . 23 . . . lLle4 24. h3±
ull"a of lUeS and tLld6
14 . .id2 hc3 15. bxc3 24. �g3 �b5
 6. . . .ib4

25. d5!
A decisive move. Black avoids the Meran. 6 . . . dxc4 7.
25. . . tlld4 �xc4 b5 is the main line.
25 . . . '%lfc5+ 26. �f2 '%lfd6 27. h3+- 7. 0-0 0-0 8 . .id2
25 . . . '%lfe3+ 26. '%lfxe3 Eixe3 27. dxc6 Nunn's Chess Openings gives 8. '%lfc2
bxc6 28. Eixc4 Eixc3 29. Elg4± (29. Eixc3 dxc4 9. hc4 �d6 10. Eid1 �e7 11. e4 e5
lLlxc3 30. �e5 lLle2+ 3l. 'i!lf2 f6) 12. h3 exd4 13. lLlxd4 lLlb6 14. �fl with
26. cxd4 �xb4 27. �f4 an advantage for White.
1-0 8 . . . hc3
The game shows how Pillsbury de­ A dubious decision.
veloped his chess style. Better was 8 . . . �e7 9. a3 �d6 with
some hope for the future.
9. hc3 dxc4
GAME 3 046 9. . . b6 is more logical.
10. .ixc4 tlle4
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Albin, Adolf
8

New York Master's, 1894 7

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. tllc3 tllf6 4. tllf3

c6 5. e3
The Semi-Slav system. 5. �g5 is an­
other critical continuation after which
Black has a choice between 5 . . . de the
Botvinnik variation or 5 . . . h6 the Mos­
cow variation.
5 . . . tllbd7 6 . .id3
6. '%lfc2 is an Anti-Meran system de­ 11. 1d3
serving attention. 11. �b4!?

24
 I I... lL!xc3 12. bxc3 Wfa5
I ' . . . Wle7 was another option.
.

1.1. �c2 Wfh5 14. :gab1 b6 15. lL!el

i\1 first sight, this looks dubious. 15.
.'. "1.� is more common.

I 'l . . . tLlf6
I 'l . .. cS 16. e4 ib7 was a better
1'1.111.

lfJ. c4e5 17. h3 :gd8 18. f4 exf4

I H. . exd4 19. cxd4 :gxd4 20. Wfxc6

.

·,(J•H 21. Wfc7 :gas 22. e5+- This variation 26 . . . '%lfg7??

··l•••ws why Pillsbury played 15. lt:lel. 26 . . . Wfh8 would have been much
stronger.
1 9. :gxf4 Wfg5 20. Wff2 ie6
27. gxh5
Now White is winning.

27. . . h3 28. h6 '%lff8 29. lL!d2 Wfe7 30.

lL!e4 �h8 31. �h2 gg8 32. :gg1 .id5 33.
lLlf6 .ig2 34. lL!xg8 �8 35. Wff6+ '%lfxf6
36. gxf6 b5 37. .if5
The fireworks are over. The rest is si­
lence.

37. . . gd8 38 . .ixh3 .ixh3 39. �xh3

b4 40. cxb4 �d441. gg7 ge442.gx(7
:gxe5 43. ge7 gh5+ 44. �g4 gxh6 45.
20 . . . ixh3 21. eS :ge8+ �h7 46. f7

21. :gh4 1-0

i\.n interesting idea but unnecessary.
.�I. !1f3 keeps the initiative. Neither player demonstrated crystal
clear play but Pillsbury proved his fight­
21. . . h5 22. lL!f3 Wfh6 23. g4 ing spirit.
Objectively, the wrong path.
23 . . . g5 24. e5 gxh4
24 . . . lt:lxg4 transposes the game.

25. g5 lL!g4 26. hxg4

25
GAME4 C51 or 5. . . ia5 6. d4 (6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ib6
was Em. Lasker's suggestion) 6 . . . exd4
o Schiffers, Emanuel 7. 0-0 tt::lge7 8. tt::lgS dS 9. exdS tt::leS is
Stepanovich the modern line Morozevich, A-Ada ms,
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson M I Wijk aan Zee, 2001
6. 0-0
Hastings, 1895 6. d4 is a more critical continua­
tion. For exa mple: 6 . . . tt::lf6 7. 0-0 (7.
1. e4 e5 2. ltlf3 ltlc6 3 . .i c4 .i c5 4. tt::lgS 0-0 8. tt::lxf7 (8 . f4!?) 8 . . . �xf7 9.
b4 ixf7+ lflxf7 10. f4 exd4 11. eS ie7 12.
The gambit of Capitan William Da­ exf6 ixf6 13. 0-0 dS� Bird, H-Pills­
vies Evans that was invented in 1824. bury, HI Hastings 1995) 7. . . 0-0 8 .
4 . . . .ixh4 �e1 h6 9 . ti:lh4 (9. tt::lb d2!? Steinitz ­
4. . . .ib6 5. a4 aS (5. . . a6!?) 6. b5 ltld4 Pillsbury+Stone+Barry I Boston exhi­
7. ll:lxd4 .ixd4 8. c3 .ib6 9. d4 exd4 10. bition game, 1892) 9. . . exd4 10. ti:lfS
0-0 ll:le7 11. .igS h6 12 . .ixe7 Wffxe7 13. ic5 11. cxd4 d5 12. exdS ixfS 13. dxcS
cxd4 with an advantage. Kasparov, G­ ti:laS 14. ib3 ti:lxb3 15. 'Wffxb3 'Wffxd5 16.
Piket, JIAmsterda m 1995 ti:lc3 �fe8! Jobava, B-Grischuk, AIPlo­
5. c3 .id6!? vdiv 2003
6 . . . ll:lf6 7. �e1
7. d4!?
7. . . 1e7 8. d4 d6 9. Wffh 3 0-0 10. ltlg5
'Wff e8
10 . . . dS deserves attention

Pillsbury, in his choice of 5 . . . .id6,

was influenced by two A merican play­
ers (Stone and Ware), which is why 5 . . .
.id6 was called the Stoneware defence
according to Blackburne. Other possi­
bilities are: 5 . . . ie7 6. d4 tt::la S 7. ie2
exd4 8. Wffxd4 ltlf6 9. eS tt::lc6 10. Wffh4
tt::ldS 11. 'Wffg3 g6 12. 0-0 tt::lb6 13. c4 d6
14. �d1 tt::ld7 15. ih6� Kasparov, G­
Anand, VIRiga 1995
11. 'Wff d1 h6 12. ltlf3
All pieces have to go back. It seems
that White has lost the opening battle.
12 . . . 1g4+ 13. ll:la3 ll:lh7
13 . . . exd4 14. cxd4 (14. ti:lbS) 14 . . .
ixf3 15. gxf3!?

26
 14. �b1 �b8 15. c!Lic2 c!Lig5 16. 'i!?h1
·,l1h!! 17. c!Lie3
17 lkxgS followed by lLle3 was a rec­
. .

' •llllllcndation ofBlackburne.

17. . . .b£318. gxf3 c!L\h3 19. �b2.ig5
lCI. �f5 c!Lie7 21. .ixg5 hxg5 22 . .ib5?

34. c4 �f3 35. 1We8+ �f8 3 6 . �e6+

'i!?h7 37. 1We7 �g8 38. �xc7
Again there is nothing better because
the rooks are completely paralysed.
38 . . . �g5 39. �xd6 �e8 40. h3 ge2
41. �h2 �gxg2 42. gxg2 �e1+
1\. mistaken idea. 0-1
22 . . . �xb5! 23. f4 Pillsbury wrote that if you want to
21. �xb5 lLlxf2+ 24. 'i!?g2 lLlxdl 25. improve in chess you have to be unusu­
1.; \xe7 lLlxc3-+ al and always pay attention to the best
23. . . c!Lixf2+ move on the board.
'Ihis is the point of 22 . . . Wfb5.

24. �xf2 c!Lixf5 25. �h5+ 'i!?g8 26. GAMES C26

l·xf5 exf4 27. �xg5
'I here is nothing better. o Mieses, Jacques
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
27. . . f6 28. �xf4 �be8! 29. �g1
I"VJ5+! 30. �fg2 �f7 Hastings, 1895
Black is winning now.
1. e4 e5 2. c!L\c3 c!L\f6 3 . .ic4
31. �g4 �e4 32. �h5 The Vienna Opening
12. 1Wf3 �xd4-+ 3 . . . .ib4
Pillsbury's favourite continuation.
32 . . . �f4 33. �e2�5 Other possibilities are: 3 . . . lLle4, 3 . . .
icS or 3 . . . lLlc6
4. f4 d6
This is not the best.
Modern chess theory recommends
here 4 . . . lLlxe4! 5. \WhS 0-0 6. fxe5 d5

27
7. ll:lxd5 ll:lc6 8. ll:lf3 �e6 9. ll:le3 g6 10.
'Wh6 ll:lxe5 11. ll:lxe5 �xd2+ 12. @e2
�xc1 (12 . . . 'Wf6!? Shabalov, A-Wolff,
PI Boston, 1994) 13. E1axcl 'Wd2+ 14.
@f3 'Wd4 15. 'Wf4 ll:ld2+ 16. @g3 ll:le4+=
Nunn's chess openings.
5. ttlf3 0-0

16 . . . Wfh6! 17. Wfe2

If now 17. E1xf6 Black has 17. . . 'Wh4+
18. E1f2 e3-+
17. . . hd4 18. cxd4 f5

6. ttld5?!
A dubious move.
White should have played 6. fxe5
dxe5 7. 0-0 with a very promising po­
sition.
6 . . . ttlxd5 7. hd5 ttlc6
7. . . c6 8. �b3 exf4 (8 . . . d5? 9. ll:lxe5
dxe4 10. 'We2±) 9. c3 �aS 10. 0-0 d5
with unclear play.
7. . . �c5 8. c3 ll:lc6 transposes to the
game 19. g4??
8. c3 A blunder. 19. g3 was correct, but af­
8. 0-0 deserves attention ter 19. . . �e6 Black is clearly better any­
8 . .ic5 9. f5
. . way.
9. d4 exd4 10. cxd4 �b6 with coun- 19. . . ttlf4
terplay for Black. The killing touch after which the
9. . . ttle7 10 . .ib3 d5U . d4 game is over.
11. d3 looks more reasonable. 20. Wfc4 ttld3+ 21. @e2 Wfxh2+ 22.
11 . . . exd4 12. f6 gxf6 ! ? 13. ttlxd4 @e3 f4+
dxe4 14. .ih6 ttlg6! · 0-1
14. . . E1e8?? 15. 'Wh5+- An interesting game on account of
15 . .ixf8 Wfxf8 16. l:'!fl? Pillsbury's impressive queen manoeu­
16. 0-0 was the right move. vre.

28
GAMES C60 1895. The New York Daily Tribune 05.
01. 1896
1 1 Teichmann, Richard 7. . . 0-0 8. £3
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

Hastings, 1895

I. c4 e5 2. �f3 �c6 3 . .ib5 g6

According to modern chess theo-
1 v .I . . . g6 has been revived by the ex­

w, >rid champion Smyslov. It is hard to

·.;�y whether Pillsbury or Smyslov de­
·.nvcs more credit for development this
1111('.

4. d4
4. ixc6 dxc6 5. d3 ig7 6. li:Jc3 Lask­ 8 . . . �e7!
t'l Em-Pillsbury, HI New York 1893 An original move.
(· l111promptu' tournament) 9. 0-0
4 . . . exd4 5. �xd4 9. Wffd 2 d5 10. e5 li:J e 8 ! ? 1 1 . ih6
S. ig5 ie7 6. ixe7 li:Jgxe7 (6 . . . Wffxe7 ixh6 12. Wffxh6 c5 is interesting.
/. lixc6 dxc6 8. Wffxd4 ti:Jf6 9. li:Jc3 0-0 9. e5 ti:Jfd5
('!... ig4!? Shirov, A-Azmaiparashvili, Also 9. f4 d5 10. e5 li:Jg4 with the
I. /Montecatini Terme 2000) 10. 0-0- idea of ll. . . c5 was very unpleasant for
111 Sax, G-Smyslov, VI New York 1987) White.
/. liixd4 d5 8. li:Jc3 dxe4 9. ixc6+ li:Jxc6
IO.Ii:lxc6 Wffxd1+ 11. fud1 bxc6 12. li:Jxe4 9. . . c6 10 . .id3?!
.1!1.1) 13. 0-0 0-0 14. l"ld4 <J:/g7 15. f3 l"lfe8 10. ic4 was the right move.
ll>.l"lfd1 l"lab8 17. b3 l"lb5 18. l"lc4;!; Nunn, 10 . . . d5 11. �de2
I Salov, V/Skelleftea WCup 1989 11. e5 li:Je8
11 . . . dxe4 12.fxe4
5 . . . .ig7 6 . .ie3 12. li:Jxe4? li:Jxe4 13. ixe4 ixb2+
6. li:Jxc6 bxc6 7. ic4 li:Je7 8. li:Jc3 d6 12. . . �g4
'!.0-0 (9. h4! ?) 9 . . . ie6 10. ib3 0-0 Now Black gains the initiative.
II. ie3 c5oo Lasker, Em-Pillsbury, H I 13. Wff d2
I L1stings 1895
6 . . . �f6 7. �c3
7. li:Jxc6 bxc6 8. id3 0-0 9. li:Jc3 d5
10. exd5 cxd5 11. li:Je2 li:Jg4 12. ic5 l"le8
11. c3l"lb8 14. Wffc2 li:Je5 15. ia3 li:Jxd3+
16. Wffxd3 l"lb6! 17. 0-0-0 ih6+ 18. f4
.lia6 19. c4 ixc4 20. Wffxc4 dxc4 2l. l"lxd8
nxd8 0-1 Zehn-Pillsbury, St. Petersburg

29
 B . . . ed6
An important trick.
For instance 13 . . . l2lxe3 14. 'Wxe3
'Wb6 15. exb6 axb6 was good enough
for long term pressure in a preferable
ending, but after 16. ic4 b5 17. ib3 not
everything is simple.
14. g3
The only move. 14. if4 doesn't work
here. For example: 14 . . . ec5+ 15. c;t>h1
l2lf2+ 16. �xf2 'Wxf2 17. ie3 'Wf6 with
an extra exchange.
14 . . . ee5
A very deep move. Pillsbury again re­
sists the automatic l2lxe3.
This is the point of14 . . . 'We5
17. ef3 �d4 18. �xd4 exd4+ 19.
c;t>g2 eh4
Black has a clear advantage.
20. e5
This is unnecessary.
Instead 20. l2ld1 was better.
20 . . . exb2 21. ic4 exc2+ 22. �f2
e£5 23. ee3 eh3+ 24. *g1 .ie6 25.
ie2
25. ifl seems better.
25 . . . eh6 26. �£4 eg5 21. .i dJ
�adS 28. ef3 .ixe5 29. h4 id4+

15. �ae1
An empty move.
If instead 15. if4!? then 15 . . . eh5
keeps White under strong pressure but
this was probably a better try.
15 . . . �xe3 16. exe3 �f5!

30. *h2
30. �xd4 'Wc5-+
30 . . . ea5
0-1

30
 'llw game was played by Pillsbury in
III.I',I!T) y style.

GAME 7 0 55

1 1 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Tarrasch, Siegbert

Hastings, 1895

'lltL' present game was very popular

, , "I It as attracted many annotators. In
"'I' opinion the opening and middle­ 11. �e1?!
!'.·'''"' could be improved. The final part A wrong move. 11. .if5 is stronger
w.r·. I'Xtraordinary. The sacrifice and the or 11. �e2 is Schlechter's idea.
• )1111'1 waiting move that follows are very ll . . . c4
IIIIJ'rl'ssive. 11 . . . ttle4 was another option.
12 . .ih1 a6 13. ltle5
J4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. ltlc3 ltlf6 4 . .ig5
I.
���.•.7 s . ltlf3
'1. d0-0 6. lt:lf3 b6 7. cxd5 exd5 (7. . .
'·1\d �) 8 . id3 ib7 9. lt:le5 (See com­
llll'lllary on move 13.) 9. . . lt:lbd7 10. f4
• ( 10. . . lt:le4) 11. 0-0 c4 12. ic2 a6 13.
'•

�111 \ b5 14. 'Wh3 g6 15. f5 b4 16. fxg6

h\f'/' 17. �h4 bxc3 18. lt:lxd7�xd7 19.
···:�Ill+- Pillsbury, H-Marco, G, Par­
, .. 1'100.
'i ... ltlbd7 6. �cl 0-0 7. e3 b6
/. .. c6 is preferable.

!!. cxd5 exd5 9. .id3 The start of the classic Pillsbury At­
'I..l!l.b5!? Capablanca,J-Teichmann, R tack, about which it was famously said:
IJI..rlin, 1913. 'If Pillsbury has played lt:le5, then Black
•J • • • .ih7 10. 0-0 c5 is lost.'
13 . . . b5
13 . . . lt:lxe5? 14. dxe5 lt:ld7 (14. . . lt:le4
15 . .ixe7�xe7 16. lt:lxd5 �xe5 17. lt:lxb6
lt:lxf2 18. �c2±) 15. ixe7 (15. if4!?
lt:lc5 16. �d2 �d7 17. �cd1 �ad8±) 15. . .
�xe7 16. f4 and White is better.
14. f4 �e8

31
 A prophylactic move. 14 . . . b4 1 S.
li:Je2 looks good for White.
15. �f3li:Jf8 16.li:Je2
In My Great Predecessors, Kasparov
gives this move a question mark and an
exclamation mark.
He suggest 16. a3 li:Je4 17. fi.xe7 fue7
18. l2Jxe4 dxe4 19. "!Wg3 is approximate­
ly equal. Objectively, I think after 19. . .
i.dS 20. fS f6 21. li:Jg4 \t>h8 22. l"i:fl aS
23. l"i:f4 "\Wd6 24. li:Jf2 l"i:ae8 Black is bet­
ter.
16 . . . li:Je4 17. �xe7 l"i:xe7 18. �xe4
dxe4 19. �g3 f6 20.li:Jg4 \t> h8 25.li:Jc3
According to Reuben Fine this is a
mistake.
Correct is 2S. li:Jf2 and if2S. . . i.dS
26. g4 h6 27. "!Wg3 b4 28. h4 l2Jh7 29.
li:Jh3 l"i:c8 -White has the initiative,
Black the counterplay.

25 . . . �d5
2S. . . b4? 26. li:Ja4

26.li:Jf2
26. lLlxdS �xdS 27. li:Jxf6 gxf6 28.
"\Wxf6+ l"i:g7-+
21. f5 26 . . . �c6 27. l"i:f1 b4 28. lLle2 �a4?!
This move was suggesting itsel£ 28 . . . c3! 29. b3 (29. bxc3 bxc3 30.
21. . . �d7 li:Jd1 c2 31. li:Jdc3 i.c4) 29 . . . aS looks
At this point Reuben Fine recom- very attractive for Black.
mended an immediate "\W-side advance.
22. �m!:!d8 29.li:Jg4li:Jd7 30.134£2 �g8
22 . . . l"i:c8!? 30. . . "!Wxa2? is bad because of3l. li:Jf4
23. l3f4 �d6 i.f7 32. dS!? (or 32. l2Jg6+)
23 . . . i.dS and . . . bS-b4 was more en­
ergetic according to Kasparov. 31.li:Jcl c3 32. b3 �c6
24. �h413de8

32
 40 . . . tt:lxf6 41 . tt:le5 �d6 42. tt:lg6+
II lt>g8 43. tt:lxe7+ �xe7 44. tt:lxb3 El:xb3
was a better try.
II .t.
41. tt:lxb3 El:xb3 42. ll:lh6 El:g7 43.
El:xg7\t>xg7

"
.' �)
' \

II

.n.h3!
l11 1 rue Pillsbury spirit!
.n . . a5 34. ll:lh2 a4 35. g4 axb3
.

1'1 . . . h6!? Kasparov

.lll. axb3 gas

44. Wg3+!!
44. li>hl? li>f8
7 44 . . . 1i>xh6
6 44. . . ci>f8 45. Wg8+ costs a Rook.

45. li>ht!!
Black is helpless against the threat-
3 ened Ei:gl. 45. El:f4? El:bl+ 46. lt>g2 El:b2+
2 would have led only to a draw.
45 . . . Wd5 46. ggl Wxf5 47. Wh4+
Wh5 48. Wf4+ Wg5 49. gxg5 fxg5 50.
Wd6+ li>h5 51. Wxd7 c2
I(L . . h6!? 37. �g3 (3 7. El:a2 El:a8) 3 7. . . A blunder
', 11 H (Fine, R) 38. h4 tt:lh7 with an ad-
l',llllagc. 52. Wxh7#
.l7. g5
l.'inc wrote "From here to the end 1-0
l'dlshury's play is perfection", in the
w, •rid 's Greatest Chess Games.
.\7 . ga3 38. tt:lg4 .ixb3?
. .

I H. . . fxg5 39. Wxg5 tt:lf6 40. El:g2 li>fB

w.1, the right way.
:�IJ. El:g2 li>h8 40. gxf6 gxf6
GAMES 094
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Gunsberg, lsidor
Hastings, 1895
Notes by Lasker Em.
1 . d4 d5 2 . c4 c6 3. e3 g6 4. c!Ll c3
li.. g7
Black chooses a peculiar, bur not al­
together sound, manner ofdevelopment.
The objection to this mode of bringing
the bishop out is that it costs two moves,
brings the bishop on a line which is
blocked, and allows the first player pos­
sibilities ofa king's side attack beginning
with pawn to h4.
5 . .!Llf3 .!Llf6 6. i.d3 0-0
7. c!Lle5 dxc4 8. i.xc4 .!Lld5 9. f4 !i..e6
10. "Wb3
34
So far White has treated the opening
to perfection; but here 10. i.d3! , soon
to be followed by pawn h4, seems pref­
erable.
10 . . . b5 11. i.xd5 .ixd5 12. c!Llxd5
"Wxd5 13. "Wxd5 cxd5
14. c!Lld3
He must now try to reserve his knight
for the ending, as the abundance of ob­
structions leaves little scope to the bish­
ops and rooks.
14 . . . c!Lld7 15 . .id2 �fc8 16. �e2 e6
17. �hcl .i f8 18. lhc8 �xc8 19. �cl
�xcl 20. !i..xc1 .i d6 21. !i.. d2 �f8 22.
i.h4 �e7 23. !i..c5 a6
Almost obviously 23 . . . a S would
have been better, and would have re-
• 1111 ,.,1 White's chances for a win to zero, If, on the other hand, 27. . . exf5 28 .
l·o• i ns t a nc e : 24. b4 axb4 25. !xb4 gxf5 g5 29. tt:lb4, would lead to the same
i!J \II'! 26. tt:lxb4 <;t>d6 27. g4 f6 soon to result.
lw li 1l lowed by. . . e5. 28 . .!Llb4 a5 29. c6!
Threatening, ofcourse, 30. c7
24. b4 f6 25. g4 hc5 29. . . ®d6 30. fxe6! .!Llxc6 31. .!Llxc6
1\ nd here 25 . . . tt:lxc5 26. bxc5 !c7 <;t>xc6
w• n 1ld have left the game perfectly even,
,, hishop being so much more suitable to
8 8
··I• , , , advancing pawns than a knight.
7
26. bxc5 .!Llb8 6

5
4

I lis best
continuation was 26 . . . aS,
when following play would have been
possible: 27. f5 g5 28. c6 tt:lb6 29. tt:lc5
•·xf5 30. gxf5 <;t>d6 31. tt:lb7+ <;t>xc6 32.
li\xa5+ <;t>c7 and Black has, if anything,
1 he better chance, as he threatens . . .
l.;k4-d6
27. f5!
White's play from here unto the end
is of highest order.
27. . . g5
If this pawn is taken, 27. . . gxf5 28.
)!;Xf5 exf5 29. tt:lf4 follows, which would
l'nsure to White the advantage of two
united passed center pawns.
32. e4!
The key to this remarkable combina­
tion. Whether the offered pawn is taken
or not, White will always win with his
two united passed pawns, e. g.:
32 . . . dxe4
32 . . . <;t>d6 33. exd5 <;t>e7 34. <;t>e3
<;t>d6 35. <;t>e4 <;t>e7 36. <j{fS b4 37. d6+
and wins.
33. d5++- <;t>d6 34. ®e3 b4
34 . . . f5 would find it's reply in 35.
gxf5 g4 36. f6 a4 37. f7 <;t>e7 38. d6+
<j{f8 39. d7 <;t>e7 40. f8=�+ e.t.c.
35. ®xe4 a4 36. <;t>d4 h5 37. gxh5 a3
38. ®c4 f5 39. h6 f4 40. h7
1-0
In my opinion the analysis of the
game by Lasker Em. is instructive and
useful for the student.

35
GAME9
o Lasker, Emanuel
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
St Petersburg, 1895/96
1. e4 e5 2. ttlf3 ttlf6
The Russian (Petroff) Defence,
which Pillsbury specially prepared for
this tournament. We will now see the
'fresh aggressive turns' to which Tartak­
over was referring.
3. ttlxe5
For 3. d4 ttlxe4 4. id3 d5 5. ttlxe5
id6 (5 . . . ttlc6 Pillsbury, H-Schlechter,
C /Munich 1900) 6. 0-0 0-0 7. c4, see
the game Chigorin, M-Pillsbury, H I
Paris 1900
3 . . . d6 4. ttlf3 ttlxe4 5. d4
5. Wffe2 Wffe 7 6. d3 li:lf6 7. ig5 Lask­
er, Em-Pillsbury, H /St Petersburg
1895/96
5. li:lc3 li:lxc3 6. dxc3 ie7 7. ie3 (7.
if4!?) 7. . . li:Jd7oo Wolf, H-Pillsbury, HI
Monte Carlo 1903
5 . . . d5 6. id3 ie7
6 . . . li:lc6 7. 0-0 ig4 8. c4 li:lf6 9. li:lc3
ixf3 10. Wffxf3 li:lxd4 11. Wffe3+ li:le6 12.
cxd5 li:lxd5 13. li:lxd5 Wffx d5 14. ie4
Wffb5 15. a4 Wffa6 16. E1d1 (16. id3 Wffb6
1 7. Wffh 3oo) 16 . . . ie7 1 7. b4! Kasparov,
G-Karpov, A/London m/6 1986
7. 0-0 ttlc6 8. gel ig4
C42
8 . . . if5 9. c4! li:lb4 10. ifl 0-0 (10. . .
dxc4 1 1 . li:lc3± Karpov, A-Portisch,
L!Tilburg 1982) 11. a3 li:lc6 12. li:lc3
li:lxc3 13. bxc3 dxc4 14. ixc4± Ehlvest,
J-Khalifman, A / USSR-ch 1987
9. c3
9. c4 li:lf6 10. cxd5 ixf3 (10 . . . li:lxd5)
11. Wffxf3 Wffxd5 12. Wffh3 with complicat­
ed play Kasparov, G-Karpov, A/Mos­
cow m/28 1984/85
9. ixe4 dxe4 10. fue4 ixf3 11. Wffxf3
(11. gxf3 f5) 11 . . . li:lxd4 leads to equal­
ity.
9. . . f5 10. V;Yb3
In Batsford Chess Openings, Kasp­
arov gives this move an exclamation
mark. 10. c4 Maroczy-Pillsbury, Mon­
te Carlo 1902
10 . . . 0-0
36
 15. . . .id6 16. ltld2
16. ixfS?? E!:xfS 17. '1Wxf5 lt:lf4+-+
16 . . . E!:ae8
Little by little Black's initiative has
improved in many respects.

ll . .if4?
1 1 . ttl bd2 'it>h8 (1 1 . . . lt:la5!? Yu­
dasin, L-Khalifman, A /Simferopol
I 'J88) 12. '1Wxb7 (12. h3 ih5 13. '1Wxb7
:;·\f6 14. '1Wb3 E!:g6 15. ie2 ih4? (15 . . .
1Mfd6? 16. lt:le5!; 1 5 . . . id6!?) 16. E!:fl 17. ltlf1??
.l!i.xf3 17. lt:lxf3 ixf2+ 18. E!:xf2 lt:lxf2 19. A blunder, but White's game is al­
·,llxf2 '1Wd6 20. lt:lg5! Karpov, A-Korch­ ready very bad.
noi, V/match1974) 12 . . . E!:f6 13. '1Wb3 17. . . ltlexd4 18. \!;Vd1 lhel 19. \!;Vxel
T\�6 14. ie2 (14. 'it>fl E!:b8 15. '1Wc2 id6
Showalter, J-Pillsbury, H /Cambridge
Springs 1904) 14. . . '1Wd6�Tukmakov, V­
I )voretzky, M /Odessa 1974
11. lt:lfd2? lt:lxf2 12. 'it>xf2 ih4+ 13.
g1 f4 14. 'it>g2 fxg3 15. ie4 ih3+ 16 .
.,llg1 gxh2+-+ Ljubojevich, L-Ma­
karichev, S /Amsterdam, 1975
11 . . . ixf3 12. gxf3 ltlg5 13. 'it>g2
13. ixg5 hg5 threatening 14. . . if4
and 15 . . . '1Wh4
13 . . . '1Wd7 14. '1Wc2?!
14. '1Wxb7 ltle6 15. icl (15. E!:xe6
1Mfxe6 16. ixc7 (16. '1Wxc7 E!:ab8) 16 . . . 19 . . . ltlxf3!
r\ab8! Sutovsky, E) 15 . . . E!:ab8 16. '1Wa6 Perfectly sound.
14 with more than enough compensa­ 20. ®xf3 f4
t ion for the pawn. The point of 19. . . lt:lf3. White can­
14. '1Wd1!? not save the piece.
14. . . ltle6 15 . .icl 21. \!;Vd1 ltle5+ 22. 'it>e2 '1Wg4+ 23.
15. ie5 lt:lxe5 16. dxe5 lt:lf4+ 17. 'it>h1 ®d2 \!;Vxd1+ 24. ®xd1 ltlxd3
1Mfe6+ The game is over.
 25. 'it>e2 tlle5 26. f3 l'!e8 27. b3 tllg4+
28. 'it>d2 tll e3 29. .ih2 tllg2 30. h3 .ic5
31. tll h2 .if2 32. c4 dxc4 33. bxc4 h5
0-1
A game played in most characteristic
style by Pillsbury.
GAME 10 C60
o Chigorin, Mikhail
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
St Petersburg, 1895/96
1. e4 e5 2. tl\£3 tl\£6 3. tll c3
White avoids the Petroff.
3 . . . tll c6
3 . . . ib4!? 4. tllxe5 0-0 5. ie2 d6 (5. . .
Ele8 Maroczy, G-Pillsbury, H/Vienna,
1898) 6. li:Jf3 ixc3 7. dxc3 tllxe4 8. 0-0
lt:ld7 9. Ele1 li:Jdf6 10. id3 li:Jc5 11. ig5
h6 12. ih4 ig4 13. h3 li:Jxd3 14. �xd3
ixf3 15. �xf3 g5 16. ig3 tll d7 17. �f5
and White is better. Janowski, D-Pills­
bury, H /London 1899
4 . .th5 .ih4
4 . . . tll d4 is another critical contin­
uation.
5. 0-0 0-0 6. d3
6. hc6!? (Nimwwitch, A) 6 . . . dxc6
7. d3 id6 8. ig5 h6 9. ih4 c5 10. li:Jd5?
g5! Winter, W-Capablanca, J I Hast­
ings, 1919
6 . . . d6
For 6 . . . ixc3 7. bxc3 d6 8. Elel, see
the game Janowski, D-Pillsbury, H I
Paris 1900
7. .tg5
7. li:Je2 li:Je7 8. c3 ia5 9. li:Jg3 c6 10.
ic4 (10. ia4) 10 . . . d5 was unclear in
Schlechter, C-Pillsbury, H /Budapest
1896
38
7. . . hc3 8. bxc3 tll e7
Pillsbury's idea.
8 . . . �e7 9. Elel ttJd8 10. d4 li:Je6 11.
icl gives White a minimal edge.
9. hf6
9. li:Jh4 was probably the best move
here.
In Maroczy, G-Pillsbury, H /Lon­
don 1899 White played 9. ic4 li:Jg6
(9. . . ie6 10. ixf6 gxf6 11. ixe6 fxe6
12. tllh4 lt:lg6 13. li:Jxg6 hxg6 14. f4 with
the initiative Tarrasch, S-Pillsbury, H
m/3 for 1st prize, Vienna 1898) 10. li:Jh4
li:Jf4 11. �f3 h6 12. ixf4 ig4 13. '.We3
exf4 14. �d2 g5 15. h3 ie6, and Black
is doing well.
9. . . gx£6 10. �d2
For 10. li:Jh4, see the game Robinson,
D-Pillsbury, H /New York 1897
10 . . . tllg6
10 . . . l!lh8!? Chigorin, M-Pillsbury,
H /Budapest 1896
1 1 . 'it>h1 'it>h8 12. d4 Elg8 13 . .td3
V!Je7 14. :Bab1 b6
In the future Black will take the ini­
tiative on the kingside.
15. tllg1 .ie6 16. d5?!
This is a positional mistake. A better
try was 16. Elbel, but ofcourse Black has
still got pressure.
 I ll . . . id7 17. g3 Instead 25. gxh4 f5 26. ltJxf5 .ixf5
27. 'IMI'xfS 'IMI'xh4 promises Black excellent
compensation for the pawn.
At this point White can try 25. ltJc6
'IMI'e8 and maybe now 26. �e3 (but not 26.
gxh4 because of26 . . . .ih3)
25. . . �e5

a b c d e

17 . . • �g7 18. �bel �ag8 19. f3

I <J. f4 deserves attention.
19 • • • h5 20. �f2 tl)f8
20 . . . h4 21. g4 ltlf4 was less prom-
1'·11 1).!;.
2 1 . f4
(\. waiting strategy seems preferable. 26. gxh4??
l l . . . exf4 A big blunder.
The right move was 26. ltlb5
or 26. 'IMI'xe5 fxe5 27. cubS and the
game is still alive.
26 . . . if3+
0-1
White has no defence.

GAME 11 0 53

o Steinitz, William
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

22. �xf4 Nuremberg, 1896

22. gxf4 would have been a natural
1 1 1ovc. After which 22 . . . f5 looks in­ 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. ll:)c3 tl)f6 4. ig5
! nes t i ng and if23. e5? dxe5 24. fxe5 .ie7 5. e3 0-0
\MixeS! 5 . . . h6!? 6 . .ih4 0-0 7. euf3 b6 is the
22 . . . tl)h7 23. ll:)f3 ig4 24. tl)d4 h4 Tartakower Defence.
H . �e3 6. '1Mfb3
'I his move weakens the backrank.

39
 A dubious idea. 6. lt:lf3 is the usual White could also consider 16. cxb6
move. axb6 17. 0-0, but 17. . . f4 seems unpleas­
ant.
16 . . . bxc5 17. lt:lxc6 f!c7 18. lt:le5
cxd4

6 . . . c6 7. lt:lf3 lt:le4 8. i.xe7 f!xe7 9.

lt:lxe4
He should have played 9. i.d3 or 9.
ie2 19. exd4
9. . . dxe4 10. lt:ld2 f5 11. c5 lt:ld7 12. A hard decision. 19. f!xd4 was not
lt:lc4 enough for consolidation. After. . . 19. . .
ia6 White is still in trouble.
a b c d e f g h
19. . . £4

12 . . . @h8
The aim ofBlack's last move is . . . e5.
13. f!c3 lt:lf6 14. ie2 lt:ld5 15. f!d2 Black plans a kingside attack.
b6 20. 0-0 i.b7 21. l':1acl f!e7 22. f3 lt:le3
A good move. 23. E1f2 l':1ad8 24. fxe4 he4 25. E1xf4?
16. lt:le5 This exchange sacrifice is wrong. The
This continuation leads to nothing correct move was 25. i.f3
good. 25 . . . l':1xf4 26. f!xe3

40
 39. 1!9g5!? 1!9f6 40. '1Mfxf6 gxf6 41. lt:ld7
:1l:xd7 42. :1l:xd7 :1l:a8 with an advantage
for Black.
39 1!9xd7 40. lLlxd7 :1l:xd7 41. '1Mfe6
•. .

gfd8 42. 1!9a6 h6 43. h4 :1:\fS 44. �h3

�h7 45 . 1Mfc6 :1%d3+ 46. g3 :1%e3 47.
1!9c2+
47. 1!9c5!?
47. . . �h8 48. h5 ge5 49. �h4 a5 50.
1!9a4 gbs 51. g4 gg5 52. 1Mfc6 ggs 53.
1!9a6 �h7 54. 1!9d3+ �h8 55. 1Mfa6 :1%d8
56. 1Mfc6 ggd5

26 . . . 1Mfh4!
Stcinitz had probably just overlooked
r l tis move.
27. .if3 .ixf3 28. lLlxf3 '1Mff6 29. l:k6
y.lffS 30. gxe6 '1Mfhl+ 31. 1Mfel '�Mfxh2 32.
ld?
!\ better try would be 32. ge2
J2 . . . 1Mfxa2 33. 1Mfe5 1Mfbl+ 34. �h2
y.lffS 35. 1Mfe3
35. 1Mfc7 1Mfxe6 36. 1Mfxd8+ 1!9g8-+
J5 . . . gfg 36. ge5 1!9d7 37. ge7 '1Mfd6
IH. lLle5
I ksperation in a hopeless situation. 57. 1Mfa4?!
57. Wa6!?
57. . . :1l:a8 58. �h3 gd3+ 59. �h4
:1l:e3 60. Wc6 gfg
0-1

GAME 12 0 50

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Lasker, Emanuel

Nuremberg, 1896

J8 . . . gxd4 Notes by Burgess, Nunn a n d Emms

.lR . . .
1!9xd4 39. 1!9g3!
Maybe 38 . . . a6 deserves attention. Pillsbury creates one ofthe classic ex­
J9. gd7 amples of the sacrificial breakthrough,

41
whereby a seemingly impregnable po­
sition is ripped apart by a series of sac­
rifices.
Starting from a slightly unusual line
of the French Defence, in which he has
loosened his queenside in return for
greater mobility, Pillsbury conceives a
grandiose plan to attack the black king,
which Lasker has decided to leave in the
centre, defended by a strong barricade of
pawns. Firstly Pillsbury gives up a pawn
to divert a black piece to the queenside,
and then a pawn on the kingside to loos­
en Black's position and bring a knight This move loosens White's queen­
to an active square. Lasker then miss­ side but severely reduces the activity of
es his best chance to retain a viable posi­ Black's knights - probably a good trade­
tion and plunge the game into a mass of off for White.
murky complications. Pillsbury pounc­ 8 . . . lDd7
es. First an exchange, and then a piece is 8 . . d4?! looks like it should be better,
.

sacrificed, and all the lines to the black but there is a tactical problem pointed
king are smashed open. Although he is a out byJohn Nunn: 9. lDce2 d3 (9. . . li:le4
rook up, Lasker has no defence. In des­ 10. li:lf3) 10. li:lg3 W'd4 11. c3! W'xc3+ 12.
peration, he gives up his queen, but the .id2 wins a piece for inadequate com­
resulting endgame is hopeless. pensation, e. g. 12 . . . W'c4 13. E:cl W'd5
14. bxc5 hc5
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. lDc3 lDf6 4. e5 9. .id3 a5 10. b5 lDcb8 11. lDf3 lDc5
lDfd7 5. f4 c5 6. dxc5 12 . .ie3 lDbd7 13. 0-0
An unusual idea, but far from bad.
Instead White normally develops so as
to support the d4-pawn.

6 . . . lDc6 7. a3 lDxc5
7. . ixc5 would be more standard,
.

but less ambitious.

8. b4!?

13 . . . g6
Not with the idea of fianchettoing
the bishop, but to delay White's intend-

42
I d f.l rs advance. Lasker has decided
1 1 .. ,1h i s king will be safest in the cen-
1 " ' , a nd aims to make it as difficult as
1 " ,.,, ihlc for White to break through to
11 Note that if White has to support
I •, w i 1 h g4, his own king will also be­
, "" ''' considerably exposed after a lat­
' ' l 'i gxfS, gxfS.
14. ltle2
W h ite has the greater freedom of
' ' '' .vement, but must play energetically
1 " justify the weakening of his queen­
·.u l,·.
14 . . . �e7 15. Wfel ltlb6 16. ltl fd4
lk117 17. Wff2
· I he
cunning move lends support to
1 " .,,sihlcf-file play and threatens to win
, , l 'awn by 18. ltlxe6
17 . . . ltlba4
17 . . . Wfc7 followed by. . . ltlca4 and . . .
·I is a more secure way for Black to
.' · "
I'L'y on the queenside.
l l t �abl
Both preventing. . . ltlb2 and support­
" ' g t he b-pawn.
1 8 . . . h5
I ,asker further discourages White's
l 'la n of g4 and f5, by making the prepa­
' .111 1ry advance that much harder. How­
' 'Vl'r, i t eats another tempo, and Pillsbury
1 1 1anages to engineer a tactical f5 break-
1 hro ugh without any support from the
I ', pawn. 18 . . . lLlxd3 19. cxd3 ixa3? is
' ' ' •I a good pawn-grab in view of20. �a1
\'-�Ft-7 21. ltlc2, winning a piece.
I H . . . 0-0!? was still possible (e. g. 19.
1':1 1'5), though a switch of plans.
19. b6!?
White makes inroads into the queen­
·o �dc. If Black reacts passively, White
w i I I be able to make good use of the
h'1-square, but if Black makes the criti­
··al reply and wins the a3-pawn, several
43
pieces will be diverted from the defence
of the king. Undoubtedly Pillsbury's
great combination was already coming
together in his mind at this stage - one
would not give Lasker an extra passed a­
pawn on a whim!
19. . . ltlxd3
19. . . lLlxb6? is wholly bad due to the
familiar theme 20. ltlxe6!
20. cxd3 ixa3
21. f5!
Disrupting Black's kingside stricture
and freeing f4 for the knight. "Pillsbury
possessed an unparalleled technique
when it came to unleashing the explo­
sive powers of his pieces." - Euwe.
21 . . . gxf5
21 . . . exfS? 22. ltlf4 gives White a
massive attack without the need for sac­
rifices.
22. ltlf4
One of the White's ideas is now to
bring the queen to g7 via g3, but Black's
next move is an, albeit understandable,
over-reaction to this.
22 . . . h4?
The critical position for the combi­
nation, and therefore for the evalution
of the two sides' strategies, arises after
22 . . . ib4! 23. Wfg3 (23. Wff3?! h4 24.
li\ xfS? c x fS 25. 1Llxd5 ic6 exploits the 2) 24. . . h4! 25. W!If4 and here: 2a)25 . . .
quccn's position on f3 to force exchang­ lt'lc3 is the solid approach. 26. lt'lxc3
es) 23 . . . Wf8 24. 1t'lxd5! (24. 1t'lxf5 exfS (sacrificial ideas look unconvincing
25. lt'lxdS is unconvincing) and now if here, e. g. 26. lt'lc7 1Llxbl 27. Elxbl or 26.
Black wishes to take the knight on dS lt'lf6 1Llxbl) 26 . . . ixc3 27. Eifel (not 27.
he must first nudge the white queen to ILlxfS? exfS 28. ic5+ We8) and White
a worse square: enjoys some queenside pressure, but the
game is not at all clear.
2b)25 . . . exdS adopts a "show-me" at­
titude. 26. Elxb4! axb4 27. 1Llxf5 with an­
other choice for Black:
2b1)27. . . ixfS? 28. WffxfS Wffe7 (28 . . .
Wffe8 is answered by 29. Wffg6 followed by
e6) 29. igS Wffe8 30. e6 1Llc5 (30 . . . lt'lc3
31. Wffg6 1Lle2+ 32. Whl lt'lg3+ 33. hxg3
hxg3+ 34. Wgl would work if the black
queen could reach a suitable square on
the a7-gl diagonal, but unfortunately it
is on the wrong square) 31. e7+! (31. Wfff6
Elh7; 31. exf7? Wffe6) 31. . . Wg8 32. if6
1)24 . . . exdS? 25. ILlxfS (25. e6 is Elh6 and now 33. Wffg5+! Elg6 34. Wffxh4
tempting, but messy and unnecessary.) Elxf6 35. W!fxf6 is the simplest way for
25 . . . ixfS (the knight generates too White to win.
many threats from f5 to be tolerated) 26. 2b2) 27. . . Elh7 28. Wffxb4+ and para­
ElxfS Wffe7 (26 . . . Wffd7 27. Elbfl We8 28. doxically, the black king is safest in the
W!lg7 Elf8 29. e6 Wffxe6 30. EleS) 27. Elbfl centre:
We8 (27. . . Wffe6 28. Elxf7+ comes to the 2b21) 28 . . . 'i!lg8? 29. Wffg4+ 'i!lh8 (29. . .
same thing; 27. . . Elh7 28. Wffg6) 28. Elxf7 Wf8? 30. ih6+ mates) 30. e6! decisive­
W!fxf7 29. Elxf7 Wxf7 30. W!ff3+ We6 (no ly opens the long diagonal to h8: 30 . . .
better are 30 . . . Wg7 31. Wfff6+ Wg8 32. ixe6 31. id4+ f6 32. Wffg6
e6 Elh7 33. id4; 30 . . . Wg8 31. Wffxd5+ 2b22) 28 . . . 'i!le8 29. lt'ld6+ 'i!lf8 30.
Wf8 32. e6 Elh7 33. id4 and 30 . . . We7 ILlfS+ gives White a draw - it seems risky
31. Wfff6+) 31. Wfff6+ 'i!ld7 32. Wfff7+ 'i!lc6 to try for more (e. g. 30. 1Llxf7+ Wffe7).
33. Wffe6+ WbS 34. Wffxd5+ with two pos­ To summarize this analysis: Black
sible defences: should have played, 22 . . . ib4 when af­
la)34 . . . ILleS 35. ixcS ixc5+ 36. d4 ter 23. Wffg3 Wf8 24. lt'lxdS! h4! 25. W!If4,
Elhc8 37. dxcS ElxcS 38. Wffxb7 Ela6 (38 . . . he should choose between 25 . . . lt'lc3
Eld8 39. e6! e. g. 39 . . . Eld2 40. Wffd7+! with a complex battle in prospect, and
Elxd7 41. exd7 EldS 42. b7) 39. e6 Elxb6 25 . . . exdS 26. Elxb4! axb4 27. 1t'lxf5 Elh7
40. Wffd7+ and 41. e7 wins. which appears to be a forced draw.
lb)34 . . . icS 35. ixc5 1Llxb6 (or 35 . . . 23. �al
lt'lxcS 36. d4 e.t.c.) 36. Wffd6 should win 23. 1Llxf5 exfS 24. 1Llxd5 is a less con­
for White vincing sacrificial attempt, since Black

44
1 , ,, · . 1 1 1 or e pieces ready to defend his The critical continuation was 26 . . .
lo.il ll',· V!Jc8 27. V!JxfS! (threatening, amongst
n . . . ie7 other things, 28. igS!) 27. . . V!Jc6 (27. . .
.'\ . . . V!Je7 loses to 24. lL:\x£5! E!:g8 28. V!Jf7+ 'i!ld7 29. l2Jc5+ 'i!lc6 30 .
V!Jxe7 and the black pieces are too poor­
ly placed to put up a decent defence to
the matting threats.) 28. igS! V!Jxb6+ 29.
d4 V!Jb4 (29 . . . 'i!ld7 30. l2Jc5+ 'i!lc7 31.
ixe7 with a winn�ng attack.) 30. V!if7+
'i!ld7 31. ixe7 V!Jxe7 32. l2:\c5+ 'i!ld8 33.
l2:\xb7+ 'i!ld7 34. e6+, winning the black
queen.
27. lLlxd8 �xd8 28. ic5

l4. �xa4! ha4

1\ t the cost of "just"an exchange,
White has removed the irritating black
1, 1 1 i�l1t and drawn a defensive bishop off-
''" "'·
H. .!Lldxe6! fxe6 26. c!Llxe6
"The great virtuoso of the break­
r i l l 1 1ugh presents his chefd 'oeuvre. Black,
.r 1 lea r rook ahead, must now lose, play

. I ' • he will. To have foreseen all this is White is clearly winning; his queen is
.1 hri IIi ant piece of work by Pillsbury. too powerful and Black's army too poor­
I I wre are few combinations on record to ly coordinated. The rest of the game is
I w rompared to it." - Euwe. Of course, a nice example of the theme "using a
11 is not clear to what extent Pillsbury queen actively to harass loose pieces".
l 'l ayed the intuition, and how far he had 28 . . . �c8 29. ixe7 'i!lxe7 30. V!Je3
' • 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 in the lines following 22 . . . ib4, �c6 31. �g5+ 'i!lf7 32. �cl E!:xcl+ 33.
l 1 1 1 1 there is no doubting Euwe's con­ �xcl �c8 34. �el h3
' h r sion. 34 . . . a4 35. �xh4 a3 36. Wfh7+ 'i!le8
26 • . • id7 (36 . . . 'i!le6 37. 1!9g7) 37. 1!9g6+ 'i!lf8 38.
I .asker is convincing that White's �d6+ 'i!le8 39. �xa3 eliminates the
l ' l ay is sound and, true to his nature, passed a-pawn with Black's last hope.
.
.. . cks the best practical chances of sav- 35. gxh3 �g8+ 36. �f2 a4 37. �b4
1 1 1� the game. However, this is practi- �g6 38. 'i!lf3 a3 39. �xa3 l'M>6 40. �c5
1 a l ly equivalent to resignation, since the �e641. �c7 �e742. �f4b643. h4�c6
" l "·actical chances" are little more than a 44. �b8 ie8 45. �xf5 �h6 46. �c7+
way to prolong the agony.

45
1tlf"H 47. WIJH b5 48. e6 gh7 49. 'tt>e5 b4
'ill. '!Wd6+
1-0
Lessons from this game:
1) Great ingenuity is needed to break
through a defensive wall - it may be
necessary to loosen the opponent's po­
sition by play on both wings, and to sac­
rifice material to divert crucial defen­
sive pieces.
2) When facing a massive sacrificial
attack, keep calm and try to find ways
to interfere with the smooth operation
of the attacking pieces - this may mean
striking at the reinforcements, rather
than the advanced units.
3) A queen on an open board can
overpower a large number of uncoordi­
nated pieces, especially if one of them
is king.
GAME 13 0 55
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Maroczy, Geza
Budapest, 1896
Notes by Maroczy
1. d4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. ll:lc3 ll:lf6 4. .ig5
.ie7 5. e3 0-0 6. ll:lf3 b6 7. gcl .ib7 8 .
cxd5 exd5
46
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
9. .ixf6 .ixf6 10 . .id3 ll:ld7 11. 0-0
c5 12 . .ih1 c4
This move costs a pawn and is the­
oretically unsound as shown by Black­
burne. In the Frankfurt Tournament,
1887, the weakness ofthe move has been
demonstrated repeatedly since.
Correct is 12 . . . cxd4 13. tt:lxd4 tt:lcS
e.t.c., and White stands somewhat bet­
ter.
13. ll:ld2! gcs
The double threats of14. tt:ldS or 14.
\!;!ff3 followed by 15. tt:lc4 cannot be par­
ried. Pillsbury makes the most of his
material advantage.
14. ll:lxd5 .ixd4 15. exd4 .ixd5 16 .
.ixh7+ ®xh7 17. \!;!fh5+ 'tt>g8 18. \!;!fxd5
�\16 19. '1Wxd8 �fxd8 20. .!bxc4 �xd4 21. GAME 14 0 46
�\c3 �xc1 22. �xcl g6 23. ®fl ®g7 24.
1t1c2 o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Winawer, Szymon

Budapest, 1896

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3 . .!bc3 c6 4. e3
4. e4 leads to the Marshall Gambit
in the Slav Defence. The text intends
to complete development before play­
ing e4.
4. . . .!bf6
4 . . . id6 5. '1Wc2 f5 6. id3 l/Jf6 7.
l/Jge2 (7. f4 0-0 8. l/Jf3 l/Je4 9. 0-0 l/Jd7
10. c5 ic7 11. id2 l/Jxd2 12. '1Wxd2 l/Jf6
24. . . �d7 25. �d1 �e7 26. �d4 .!be4 13. b4 id7 14. li:le5 Vife7 15. b5 cxb5 16.
27. f3 .!bc5 28. �d2 .!be6 29. �d6 .!bc7 l/Jxd7 '1Wxd7 17. l/Jxb5 �fc8 18. �ab1 l/Je8
30. a4 .!be8 31. �d8 .!bf6 32. g4 'Bb7 33. 19. li:lxc7 'Bxc7 20. 'Bb5 li:lf6 21. 'Bfb1 'Bf8
.!bc4 'Bd7 34. �xd7 .!bxd7 35. b4 ®f6 36. 22. 'BaS a6 23. 'Ba3 h6 24. 'Bab3 'Bf7 25.
h4 ®e6 37. ®d3 .!bf6 38. ®d4 'Bb6± Georgiev, Kir - Sveshnikov, E I
Presidents Cup 1998) 7. . . 0-0 8. f3 ®h8
9. id2 \We7 10. cxd5 cxd5 11. l/Jb5 li:lc6
8
12. l/Jxd6 '1Wxd6 13. 'Bel id7 14. Vifc5
7 vtib8 15. 0-0;1; Rustemov, A - Svesh­
6 nikov, E I Vilnius 1997
5
5 . .!bf3 .!bbd7 6. id3
6. Vifc2 is an Anti-Meran system.
4
6 . . . i.d6
3 6 . . . dxc4 7. ixc4 b5 is the main line.
2 For example: 8. id3 ib7 9. 0-0 a6 10.
e4 c5 11. d5 Vifc7 12. dxe6 fxe6 13. Vife2
c4 14. ic2 id6 15. l/Jg5 li:lc5 16. f4 h6
17. l/Jf3 l/Jd3 18. ixd3 cxd3 19. '1Wxd3 0-
38 . . . .!bd5 39. b5 f6 40 . .!bb2 .!bc7 0 20. ®h1 'Bad8 21. l/Jd4 ic5 22. ie3
41 . .!bd3 ®d6 42. .!bf4 g5 43. hxg5 fxg5 l/Jg4 23. l/Jce2 l/Jxe3 24. Vifxe3 'Bxd4 25.
44. .!bh3 .!be6+ 45. ®e4 .!bc5+ 46. ®f5 l/Jxd4 \Wb6 26. 'Bad1 �d8 27. f5 'Bxd4
.!bxa4 47. .!bxg5 28. 'Bxd4 ixd4-+ Bareev, E-Shirov, A/
1-0 Hastings 1991192
7. 0-0 0-0 8. e4 dxe4
8 . . . dxc4!? 9. ixc4 e5 with a slight
plus for White.
9. .!bxe4 .!bxe4 10 . .ixe4

47
 10. . . ltlf6?
10 . . . h6 1 1 . ic2 e5 12. b3 f5 13.
dxe5 ltlxe5 14. ib2 '?flc7 15. h3 ltlxf3+
16. '?flxf3 ie6 17. Elfel Elae8 18. Ele2 ic8
19. Elae1 '?flf7 20. c5! ib8 21. b4 fue2 22.
Elxe2 <.t>h7 23. ib3± Tukmakov, V-Ba­
reev, E/USSR-ch, 1987
1 1 . ic2 h6 12 . .ie3 Ele8 1 3 . �d3
'?flc7
16. hh6! hd4
If16 . . . gxh6, then 17. '?flg3+ @f8 (or
17. . . @h8 18. ltlg6++-) 18. ltlg6+ wins.
17. '?flxd4 gxh6 18. �f4 ltld5
18 . . . <.t>g7 19. '?flg3+ @f8 20. tLlg6+
winning the O.J:leen.
19. �xh6 f6
19 . . . '?flxe5 20. ih7+ @h8 21. ig6+
@g8 22. '?flh7+ @f8 23. '?flxf7#

14. c5! 20. f4 Ele7

A good idea. 20 . . . fxe5 21. '?flg6+ @f8 22. fxe5+
14 . . . .if8 15. ltle5! <tt>e7 23. Elf7+ wins.
At first sight a wrong move, but in re­ 20 . . . '?flg7 21. '?flh5 and Elf3-g3
ality it is the beginning of a pretty final 21. ltlg6
continuation. 1-0
15 . . . hc5 Black has no defence.
Also possible is 15 . . . g6 A most attractive game.

48
GAME 15 C49

1 1 Robinson, David Stuart

• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

New York State vs Pennsylvania,

1897

Notes by Pillsbury

1. e4 e5 2. lLlf3 ltlc6 3. ltlc3 lt:lf6 4 .

.I!Lh5 .ib4 5. 0-0 0-0 6. d3 .bc3 7. bxc3
tl6 8 . .ig5 ltle7 9. .bf6 gxf6
13. exf5
If 13. '.Wh5 fxe4 14. '.Wxe5 ltlg6 15.
ltlxg6 hxg6 16. dxe4 El:e8, followed by
17. . . El:xe4, with the better game for
Black.
13 . . . lLlx£5 14. lt:lxf5 .ix£5 15. �h5
'.Wf6 16. �ael gae8 17. f3 ®h8 18. ®h1
�g8

10. ltlh4
To this point the opening moves are
1 he same as in game between Chigorin
and myself at St. Petersburg and at Bu­
dapest.
Chigorin continued 10. '.Wd2, which
is better than the text.
10. . . c6 11 . .ic4
For now he cannot play 11. .ia4 be­ 19. d4 e4 20. fxe4 .ixe4 21. gxf6
cause of 11 . . . '.Wa5 hg2+ 22. ®g1 �el+ 23. @£2 gfl+ 24.
®e3 ge8+
11 . . . d5 12 . .ib3 f5

49

25. l.We5
After 25. 'it>d2 l'!xf6 e.t.c., Black has
two rooks and a pawn against the queen,
and White's bishop is totally out of the
game.
25 . . . l'!xe5+ 26. dxe5 l'!xf6 27. exf6
i.fl
Leaving the position a theoretical
win for Black.
28. 'it>d4 h6
29. a4 'it>h7 30. a5 'it>g6 31. 'it>e5 'it>g5
32. i.a4 i.c4 33. i.b3 i.b5 34. i.a2 b6
35. axb6 axb6 36. i.b3 h5 37. i.a2 i.c4
38. i.b3 b5 39. 'it>d6 'it>xf6 40. 'it>xc6
'it>e5
0-1
50
American Chess Magazine, 9/1897,
p. 240
GAME 16 0 36
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Showalter, Jackson Whipps
New York USA-ch m/5, 1898
Notes by Pills bury & Showalter
1 . d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. ltlc3 ltlf6 4. i.g5
i.e7 5. e3 ll:lbd7 6. ll:lf3 0-0 7. cxd5
To this point similar to the games in
the previous match, but this game takes
a different turn.
7. . . exd5 8. i.d3 c6 9. l.Wc2
In similar positions in the last match,
White developed the rook to cl, but the
text-move seems superior.
9. . . l'!e8 10. 0-0 ll:lf8
The move ideas to exchanges rather
in Black's favour and nullifies White's
threatened attack.
1 1 . ll:le5 ll:l g4 12 . .ixe7 Wxe7 1 3 .
ll:lxg4 i.xg4 14. l'!ae1 l.Wf6
 Vflg5 at once was more in keep­
1·1. . .
' " J ', with Black's attack on the adverse
II I I I�.
l .'i . a4 �e7 16. b4 �ae8 17. b5 Vflg5
18. f4 Vflf6
In thorough keeping with the king's
·.ulc attack, but although forcing the
Wl'akening of White's e-pawn, it, on
1 he other hand, allows White to gain
I I I IJlOrtant time for the break on the
qm:cn's side.
19. Vfid2 .if5 20. a5 Vfig6
Any attempt to force the game by
/0 . �xe3 would fail: 21. �xe3 Vflxd4
. .
n. �fel ixd3 23. �le2 �xe3 24. �xe3
:111d White wins the bishop.
21. ixf5 Vflxf5
51
22. a6
The climax ofWhite's attack upon
the queen's wing is here reached. It will
be seen that White's purpose is to isolate
the adverse pawns.
22 . . . cxb5
If 22 . . . bxa6 23. bxc6 Vfle6 24. e4
leads to interesting variations, and
White relieves the weak spot at e3.
23. ttlxb5 Vfld7 24. axb7 a6
Forced; obviously if24 . . . Vflxb5 25.
�bl and wins.
Or, if24. . . Vflxb7 25. ttld6
25. ttlc3 Vflxb7
[1:45-1:54]
26. �b1 1Mlc6
26 . . . Vfld7 was perhaps better. White
would have continued 27. ttldl, threat­
ening to attack the isolated pawns with
queen and rook.
27. �fcl
27. . . 1Mld6
Obliously if27. . . �xe3 28. tt:le4
28. ttldl ttlg6 29. g3 h5
Qiestionable, 29. . . h6 was safer.
30. 1Mle2 h4 31. 1Mlh5 hxg3 32. hxg3
ttlf8 33. �c5 :Bd8 34. �bel g6 35. 1Mlf3
ttle6

8 8
7 7
6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
36. �c8
If 36. !'1c6 �a3 , threatening 37 . . .
l2Jxd4
36 . . . �g7
Black should have doubled his rooks,
preventing White from occupying the
eighth row. The text-move is an error
which leads to the carry loss of a pawn.
37. �d8 li:lxd8
If 37. . . "Wxd8 38. f5, with a strong
attack.
38. �c5 ltle6 39. �xd5 �b6 40. !'1cl
�b4
[2:54-2:59]
41. lilf2 �d2?
An error, which loses a second pawn.
41. . . a5 gave better fighting chances.
8
7 "Wxd6 7. exd6 ixd6 8. l2Jbd2± Pillsbury,
5
4
3 4. ltlc3
2 4. dxe5!? lilxe4 5. "Wd5 with a very
52
42 . �e5+ f6 43. �xf6+ �xf6 44.
ltle4+ �f5 45. lilxd2 g5 46. d5 gxf4
Black is playing to sacrifice the
knight for the two pawns, but the passed
d-pawn is sufficient to win the game for
White.
47. gxf4 lilxf4 48. exf4 �xf4 49. �c5
�d7 50. ltlc4 'it>e4 51. d6 �d4 52. �c7
�d8 53. d7 �d5 54. �c8
[3:31-3:58]
1-0
GAME 17 C41
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Blackburne, Joseph Henry
Vienna, 1898
1. e4 e5 2. lilf3 d6
The Philidor Defence.
3. d4 lilf6
3 . . . ig4 4. dxe5 "We7 (4 . . . ixf3 5.
Wxf3 dxe5 6. ic4 l2Jf6 7. "Wb3 "We7 8.
l2Jc3 c6 9. ig5 b5 10. l2Jxb5 cxb5 11.
ixb5+ l2Jbd7 12. 0-0-0 !'1d8 13. E1xd7
E1xd7 14. !'1d1 "We6 15. ixd7+ l2Jxd7 16.
"Wb8+ l2Jxb8 17. E1d8# 1 -0 Morphy, P­
Duke of Brunswick and Count lsouard/
Paris Opera House 1858. Often used
by chess teachers to explain the value of
rapid development.) 5. Wd5 c6 6. Wxd6
H-Blackburne, J /America vs England
1899
3 . . . exd4 4. "Wxd4!? tt:lc6 5. ib5 Pills­
bury, H-Blackburne, J /London 1899
promising position.
4 . . . lilbd7 5 . .ic4 h6
5 . . . ie7 is the main line.
 6. ie3 c6 7. �e2 White has won a pawn.
7. a4!? restraining a possible b7-b5 17. . . d5 18. exd5 .!Llf4 19. �£2 .!Ll6xd5
7. . . �c7 20 . .!Llxd5 cxd5
I 'robably better is simply 7. . . b5 20 . . . .!Llxd5 cannot save the game.
H. a4 21. .ib6 �e5 22. l'!he1
There are several ways to win.
22 . . . �g5 23. 'it>b1 .id6 24. ixd8
fud8 25. a5 .ih4

8 . . . exd4
. 8 . . j,e7 is more logical. The text
1 1 1ove brings White's pieces into pow­
nful action. 26. a6
9. .!Llxd4 .!Lle5 10. ih3 .ig4? An interesting move.
Anti-positional. 10 . . . ie7 was the 26 . . . bxa6
right move. 26 . . . ixel 27. l'!xel bxa6 28. �c5+
11. f3 .ih5 12. g4.ig6 13. .!Llf5 hf5 'kt>b8 29. l'!e7 White wins.
14. gxf5 g5 15. fxg6 .!Llxg6 16. 0-0-0 27. c3 .ia5 28. �a7 �f6 29. l'!e7�c6
30. .ia4
1-0

GAME 18 cao

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Tarrasch, Siegbert

Vienna, 1898

1. e4e5 2 . .!Llf3 .!Llc6 3. ib5 a64. ia4

.!Llf6 5. 0-0 .!Llxe4 6. d4 b5 7. ih3 d5
16 . . . 0-0-0 The open variation in the Ruy Lo­
pez.
17. ha7 8. a4

53
 This move was first played in the
London Tournament of 1883 by Chig­
orin against Rosenthal. 8. dxe5 ie6 9.
c3 1e7 10. !'le1 0-0 11. tt:ld4 tt:lxd4 (11 . . .
tt:la5) 12. cxd4 c6 13. f3 tt:lg5 14. tt:lc3 (14.
h4 tt'lh3+ 15. gxh3 1xh4;;) 14. 0 . 1£5 15.
g4 ic8 16. f4 b4 17. tt:la4 tt:le4 18. f5 1g5
19. '!Wf3 1xc1 20. !'laxcl with an advan­
tage for White Pillsbury, H-Pollock, W
/Hastings 1895

12. lLld2?!
12. ia4 was a better try, for example:
12 . . . id7 13. !'le1 1e7 14. '!Wxg7±
12 . •. lLlg5
12 . . . tt:lc5 13. '!Wxb4 (13. !'le1+ ie6)
13 . . . ie7 followed by castling was less
principled.
13. 1a4
13. c4!?
13 . . . id7 14. gel+ lL!e6 15. lL!f3 1e7
8 . . . b4 16. '!Wg4 0-0 17. lL!e5 �c7 18. 1f4
A poor idea which only helps White's
attacking aims. 8 . . . tt:lxd4 9. tt:lxd4 exd4
10. axb5 (10. tt:lc3!?) 10 . . . ic5 11. c3 0-0
12. cxd4 ib6 13. tt:lc3 ib7 14. bxa6 !'lxa6
15. !'lxa6 1xa6 16. !'le1 1b7 17. tt:la4 '!Wf6
18. ie3 1a7 19. f3 tt:lg5oo Lasker, Em­
Schlechter, C /Wch m/10 1910
8 . . . ib7 9. axb5 axb5 10. !'lxa8 1xa8
· 1 1. dxe5 tt:la5 12. 1a2 c5 13. c3± Pills­
bury, H-Scudier/Germany 1902
8 . . . ie6 9. axb5 axb5 10. !'lxa8 '!Wxa8
11. dxe5 tt:la5 12. tt:ld4 tt:lxb3 13. cxb3 c6
14. f3 tt:lc5 15. f4± Winawer, S-Berger,
]/Nuremberg 1883 18. id2!? id6 19. tt:lxd7 '!Wxd7 20.
For 8 . . . !'lb8, see the game Pillsbury, ixb4? h5 21. �h4 g5 22. '!Wxh5 1xb4
H-Janowski, D /Munich 1900 23. c3 1e7 24. 1c2 f5-+
9. a5 lL!xd4 10. lL!xd4 exd4 11. '!Wxd4 18 . . . 1d6!
c6 18 . . . h5 19. �h3! (19. tt:lxc6? 1xc6
20. '!Wxe6 fXe6 (20. . . '!Wxf4 21. '!Wxc6) 21.

54
il.xc7 .ixa4 22. E:xa4 E:fc8-+) 19. . . .id6
.W. .ig3 E:ae8 21. '?NxhS t1'lc5 was un­
r lcar.
19. .ig3 f5+

27. . . .if8
Black must try to keep lines closed.
The alternative was 27. . . lLlb7
28. �d4g6
20. '?Ndl l1'lc5 28 . . . 'it>g8 deserves attention.
20 . . . f4 is stronger. 21. l1'lxd7 fxg3 29. �edl ttlb7
22. E:xe6 '?Nxd7 23. '?NxdS cxdS 24. hd7
J!l.cS+
21. ttlxd7 '?Nxd7
21 . . . lLlxd7 was more accurate.

30. �d7
White keeps up the pressure.
30 . . . �b8
30. . . lLlxaS 31. E:c7 E:e8 32. g4!? fxg4?
22. '?Nxd5+! 33. E:d5+-
The best practical chance. 31. �1d5
22 . . . cxd5 23. hd7 hg3? Black is already in a critical condi­
23 . . . f4 24. .ie6+ lLlxe6 25. fue6 E:f6 tion.
26. E:xf6 gxf6 27. .ih4 E:c8+ 31. . . 'it>g8 32. 'it>fl ttlc5 33. �a7 �c8
24 . .ic6 .id6 25 . .ixd5+ 'it>h8 26. 34. g3 .ig7 35. b3 .if8 36. h4 �c6 37.
.ixa8 E:xa8 27. �adl �ds :gf6

55
 1'/. . . 1 : 1 ! � .\H. �4 fl
:JH. Y!hH 14 39. l;b6 );f5 40. g4 a
7

14. . . h6
This move weakens the kingside.
Now it's clearly over. The alternative was 14 . . . Ele8
40 . . . l;d5 41. 'i!?g2 l;d442. l;b8 l;d7 15 . .ih4 l;e8 16. );f3 ll:le4 17. �xe7
43. l;xd7 ll:lxd7 44. l;b7 ll:lc5 45. l;xb4 Wfxe7 18. he4 dxe4 19. l;g3 ll:lf6
.id6 46. l;b6 .ie7 47. b4 ll:la4 48. l;xa6 There is no defence.
hb449. l;a8+ 'i!?f7 50. a6
a b c d e f g h
1-0

GAME 19 0 55

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Janowski, Dawid
Markelowicz

Vienna, 1898

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. ll:lc3 ll:lf6 4 . .ig5

.ie7 5. e3 0-0 6. l;cl 20. a4!
6. tt:l£3 b6 7. cxd5 exd5 8. tt:le5 �b7 9. A very powerful move.
�d3 tt:lbd7 10. f4 c5 11. 0-0 a6 12. Wff3 20 . . . b4
l;e8 13. l;adU Pillsbury, H-Gottshal, 20 . . . W/b4 21. tt:lg4±
H, Hannover, 1902 21. ll:ld1 c3 22. bxc3 bxc3 23. l;xc3
6 . . . ll:lbd7 7. ll:lf3 b6 8. cxd5 exd5 9. White is a pawn up at the moment .
.id3 23 . . . l;ec8 24. ll:lg4 ll:lxg4 25. Wfxg4
For 9. tt:le5, see the game Pillsbury, f6 26. h4 Elxc3 27. ll:lxc3 Elc8 28. ll:le2
H-Wolf, H/Monte Carlo 1903 f5
9. . .ib7 10. 0-0 c5 11. We2 c4 12 .
.

.ib1 a6 13. ll:le5 b5 14. f4

56
 GAME20 0 55

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Schiffers, Emanuel
Stepanovich

Vienna, 1898

Notes by Sergeant & Watts

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. ltlc3 ltlf6 4. .ig5

.ie7 5. e3 0-0 6. ltlf3 b6 7. cxd5 exd5 8 .
.id3 .ib7 9. ltle5 ltlbd7 10. f4
Janowski is looking for every possi-
hll'swindle.
29. �xf5 E:c2 30. �g4 .ic8 31. f5
11. �h5 �f7
31. . . �f7
11. . . .L£5 32. �x£5 E\xe2±
32. ltlf4 .bf5 33. �dl �c4 34. �h5
Winning a second pawn.
34 . . . E:cl + 35. �h2 �f7 36. �xh6

10 . . . ltle4 11. .ixe7 �xe7 12 . .ixe4

dxe4 13. 0-0 f5

Black could resign but he prefers to

li�ht to the end.
36 . . . �f8 37. �d6+ �g8 38. h5 �h7
39. E:g5 .id7 40. �g6+ �xg6 41. hxg6+
lt>g8 42. E:d5 .ie8 43. E1d8 �f8 44. ll:\d5
E:c6 45. E:a8
1-0 A simple alternative was 13 . . . lt:lxe5
Very nicely played. 14. fxe5 c5

57
 The text-move, nevertheless, is good
enough, and better than either 13 . . . f6
14. ttlxd7 �xd7 15. f5
or 13 . . . c5 14. ttlxd7 �xd7 15. dxc5
14. g4
This looks rather like taking liberties
with his opponent and it certainly los-
es a pawn. In reply to Black's next move,
15. dxeS would not be good, 15 . . . �cS
then possible.
14. . . lLlxe5 15. fxe5 �g5 16. a:f4 h5
17. eb3+ 'it>h7 18. a:afl hxg4
19. d5! g3
19 . . . ia6 is stronger. If 20. tt'lxe4,
then 20 . . . ee7!
20. h4
Now 20. ttlxe4 gxh2+ 21. 'it>xh2 £Xe4
22. a:xfB might have forced Black to play
for a draw with queen checks. But Pills­
bury wished to win.
20 . . . ee7 21. edt! g6 22. h5 'it>g7
22 . . . �xeS is bad on account of23.
hxg6+ 'it>xg6 (23 . . . 'it>g7 24. ehS) 24.
�e1
23. ed4
58
8 8
7 7
6 6
5
4 4
3 3
2
23 . . . a:ad8?
He should have played 23 . . . cS 24.
dxc6 ixc6 holding on to his extra pawn.
Now he is lost.
24. e6+ <i>h6
If24. . . ef6, of course simply 25. e7.
The ending is interesting.
25. hxg6 'it>:xg6 26. ee5!! eh7
27. a:4f2! gxf2+ 28. a:xf2 eh6 29.
a:g2+ 'it>h7 30. exc7+ 'it>h8 3 1 . a:h2
a:g8+ 32. <i>f2 exh2+ 33. exh2+ 'it>g7
34. ec7+ 'it>h6 35. exb7 a:g7 36. ea6
'it>g6 37. lLle2 'it>f6 38. ec4 a:dg8 39.
lLlf4 a:h7 40. ec3+ 'it>g5 41. d6 a:h2+ 42.
lt>el 'it>g4 43. 'it>dl 'it>f3 44. eel a:xb2
45. lLle2
1-0
GAME21 C48 13 . . . f5 14. exf5 i.xf5 15. e4 i.e6
16. h3 .!tlf6 17. Wfe3 c5 18. 0-0 .!tlh5 19.
1 1 Walbrodt, Carl August c!Lle2
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

Vienna, 1898

Notes by Sergeant & Watts

1. e4 e5 2. c!Llf3 c!Llc6 3. i.b5 c!Llf6 4. d3

1c5 5. c!Llc3 d6 6. i.g5 h6 7. i.e3 i.b6 8. a4

19. . . g5!
With this strong move Black obtains
a distinct advantage.
20. �h2 Wfd7 21 . .!tlfgl
It was better to play 21. g4 followed
by tt:lg3 and tt:lf5.
21. . . .!tlf4 22. .!tlxf4 gxf4 23. Wff3

With this and the next few moves he

hopes to obtain an advantage by com­
pelling Black to play. . . i.xe3. But the
' lpcn f-file is not worth the time lost.
8 . . 0-0 9. i.xc6 bxc6 10. a5 i.xe3 11.
.

fxe3 �b8 12. b3 c!Llg4 13. Wfe2

23 . . . �h7
The open g-file now decides the issue
in Black's favour.
24. g3 fxg3+ 25. Wfxg3 �g8 26. Wfe3
Wfg7 27. �f2 �bf8 28. �afl

59
 GAME22 815

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Caro, Horatio

Vienna, 1898

l . e4 c6
1 . . . dS 2. exdS �xdS 3. lt:lc3 �aS 4.
d4 c6 S . .id3!? li:lf6 6. li:lge2 ig4 7. 0-
0 e6 8. if4 li:lbd7 9. �d2 ie7 10. li:lg3
ihS 11. l'l:fe1 0-0 12. l'l:eS! Pillsbury, H­
Bampton, S 1897 (American Chess
28 . . . �f6! 29. lt:le2 �g6 30. �f3 �g5 Magazine, 9/1897, p. 241)
31. �e3 �g6 2. d4 d5 3. lt:lc3 dxe4 4. lt:lxe4 lt:lf6
The threat . . . ixh3 cannot be met. Black's other two possibilities are 4. . .
li:ld7 or 4. . . ifS.
32. ®ht 5. lt:lxf6+
An inferior option is S. li:lg3 g6 6.
li:lf3 ig7 7. ie2 0-0 8. 0-0 �b6 9. b3
aS= Sax, G-Larsen, B/ Tilburg 1979
5 . . . exf6
5 . . gxf6 is also playable.
.

6. lt:lf3
According to theory, 6. c3 is more
critical continuation.
6 . . . id6 7. id3!?
7. ie2 0-0 8. 0-0 l'l:e8 9. l'l:e1 i£5 10.
ie3 li:ld7 11. h3 ie4= Karpov, A-Hort,
V/Tilburg 1979.

lf32. l'l:f6? l'l:g2+ 33. ®h1 l'l:h2+ and

8
mate next move. The way Pillsbury
snatched the attack from his opponent 7
is very interesting. 6
32 . . . .hh3 5
4
0-1
3

60
 7. . .ig4
. 16. d5! c5 17. '®h5+ �c8 18. 0-0-0
T!1o risky. A more solid plan is 7. . . flc7 19. E:d3 E:e4
I I () 19. . . a6!?
R. h3 .ih5 20. E:c3 a6 21. fld3 E:he8?
H. . . '®e7+!?
9. g4 .ig6 10 . .!Ll h4 .!Ll d7 11 . .!Ll f5
1xf5 12. .ix£5

A blunder. 21. . . f5 was of course a

better try.
22. hc5! �d7
12 . . . g6?! if22 . . . ixc5, then 23. d6! is deci-
12 . . . '®e7+ followed by. . . 0 -0 -0 de- sive.
sl'rves attention. 23 .ie3 f!a5 24. a3 b5
•

13. '®e2+ '®e7 14 . .ixd7+ �xd7 15. One mistake leads to another.
.l!l.c3 E:ae8 After 24. . . if4 25. hf4 E:xf4 26. d6
Black is defenceless.
25. gc6 .if4 26. �b1 .ixe3 27. fxe3
E:xe3 28. fld4

Tartakower wrote: 'The pawn major­

ity on the '® side - an important factor
i n endgames - can also be of moment
in the middlegame, as can be seen here.' 28 . . . l'i:el+ 29. �a2 E:xh1 30. f!a7+
(500 Master Games of Chess) 1-0

61
GAME23 C31

o Chigorin, Mikhail
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

Vienna, 1898

1. f4 e5 2. e4 d5 3. exd5 e4
3 . . . c6 4. dxc6 l2Jxc6 5. ibS exf4 6.
l2Jf3 id6 7. d4 l2Jge7 8. 0-0 0-0 9. l2Ja3
ig4 10. t2Jc4 ic7 11. c3 ttJdSco Ree, H­
Short, N/Wijk aan Zee 1986

4. ih5+ 11 . . . c4 12. .ixc4 .ic5+ 13. @h1?!

For 4. l2Jc3, see the game Lasker, Em­
Pillsbury, H /Augsburg 1900
4 . . . c6 5. dxc6 bxc6 6. ic4 l2Jf6
13. l2J d4!? xg4 13 . . . l2Jb6 14. ie2
ttJbxdS with an excellent compensation
for the pawn.
1 3 . . . ttJb6 14 . .ih3 l2Jg4 15. Wfe1
l2Jxd5

7. d4
7. Wfe2 icS 8 . l2Jc3 0-0� Bird, H­
Pillsbury, H/London 1899 16. h3
7. . . id6 8. l2Je2 0-0 9. 0-0 c5 10. d5 He should have played 16. ixdS
ttJbd7 11. ih3 Wfxd5 17. h3
16 . . . l2Jde3 17. he3 l2Jxe3 18. l2Jbc3
l2Jxf1 19. tilxe4 .ih6 20. Wfxfl ih7 21.
til2c3 Wfh4

62
 8 8
7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

Black has a clear advantage.
22. ll:\d5 �ae8 23. ll:\g5 h6 24. ll:\f3
JM!g3 25. ll:\e5 .ie3 26. ll:\d3 �e4 27. �f3
�xf3 28. gxf3 �ee8
32 . . . �d2! 33. cxd4 �xd3 34. �cl
�xd4 35. �c5 �d8 36 . .ic4 �d2 37. b4
g6 38. b5 ®g7 39. a4 h5 40. a5 h4+
0-1

[41. ®h4 :1!g2. ] An energetic game

by Pillsbury.

GAME24 C67

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Tarrasch, Siegbert

Vienna playoff m/2

for 1st prize, 1898
29. ®g2?
29. �dl was the right move. 1. e4 e5 2. ll:\f3 ll:\c6 3 . .ib5 ll:\f6 4. 0-
29 .•. .id4 30. c3 0 ll:\xe4 5. d4 .ie7 6. �e2
30. ®fl .ic8 6. d5!? ll:\d6 is unclear.
30 . . . hd5 31 . .ixd5 �e2+ 32. ®g3 6 . . . ll:\d6 7. .ixc6 bxc6 8. dxe5 ll:\b7
9. ll:\c3 0-0 10. :1!el

63
 10 . . . c!Llc5 14. c!Lla4
10 . . . d5 11. exd6 �xd6 12. �c4 tLlcS Simple and strong because of the
13. �g5 �a6 14. �h4 f6 15. �e3;!; Pills­ weakness of cS.
bury, H-Gunsberg, I /Hannover 1902 14 . . . .ib4 15. c3 .ia5 16. �h5 .ib6
10 . . . f6 1 1 . exf6 (11. �c4+) 1 1 . . . 17. �e3.ie6 18. �g3 @h8 19. �d1 �e7
�xf6 12. tLle4 d 5 13. lLlxf6+ �xf6 14. 20. b4
�g5 �g6 15. �e7 �e8 16. �d2 �fS 17.
tLlh4 �f7 18. lLlxfS �xfS 19. �e3 tLld6
20. �xd6 cxd6= Maroczy, G-Pillsbury,
H /Monte Carlo 1903
ll. ll:\d4
In more recent games White has pre­
ferred 11. �e3 tLle6 12. �ad1 d5 13. exd6
cxd6 14. c!Lld4± Karpov, A-Korchnoi, VI
Merano m/2 1981
ll . . . ll:\e6 12. �e3
12. lLlxe6 fxe6 13. b3 (13. �e3 d5 14.
tLla4 d4 15. �ad1 c5 16. �cl �d5 with
a distinct plus for Black Showalter, }­
Janowski, D /Vienna 1898) 13 . . . �e8 20 . . . hd4
14. �b2 �b7 15. �g4 1/2-1/2 Spassky, This is fatal.
B-Smyslov, V/Tilburg 1979 The correct move was 20 . . . aS
12 . . . ll:\xd4
12 . . . �b8!? 21. �xd4 f6 22. c!Llc5 fxe5 23. �xe5
13. hd4 d5? �f6 24. �xf6 �xf6 25. �e3 .ig8 26. f3
This leads to positional difficulties.
A better try was 13 . . . cS 14. �e3 d5
15. exd6 hd6

64
 GAME25 C45

o Judd, Max
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

St Louis, 1899

Notes by Pillsbury

1 . e4 e5 2. ttlf3 ttlc6 3. d4 exd4 4.

ttlxd4 ttlf6 5. ttlxc6 bxc6 6 . .id3
6. e5 is a favorite continuation of
some of the German masters, notably
A highly difficult ending for Black. Mieses, the usual continuation being 6 . . .
Vfie7 7. Vfie2 ttld5 (Lasker here once con­
26 . . . g6 27. YJ.e7 YJ.f7 28. 'iJ.e6 aS 29. tinued 7. . . tt:lg8) 8. c4 .ia6 e.t.c.
a4 ilg7 30. :Bxc6 'iJ.e7 31. i/f2 6 . . . d5
Now it's just a matter of technique.

31 . . . axb4 32. cxb4 .if7 33. b5 YJ.b8

34. ttla6 YJ.b7 35. ttlb4 YJ.a7 36. 'iJ.a6 :Bxa6
37. ttlxa6 i/f6 38. 'iJ.d2 c6 39. b6 .ie6 40.
ttlc5 .ic8

7. e5
The more usual line ofplay, leading
to about an even game, is 7. exd5 cxd5
8 . .ib5+ .id7 9. hd7+ Vfixd7 10. 0-0 .ie7
11. tt:ld2 e.t.c.
7. . . ttlg4 8. 0-0 .ic5 9. Vfie2
41. a5 9. if4 is a line of play that has been
quite a subject of analysis oflate. Black
1-0 continues 9 . . . g5 10. id2 (best) (If
10. ig3 h5 11. ie2, and Black can ei­
ther continue 11. . . h4 12 . .ixg4 hxg3
13. hxg3 l"i:b8 or more conservative 11. . .

65
Wie7, in either case with the preferable
game.) 10. . . Wie7 (or 10 . . . tt:lxeS)
But 9. h3 loses, e. g. 9 . . . tt:lxeS 10.
:1l:e1 Wif6 11. Wie2 0-0 12. WixeS Wixf2+
13. 'tt>h 1 .ixh3 14. gxh3 Wif3+ 1S. 'tt>h2
.id6 and wins. This game was played
some years ago between two New York
masters Lipschuetz vs. Delmar, I think.
9. . . �h4
9. . . Wie7 is, perhaps, better.
10. h3
Obviously, 10. .if4 loses by 10. . . tt:lx£2
11. :1l:xf2 Wixf4, winning the exchange.
10 . . . h5
After 10 . . . Wig3 11. hxg4 .ixg4 12.
Wid2 .if3 White responds 13. WigS, win­
ning.
11. tt:ld2 �g3 12. tt:lf3 h4
12 . . . .ie6 is also good, but any at­
tempt to force matters by 12 . . . tt:lx£2 13.
:1l:xf2 ixh.3 14. .ie3, loses a piece for two
pawns only.
13 . .i.d2
13. hxg4 h3 14. tt:le1 hxg2 1S. tt:lxg2
Wih2#
13 . . . :1l:h5 14 . .ic3
lf14. .ib4 .ib6, still threatening 1S. . .
:1l:xeS, and if1S. .iaS, a similar variation
to the actual game by 1S . . . tt:lx£2
14. . . .if5
66
lf 14 . . . :1l:gS, White wins a piece by
1S. 'tt>h1
15 . .ib4
1S. :1l:ad1 would have completed the
retirement of the Black forces, the best
being 1S. . . tt:lh6 16 . .ix£5 tt:lx£5 17. :1l:fe1,
followed by 18 . .id4
15 . . . .ib6 16 .ia5
.
Now 16. :1l:ad1 would lose by 16 . . .
tt:lxf2 17. :1l:xf2 .ixh3 18. 'tt>fl .ig4, fol­
lowed by 19. . . h3, with a winning at­
tack.
And 16. hxg4 loses by 16 . . . h3 17.
tt:le1 hxg2 18. gxhS gxfl=Wi+ 19. 'tt>xfl
.ih3+ e.t.c., this variation also hold­
ing good on the preceding move, had
White then captured the knight.
Also, if16 . .ix£5 fu£5 17. hxg4 h3 18.
tt:le1 .ixf2+ 19. :1l:xf2 (19. 'tt>h1 hxg2+ and
mates next move by Wih3#) 19. . . :1l:xf2
20. Wix£2 h2+ and wins.
16 . . . tt:lxf2 17. lhf2
If 17. .ixb6 tt:lxh3+ 18. 'tt>h 1 tt:lf4,
eventually remaining two pawns plus.
17. . . .ixa5 18 . .ixf5 :1l:xf5 19. ®h1
.ib6 20. :1l:ff1 'tt>f8
Apparendy the only safe place for the
king. 20 . . . 0-0-0, would allow White a
winning attack by 21. a4 aS 22. b4 e.t.c.
21. a4 a5 22. Wid3 :1l:f4
 Probably 22 . . . g6 was safer.
23. e6 �e8
Taking the pawn appears hazardous,
and the sequel shows the opened e-file
i n advantageous to Black.
24. exf7 l'M7 25. 'IM/'h7 �e4 26. 'IM/'h5
g6 27. 'IMI'h6+
27. '\Wh8+ <};}e7 28. liJg5 (Black threat­
l"ns 28 . . . �e2, if, to stop this, 28. :B:ael
Yhel 29. :B:xel+ '\Wxel+ 30. liJxel :i:'!:fl+
and mates in three moves.) 28 . . . '\WxgS
29. :B:xf7+ 'i!ixf7 30. :i:'!:fl+ :B:f4 31. :B:el
jMff6 32. 'IMI'e8+ 'i!ig7 33. :B:e7+ 'i!ih6 and
Black wins.
27. . . <};}g8
The only move.
if27. . . 'i!ie7 28. liJg5, would win for
White, but after the text the white at­
t ack collapsed, Black threatening 28 . . .
.l!i.c3, and White still being unable to
continue 28. :B:ael, on account to the
black queen sacrifice, as in the note to
move 27.
28. liJg5
An error
But if 28. '\Wd2 i.e3 29. '\WxaS i.f4,
and eventually Black sacrifices rook for
knight, and gets a mating position with
queen and bishop.
28 . . . :B:e2!! 29. :B:gl
67
Nothing better, after 29. '\Wxg6+ :B:g7,
the checks cannot be continued.
29. . . .bgl 30. :B:xgl :B:g7 31. liJf3
:B:h7 32. 'IMI'cl :B:f7 33. '\Wdl :B:f2 34. liJel
Loses at once, 34. liJd4 would have
made some fight, although Black, of
course, eventually should win.
34 . . . :1'!:xg2
0-1
For if35. liJxg2 '\Wh3#, or if35. :B:xg2
:i:'!:fl+, and mates next move.
GAME26 C62
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Steinitz, William
London, 1899
Notes by Hoffer
1. e4 e5 2. liJf3 liJc6 3. .ib5 d6 4. liJc3
.id7 5. d4 exd4 6. liJxd4 g6
7. liJxc6 bxc6 8 . .ic4 .ig7
Steinitz has probably worked out
this variation and may be on familiar
ground; otherwise 8 . . . '\We7 might be
suggested.
9. 'IMI'e2 liJe7 10. h4
 It is not easy to suggest a good de­
fence; but 18 . . . <i>h8, followed by 19 . . .

lLlg8 seems the only course, although the

knight would not be comfortably placed
there; but he must provide against the
threatened 19, li:lc5

10. . . h6
Having a knight to take with the
bishop at g7 in case White should ad­
vance the h-pawn to h6, he might leave
the pawns as they stand, and make room
for the queen with 10 . . . ie6
11. h5 g5 12. f4
This excellent move proves Black's
pawn manoeuvre to have been faulty.
12 . . . gxf4 13 . .ixf4 .ie6 14. ixe6
fxe6 15. e5
19. ttlc5! ttlf5
19 . . . lLlc8 is no better. Black's game
in untenable.
20. g4 �e7 21. gxf5 :Sxf5
21 . . . '11*rxc5+ 22. ie3, followed by 23.
f6, and the rest plays itsel£
22. ttld3 �h4 23. :Sf2 c5 24. :Sh2
�e7 25. :Sg2 <i>h7 26. �g4 �f7 27.
ttlxc5 he5 28. �g6+ �xg6 29. hxg6+
digS 30. he5 E:xe5 31. ttld7
1-0

Excellent judgement. Black's pawn

position is damaged now.
15 . . . 0-0 16. 0-0 d5
A temporary reliefonly. Such a position
cannot be defended against a Pillsbury.
17. :Sad1 �e8 18. ttla4:Sb8?

68
 A remarkably brilliant game. It is my
(Cherniaev) personal favourite, a mas­
terpiece managed beautifully by Pills­
bury.
and he can generally get rid of the iso­
lated pawn if so inclined. But the isolat­
ed pawn being there, it does not seem
consistent to strengthen it by this ex­
change.

GAME27 D60 15. bxc3 lLld5 16. .id2 :gfs

IJ Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Schlechter, Carl

London, 1899

Notes by Hoffer

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. lLlc3 lLlf6 4 . .ig5

ie7 5. e3 0-0 6. lLlf3 lLlbd7 7. .id3 dxc4
8 .ixc4 a6 9. a4 c5 10. 0-0 cxd4 1 1 .
.

cxd4 lLlb6 12 . .ib3 lLlbd5 13. :gel

It is not Schlechter's usual style to

lose moves in this manner.

17. c4 lLlf6 18 . .ic3 lLld7 19. lLlg4 lLlf6

20 . .ic2 lLlxg4 21. �xg4 f5 22. �f3 .if6
23. :gadl �c7 24 . .ih3 .id7

13 . . . :ges
The rook's move is generally made if
there is a chance to advance the e-pawn,
and to make room for a knight at f8. In
this instance the move is not required
for either of these maneuvers.
14. lLle5 lLlxc3
Black did not get any benefit from 25 . .ib4
isolating White's d-pawn; he rarely Preparatory to 26. d5. White's
does in this variation, as White's scope strength lies in the two center pawns,
for maneuvering his pieces is increased, and he relies on this advantage.

69
 2'i . . . l'Uc8 26. d5 �h8 27. a5 exd5
28. cxd5 �xel+ 29. �el �e8 30. �xe8+
ixe8
As rule Schlechter knows how to
wind up a game to a draw if there is no
chance of any better result; but here the
passed pawn becomes stronger after the
rooks are off the board.
31. �dl �e5 32. d6 .id7 33. h3 �d4
34. �xd4 .ixd4 35 . .id5 b6 36. axb6
hb6 37. �fl .id4 38 . .ic4ic8 39. �e2
g5 40. �d3if6 41. .ic3 �g7 42. h£6+
�xf6 43. �d4
43 . . . a5 44. 'it>c5 a4 45. 'it>c6 a3 46.
d7
A high-class ending worthily con­
cluding a well-played game.
46 . . . hd7+ 47. �xd7 �e5 48. �e7
f4 49. ·.ie6 h6 50. �f7 h5 51. f3 h4 52 .
.ia2 �d4 53. �f6 g4 54. fxg4 �e3 55.
g5 �f2 56. g6
1-0
70
GAME28 C52
o Chigorin, Mikhail
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
London, 1899
Notes by Hoffer
1. e4e5 2. tlJf3 tlJc6 3 . .ic4ic5 4. b4
hb4 5. c3.ic5 6. O-O d6 7. d4.ib6
Lasker's defence, which, in giving
back the gambit pawn, leaves Black
with the better pawn position, and de­
prives White ofthe violent attack which
is so troublesome in many of the other
variations.
8. dxe5 dxe5 9. �xd8+
If 9. �b3, then 9 . . . �f6 10 . .id5
tLlge7 11. igS �g6 12. ixe7 �xe7 13.
ixc6 �xc6 14. lLlxeS �e6 15. �a3+ cS
e.t.c., with two bishops against two
knights and better pawns on the queen's
side.
9. . . tlJxd8 10. lLlxe5 ie6
Or 10 . . . tLlf6 The text-move, how­
ever, leaves White without the vestige
of an attack.
 1 1 . lLld2 lLle7 12 . .ia3 f6 13. lt:ld3
lt:lg6 14. l;abl
Intending to dislodge the bishop at
b6, he indirectly attack the b-pawn. If
White is reduced to such a course, it is
better to abandon the Evans Gambit.
14 . . . ®f7 15 . .id5 l;e8 16. c4 c6 17.
.ixe6+ lLlxe6 18. lLlb3
If 18. c5, then 18 . . . �ad8 19. cxb6
�xd3 20. bxa7 �xa3 21. �xb7+ �e7,
and wins. Some such plan must have
prompted Chigorin to 14. �abl. Hav­
ing now to abandon this idea, his rook
on b1 is in a useless position.
18 . . . l;ad8 19. lt:lbcl
If19. �bd1, then 19. . . lt:ld4, winning
a pawn: 20. c5 lt:le2+ 21. ®h1 fi.c7 22. f3
lLlc3 23. �d2 lt:lxa2
19. . . l;d7 20. c5 .ic7 21. g3 lLle5 22.
lt:lxe5+ he5 23. lt:lb3 g5
71
24. l;fd1
Preferable would have been 24. lt:la5
�ee7 25. li:lc4, threatening 26. li:ld6+
24. . . l;ed8 25. l;xd7+ l;xd7 26. h3
26. lt:la5 would still be better. Black
immediately retreats the bishop to c7, in
order to prevent the suggested move.
26 . . . .ic7 27. @fl b5!
Very good. Black's only weak spot,
the b-pawn, is removed by this ad­
vance.
28 . .ih4 h5 29. ®g2
If29. ®e2, then 29. . . li:ld4+
but he might have played 29. ®e1,
and then challenged rooks.
29. . . l;d3
To permit 30 . . . li:ld4.
If29. . . lt:ld4, then 30. l;d1
30. l;cl lt:ld4

3 1 . l''k 3 l!xc3 32. i.xc3 c!Llxb3 33.
axb3 a5 34. 'i!?f3 'i!?e6 35. 'i!?e3
Inferior. 35. g4 was compulsory now.
It was the last chance for draw.
35 . . . g4 36. hxg4 hxg4 37. 'i!?d3 a4
38. bxa4 bxa4 39. i.b4 i.e5 40. i.a3
40 . . . i.a1
Pillsbury plays this ending skilful­
ly. The text-move, whilst restricting the
movements ofWhite's bishop, keeps
the diagonal clear for his king, and the
game is won by force.
41. i.cl f5 42. i.a3 'i!?e5 43. exf5
'i!?xf5 44. 'i!?e3 'i!?e5 45. f4+ 'i!?d5 46. f5
i.e5 47. 'i!?f2 'i!?e4
0-1
72
GAME29 C67
o Hanna, E.
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
Club game Washington, 1899
1 . e4 e5 2. c!Llf3 c!Llc6 3. i.b5 c!Llf6 4.
0-0
4. d4 exd4 5. 0-0 a6 6 . i.a4 i.e7 7.
l!el 0-0 8. eS lt:l e8 9. lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 10.
'\Wxd4 d5= Showalter, ]-Pillsbury, H I
New York m/12 1898
4 . . . c!Llxe4 5. d4 c!Lld6 6. hc6
6 . i.gS ie7 7. i.xc6 ixgS 8 . dxeS
dxc6 9. lt:lxgS 'IWxgS 10. exd6 cxd6 11.
:1:\el+ ie6 12. '1Wxd6 :1!d8 13. '1Wa3 a6 14.
c!Llc3 '1We7 15. '1Wxe7+ 'i!?xe7= Pillsbury, H­
Lasker, Em /St Petersburg 1895/96
6 . . . dxc6 7. dxe5 c!Ll f5 8 . '1Wxd8+
'i!?xd8
The Berlin Defence - a very popu­
lar defence in the latter half ofthe 19th
century.
9. i.g5+?!
9. :1:\dl+ 'i!?e8 10. b3 h6 11. ib2 a5 12.
c!Llbd2 ie6 13. c!Lle4 idS 14. c!Llfd2 a4 15.
lLlg3 lLlxg3 16. hxg3 ib4+ Morgan, M­
Pillsbury, H Atlantic City, 1904
 9. �c3 h6 10. lLle2 g5 1 1 . .id2 c5 19. :1l:ad1 �xf4+ 20 . .ixf4 .ixc3 21.
12 . .ic3 .ie6 13. lLld2 .ie7 14. b3 �d7 :1l:d3 .ib4 22. :1l:fd1 .ie7 23. �g3 b5 24.
1 5. lLle4 �c6+ Porges, M-Pillsbury, H I :Bc3 g5
Nuremberg 1896
9. . . �e8 10. g4?
10. lLlc3 h6 11. .id2 .ie6 12. lLle4
l\d8 13 . .ic3 .ie7=
10 . . . !iJe7 11. h3 h5 12. !iJh2 hxg4
13. hxg4 !iJd5

6
5
4
A simple and effective solution.
3 25 . .ie3 b4 26. :Bcd3 :Bh4 27. :Bd4 c5
28. :B4d3 �f8 29. :B1d2 �g7 30. :Be2
:Bah8
Threatening 31. . . :1l:h3
31. �f3 :Bh3+ 32. �f2 .hg4 33 . .icl
14. c4 :1l:xf3+ 34. :1l:xf3 :1l:h2+ 35. �e3 :Bxe2+
Otherwise Black will play f7-f6. 36. �e2 �g6 37. .ib2 .ixf3+ 38. �
14. . . �b4 15. �c3 .ie6 16. b3 �d3 �f5 39. .ia1 .if8 40. �g3 .ih6
40 . . . .ig7?? 41. e6
41 . .ib2 g4 42 . .ia1 .if4+ 43. �h4
.ie3 44. �g3 .id4
7 0-1
6

5
GAME 30 C31
4

3 o Lasker, Emanuel
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

Augsburg, 1900

17. f4 1. e4e5 2. f4 d5
17. :1l:ad1 lLlxe5 is favorable for Black. 2 . . . .ic5 3. ltJf3 d6 4. .ic4 (4. lLlc3; 4.
17. . . .ic5+ 18. �g2 .id4 c3) 4. . . lLlc6 5. c3 lLlf6 6. Vffe2 Vffe7 7. d3
Now White loses a pawn. .ig4 8. f5 0-0-0 9. b4? (9. .ig5 h6 was
OK for black) 9. . . .ixf3 10. gxf3 (10.

73
�xf3 l2lxb4 11. cxb4 id4 winning the 6. l2lxe4 0-0 7. l2lxf6+ �xf6 8. g3 if5
exchange) 10 . . . d5! 11. exd5 (11. ib3 9. d3 l2ld7 10. �f3 l2lb6 11. ie2 �fe8
l2lxb4 12. cxb4 id4 13. ib2 �xb4+ 14. with more than enough compensation
'tt>fl dxe4 15. dxe4 l2lh5 with fantastic for the pawn in Pillsbury, H-Rocamora,
pressure for the piece.) 11. . . l2lxb4 12. S /New York 1894
d4 (12. cxb4? id4 13. ib2 �xb4+ and 6 . . . 0-0 7. dxe4
black wins) 12 . . . ib6 13. ia3 l2lfxd5
14. �e4 (14. ixd5 �h4+ 15. 'tt>fl l2lxd5-
+) 14 . . . l2lxc3! 15. l2lxc3 �xd4 16. �e2
�h4+ 17. @fl �xc4 18. ixb4 �xb4 19.
l2le4 �d8 20. 'tt>g2 �xe4! 21. fxe4 �d2
22. �xd2 �g4+ 23. 'tt>fl �f3+ 24. 'tt>e1
�xh1+ 25. 'tt>e2 �xa1 0-1 Steinitz, W­
Pillsbury, H /Snow, C/Barry, T (con­
sultation game), Boston 1892. A bril­
liant performance.

3. exd5
3. l2l£3 dxe4 4. l2lxe5 id6 5. ic4 l2lh6
was played in Blackburne,J-Pillsbury, H
/Vienna 1898
3 . . . e4
The Falkbeer counter-gambit was
very popular a century ago. 3 . . . c6 is
also playable.
4. lLlc3
4. d3 tt'lf6 5. dxe4 (5. tt'ld2?! exd3 6.
ixd3 l2lxd5 7. lLle4 lLlb4+) 5 . . . l2lxe4
6. ie3 (6. �e2 �xd5 7. l2ld2 f5 8. l2lh3
(8. g4!? Charousek, R-Pillsbury, H I
Nuremberg 1896) 8 . . . l2lc6 9. c3 ie6
10. l2lxe4 fxe4 1 1 . l2lf2 0-0-0 12. g3
ic5 13. ig2 e3 leads to complications
in Janowski, D-Pillsbury, H /Vienna
1898) 6 . . . �h4+ 7. g3 l2lxg3 8. l2lf3 �e7
(8 . . . �h6 9. hxg3!) 9. hxg3 �xe3+ 10.
�e2 ic5 (10 . . . �xe2+ 11. he2 ig4 12.
tt'lc3 ib4 13. tt'lg5 with a better ending
for White in Spassky, B-Matanovic, A
/Belgrade 1964) 11. l2lc3 if5 12. �xe3+
he3 13. tt:lh4 ig4 14. ie2± ECO
4 . . . tLlf6 5. Wfe2 id6 6. d3
7. . . tt'lxe4
The point of Black's strategy
8. tLlxe4 �e8 9. .id2 if5 10. 0-0-0
he4 11. �g4
Stronger than 11. �£2 after 11 . . . l2ld7
12. l2le2 ixd5 13. l2lc3 ic6 Black's posi­
tion is preferable Blackburne,J-Pillsbury,
H /England 1899
11 . . . f5
11 . . . tt'ld7 deserves attention
12. Wfg3 tLld7 13 . .ic3 tLlf6 14. tLlh3
lLlg4
An interesting idea, threatening. . .
ie7
15 . .ie2?
A serious mistake. Lasker had prob­
ably just overlooked the next reply. Of
course 15. id3 or 15. ib5!? was correct
and promised the initiative.

74
 20. hxg3?
A gross error. 20. :B:d7 would have
been much stronger 20 . . . W/xe6 21.
:B:xg7+ 't!if8 22. :B:xg3 (22. hxg3 W/xa2
23. ltJg5 :B:d8-+) 22 . . . W/xa2 with com­
plicated position.
20 . . . .ixg2 21. :1:\hel
Desperation. White has no de­
fence:21. :B:h2 .ixh3 22. :B:xh3 (22. :B:d7
W/xe6 23. :B:xg7+ 't!if8) 22 . . . '!Wxe6 with
a big advantage for Black.

21. :B:d7 '!Wxd7 22. exd7 .ixh1

15 . . . .ie7! 21 . . . .ixh3 22. 1''M7 '1Wg6
It is hard to believe but While is help­
a b c d e f g h
less against . . . .ih4
16. hg4
White already has an unpleasant
choice to make. 16. ltJg5 .ixg5 17. fxg5
W/xg5+ 18 . .id2 W/g6 and Black is clear
better.
16 . .iel was playable
16 . .ic4!? deserves attention
16 . . . .ih4 17. .ixf5!
On 17. W/e3, Black has the decisive
17. . . fxg4 (17. . . .ixg2 18. W/d2 .ixh1 19.
.ixf5) 18. ltJg5 .ixg5 19. fxg5 .ixg2 20.
W/d4 W/xg5+ 21. .id2 W/xd5-+ 23. b3 ge8 24. �e5 .ixe6 25. gxc7
17. . . hg3 18 . .ie6+ �xe6 19. dxe6 '!Wxg3 26. ®b2 h6 27. fub7 gc8 28 . .id4
W/e8 '!Wg2 29. :Bxa7 fuc2+ 30. ®b1 '!Wd2

a b c d e f g h
0-1

An unusual game and a well-de­

served victory.

75
GAME 31 C49 13 . . . c!tle7!? 14 . .ih3 c!tlg6 15 . .ig3
ig4 16. h3 ih5 17. �e3?!
11 Janowski, Dawid 17. '!We2 with the idea '!We3 deserves
Markelowicz attention
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson 17. . . c!tlf4 18. h£4 ex£4 19. �e1 1M'd7
20. @h2 @h8 21. 1M'd2 ixf3 22. gxf3
Paris, 1900 �e5

1. e4 e5 2. ltlf3 ltlf6 3. c!tlc3 c!tlc6 4.

ih5 .ib4
4 . . . �c5 5. 0-0 0-0 6 . c!tlxe5 �e8 7.
ltlf3 c!tlxe4 8. d4 c!tlxc3 9. bxc3 ile7 (9. . .
fi.f8 10. c4 h6 11. i.f4 a6 12. ia4 lLla5
13. lLle5 '1Wf6 14. ilg3± Kamsky, G-Wi­
nants, L/Tilburg 1992) 10. d5 lLlb8 11.
if4 with an advantage for White Ma­
roczy, G-Pillsbury, H I Nuremberg
1896
5. 0-0 0-0 6. d3 ixc3 7. bxc3 d6 8.
�e1
8. ixc6 bxc6 9. ig5 h6 10. ixf6 23. �h1
'1Wxf6 11. lLld2 g5 12. lLlc4 '!Wg6 13. lLle3 23. '1Wxf4 was the right move.
f5 14. exf5 flxf5 15. '!We2 i.e6 16. a3 c5 23 . . . �h5 24. @g2 �h4 25. �bg1
17. �ab1 �ab8 18. �xb8 �xb8 19. '1Wf3 c!tlh7 26. @fl c!tlg5 27. �g4 �xh3 28.
'!Wf7 20. '!We4 was good for White in the �xh3 c!tlxh3 29. �h4
game Teichmann, R-Pillsbury, H /Lon­
don 1899
8 . . . fld7 9. �b1 �e8 10. ig5 h6 11 .
.ih4 a6 12. 1a4 �b8 13. @h1

29. . . g5! 30. �h5

30. �xh6+ @g7 31. �h5 @g6
30 . . . g4 31. �xh6+ @g7 32. �h5
gxf3 33. �f5 f6! 34. c4 �e8 35. 1Mib4

76
c5 36. '!Wb6 *f7 37. �d5 '!Wg4! 38. *e1
.!Llxf2! 39. lhd6
7

8 8 6

7 7 5

6 4

5 5 3

4 4

3 3
2

39. . . �xe4+!! 40. *d2
40. dxe4 '!Wg1+ 41. *d2 .!Llxe4+ 42.
*d3 '!We3#
40 . . . �e2+ 41. *ct �e6 42. '!Wxh7+
�e7 43 . "Wd5+ *g7 44. �d8 '!We6 45.
'!Wh5 '!Wet+
10. f4
He might with 10. lt:lxd7 and 1 1 .
cxdS have given Black a n isolated d­
pawn but it would not have been a very
serious handicap.
10 . . . .!Llf6 1 1 . '!Wc2 dxc4 12 . .!Llxc4
ie6 13 . .!Llxd6 "Wxd6 14. f5 id5 15. if4
'!Wd7 16. c4 ie4

0-1

This game illustrates the style ofPills- 7

bury's profound and talented play. 6
5
4
GAME 32 C43
3
o Chigorin, Mikhail
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

Paris, 1900
Notes by Sergeant & Watts
1. e4 e5 2 . .!Llf3 .!Llf6 3. d4 .!Llxe4 4.
id3 d5 5 . .!Llxe5 id6 6. 0-0 0-0 7. c4
c6
or 7. . . ixeS 8. dxeS .!Llc6
8 . .!Llc3 .!Llxc3 9. bxc3 .!Lld7
17. ie5
17. ixe4, of course, only leads to the
loss of a pawn.
17. . . hd3 18. "Wxd3 .!Llg4 19. '!Wg3
19. if4, holding on to the bishop,
was preferable.
19. . . .!Llxe5 20. dxe5 fid4+ 21. *ht
*h8
He must parry the threat of f6.
 22. �adl
Not only giving up a pawn, but also
wasting a move.
22 . . . �xc4 23. �del �ad8 24. �f4
�d4 25. f6
An alternative was 25. 1"lxd4 �xd4 26. e6
32. h3 g6 33. �a5 'tt> g7 34. �el
�xf7 35. �xe5 �fl+ 36. 'tt>h2 �d6 37.
g3 �f2+
0-1
For if38. 'tt>gl (38. 'tt>hl leads to mate
in three) 38 . . . �d4 and White is help­
less. The endgame has been very inter­
esting.

GAME 33 C66

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Von Bardeleben, Curt

DSB-12. Kongress Munich, 1900

1. e4 e5 2. ll:\f3 ll:\c6 3. i.b5 ll:\f6 4. 0-

0 i.e7 5 . ll:\c3
25 . . . �g8! 26. �xd4 �xd4 27. e6 Also good is 5. �el
Now this move is a trap. 5. . . d6
27. . . fxe6 The Steinitz Defence.
If27. . . gxf6, then 28. �xg8+ 'tt>xg8 6. d4 .id7
29. e7, and wins
28. f7 �f8 29. �fl
If29. �xe6 g6. The text move threat-
ens 30. �b8!
29. . . �d8 30. �e3 e5 31. �xa7
lf31. �xeS �xf7
31. . . �e7

7. .ixc6!?
A very deep idea.
Alternatively, 7. �el offered simple
development.
7. . . .ixc6 8. �d3
8. �el!? Anand, V
8 . . . exd4

78
 Also playable is 8 . . . lt:ld7 Maroczy,
C-Capablanca, J /London 1922 8 8
9. lt:lxd4 .id7 10. b3 0-0 ll . .ib2 7 7

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2

18. hf6!
Pillsbury refused material for a posi­
tional advantage. He decided honey was
11 . . . S:e8 much sweeter than wine. 18. �gS!? h6
11. . . lt:lg4 Pillsbury, H-Napier, W I 19. hf6 hxgS 20. �xgS±
Buffalo 1901 18 . . . gxf6 19. �h4 b5 20. V!!f5 !!
11. . . c6 Pillsbury, H-Steinitz, W I An extraordinary decision.
Vienna 1898 20 . . . V!!xf5 21. �xf5 l'!eb8

12. S:ae1 .if8

Hoping to use the e-file to put
some pressure on White's e4. Howev­
er White's more aggressive development
and advantage in space give him a def­
inite edge.

13. f4 V!!e7
A better try was 13 . . . c6

14. h3 c5 15. �f3 .ic6 16. �d5 hd5

17. exd5 V!!d7
17. . . V!!d8 18. lt:lg5 g6 19. f5 l'!xel 20. 22. h4!
l'!xe1 lt:lh5 (20 . . . �g7 21. fxg6 hxg6 22. Technically very accurate.
l'!fl followed by Wff3.) 21. fxg6 hxg6 22. 22 . . . a5
lt:lxf7! 'i!?xf7 23. l"ifl+ 'i!?g8 24. Wfxg6+ 22 . . . hS 23. lt:lg3±
lt:lg7 25. l'!f7 and White wins. 23. g4!? hg 24. 'i!?g2 E. Sveshnikov.
23. h5 h6 24. S:f3 a4 25. @h2
Another important prophylactic
move. This is the point ofWhite's strat­
egy, Black has no counterplay.

79
 l'i . . . nxh] llJ. ;txb3 ga2 27. ge2 c4 13. . . £5
A dubious move. 13 . . . .if5!? 14. tt:lb3 .ib6 15. tt:lfd4
28. bxc4 bxc4 29. gc3 gb4 .id7 16. tt:lxc6 .ixc6 17. tt:\d4 .id7 18. f3
A blunder, though the position was tt:\c5 19. <ilh1oo Pillsbury, H-Cohn, WI
lost in any case. London 1899
30. ge8 gb7 31. gg3+ 13 . . . tt:\xd2?! 14. 1Mfxd2 t Pillsbury,
1-0 H - Albin, A /Hastings 1895
A brilliant strategical performance
by Pillsbury. 14. tt:lb3 ib6 15. tt:lbd4 tt:lxd4 16.
tt:lxd4 1Mfd7 17. f3 tt:lc5 18. <ilh1

GAME 34 C80

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Janowski, Dawid
Markelowicz

Munich, 1900

1. e4e5 2. tbf3 tt:lc6 3. i.h5 a64. i.a4

tt:lf6 5. 0-0 tt:lxe4 6. d4 b5 7. .ih3 d5 8.
a4 gb8
For 8 . . . b4, see the game Pillsbury,
H-Tarrasch, S /Vienna 1898 18 . . . £4?!
9. axb5 axb5 10. dxe5 ie6 11. c3 ic5 18 . . . tt:lb7 19. 1Mfd3 c6 20. b4 tt:ld8
11. . . .ie7 12. gel 0-0 13. tt:ld4 tt:lxd4 21. tt:lb3 Wfc7 22. f4 with an advantage
14. cxd4 f5 15. exf6 gxf6 16. f3 ttld6 for White Pillsbury, H-Lawrence, T I
17. gxe6 gxe6 18 . .ixd5± Pillsbury, H ­ America vs England 1902
Bradford, R & Taber, C/1895
12. tt:lbd2 0-0 13. i.c2 19. b4 tt:lb7 20. Wfd3 g6 21. 1Mfxb5
1Mfxb5
21 . . . .ixd4 22. 1Mfxd7 .ixd7 23. cxd4
tt:\d8 24. .id2 .ib5 25. gfb1± Teichmann,
R-Tarrasch, S /San Sebastian 1911

22. tt:lxb5 ttld8 23. gd1 g5 24. ia3

ttlc6

80

25 . .ia4! ll:lxe5 26. gel _ie3 27. ll:lxc7
if7 28. ged1 d4 29. cxd4 ll:lc4 30. b5
ll:lxa3 3 1 . gxa3 gb7 32. gc3 gcs 33.
ll:ld5 gas 34. ll:lxe3 �a4
Slightly better was 34. . . £Xe3, for in­
stance 35. ic2 e2 36. gel gxb5 37. h4!
35. ll:lf5 .ie6 36. ll:ld6 gd7 37. gc8+
rj}g7
3 8 . gc7! gxc7 39. ll:le8+ �f7 40.
ll:lxc7 .ih3 41. gb1 ic2 42. gel gxd4
43. h4! .if5 44. gc5 rj}g6 45. h5+
1-0
An excellent finish.
81
GAME 35 C67
o Wolf, Heinrich
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
DSB-12. Kongress Munich, 1900
1. e4 e5 2. ll:lf3 ll:lc6 3 . .ih5 ll:lf6 4. 0-
0 ll:lxe4 5. d4 ll:ld6 6. dxe5 ll:lxb5 7. a4
d6
8. e6
8. axb5 ll:lxe5 9. gel ie7 10. ll:lxe5
dxe5 11. Wi'xd8+ i>xd8 12. gxe5 .id6=
Tarrasch, S -Pillsbury, H /Budapest
1896
8 . . . fxe6
8 . . . ixe6 9. axb5 lLle5 10. lLld4 id7
11. gel ie7 12. lLlc3 c5 13. ttJde2 0-0 14.
ttJf4 l:!e8 15. lLlfd5 b6 16. lLlxe7+ Wi'xe7
17. if4 f6 18. ig3 Wi'f7 19. b3 ifS 20. [4
lLlg6+ Showalter, }-Pillsbury, H I Lex­
ington 1899.
9. axb5 ll:le7 10. ll:lc3 ll:lg6 11. ll:lg5
!J.e7 12. �h5 .ixg5 13. hg5 �d7

14. �a3
14. b6! cxb6 15. lt:ld5! (Attributed to
Maroczy) 15 . . . exdS 16. �fel+ @f8 17.
�a3 lt:le5 18. �xeS dxeS 19. �f3+ @g8
20. ih6 Vf1e7 21. ixg7 @xg7 22. �g3+
@f8 23. Elf3+ @g7 24. �g3+ @f8 25.
m3+ Draw (by perpetual check) Hal­
prin, A-Pillsbury, H /Munich 1900
14. . . 0-0 15. lLle4 lLlf4 16. h£4 fu£4
17. �h3 h6 18. �el rff7 19. rfe2 b6 20.
�a3 ih7 21. lLlg3 e5 22. �eat rfd5 23.
f3 rfd4+ 24. rff2 rfxb2 25. �xa7
25 . . . rfxal+
A forcing continuation unexpected
by White, who is left with a hopeless
position after the exchanges.
82
26. �xal �xal+ 27. lLl fl id5 28.
rfe3 ic4 29. h3 �xfl+ 30. @h2 h5 31.
rfa3 h4 32. rfa8+ @h7 33. rfe8 .if7 34.
rfe7 .ih5 35. rfg5 h£3 36. gxf3 �lxf3
37. rfh5+ @g8 38. rfe8+ �f8 39. rfe6+
@h7 40. rfc4 �f2+
0-1
A splendid victory.
GAME 36 C42
o Cohn, Wilhelm
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
Munich, 1900
Notes by Sergeant & Watts
1. e4 e5 2. lLlf3 lLlf6 3. lLlc3 .ib4 4.
.ic4
4. lt:lxe5 is more aggressive.
4 . . . d6 5. d3 lLlc6 6. a3 hc3+ 7. bxc3
0-0 8 . .ig5 .ie6 9. lLld2 h6 10 . .ixf6
rfxf6 11. 0-0 lLle7 12. g3
The struggle for the initiative is
keen.
12 . . . .ih3 13. �el rfg5 14. lLlf3 rfh5
15. lLlh4 .ig4 16. f3 .ie6
 On the whole Black has come best
out of it, White's king side being dis­
arranged.
17. .ih3 'i!;>h7 18. l'Ut .ih3 19. �f2
lt:lg6 20. lt:lg2 Y;tgS 21. Y;td2 Y;txd2
This makes a draw possible; but ifthe
queen retreats White will soon become
active on the king's side.
22. �xd2 f5 23. exf5 .ixf5 24. .id5
c6 25 . .ie4 d5 26 . .ixf5 �xf5 27. �f2
�af8 28. �aft
28 . . . d4!
With a view, after 29. cxd4 exd4 to
attacking White's a-pawn. But White
will have none of this.
29. c4c5 30. �bl �xf3!
83
Black fights desperately to avoid the
draw, which the simple 30 . . . b6 made
still more likely. Such moves as his 32nd
require courage and very deep calcula­
tion.
31. �xf3 M3 32. �b7
32 . . . e4!! 33. lt:lel
If 33. dxe4 �c3 - though it is not
clear that it wins for Black.
33 . . . �e3
3 3 . . . exd3 would be met by 34.
ltlxd3!
34. 'i!;>fl lt:le5 35. �e7?
Throwing away the reward of his
previous stubborn play. With 35. �xa7
exd3 36. cxd3 ltlxd3 37. ltlxd3 l:%xd3 38.
l:%c7 or l:%a5, he could have held on to the
draw. Now Pillsbury scores a neat win.
35 . . . exd3 36. cxd3 lt:lxc4 37. �xa7
lt:l d2+ 38. 'i!;>f2 c4 39. dxc4 lt:le4+ 40.
'i!;>fl d3 41. lt:lxd3
If instead 41. !%d7 ltld2+ 42. 'i!;>f2
l:%e2+ winning the piecejust the same.
41 . . . �d342. a4�d4 43. 'i!;>e2 �c4
44. a5 �a4 45. �a8 c!ll c5 46. 'i!;>f3 lt:lb3
47. a6 c!ll d4+
0-1
GAME 37 C67 or 9. . . if6!? 10. if4 ttlf5 Showalter,
]-Pillsbury, H /New York 1897 (m/16)
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson 10. f3 exf3
• Billecard, Moritz 10 . . . ttlxe5 1 1 . dxe5 ttlf7 12. ib3
c;t>h8 13. ixf7 �xf7 14. fxe4 fxe4 15.
DSB-12. Kongress Munich, 1900 ttlxe4 �f5 16. ttlg3 ic5+ 17. c;t>h1 �f8
18. ie3 ie7 19. id4 ih4 20. �e3 d6
1. e4 e5 2. ll:lf3 ll:lc6 3. i.b5 ll:lf6 4. 0- 21. e6 c5 22. ic3 d5 23. ie5 d4 24. �e4
0 ll:lxe4 5. d4 ll:ld6 6 . .ia4!? if6 25. ixf6 '\Wxf6 26. '\We2 '\We7 27. �e5
Showalter's idea. Also Pillsbury's fa­ b6 28. ttlf5 '1Wc7 29. �e1 ixe6 30. �xe6
vourite variation, played successfully �xf5 31. �e8+ �f8 32. �xa8 1 -0 Pills­
with both sides. bury, H-Walker, F /Washington 1899
6 . . . e4 club game
6 . . . exd4 7. c3 dxc3 8 . ll:lxc3 .ie7 9. 11. !J.h3+ �h8 12. '\Wxf3 ll:lxe5
ll:ld5 0-0 10. �e1 .if6 11. if4� Show­ 12 . . . ttlxd4 1 3 . '\Wh3 ih4 14. g3
alter, ]-Pillsbury, H /New York 1897 ttlxb3 15. axb3 if6 16. ttlg6+ c;t>g8 17.
(m/8) ttlxf8
7. l3el !J.e7 8. ll:le5 0-0 9. ll:lc3 1 3 . dxe5 ll:l e4 14. ll:lxe4 fxe4 1 5 .
Wl'xe4 d6 16. !J.f4 d 5 17. Wl'e3 !J.e6 1 8 .
�ad1 c6
Black is OK here.

9. . . f5
9. . . f6!? 10. ttlg4 (10. ib3+ c;t>h8 11.
ttlg6+? (11. ttlxc6=) 11 . . . hxg6 12. '1Wg4
f5 13. '1Wxg6 '\We8 14. '1Wg3 '\Wh5 Show­ 19. c;t>h1!
alter, ]-Pillsbury, H /New York 1897 This move threatens c4 and provokes
(m/18)) 10. . . f5 11. ttle5co Kotronias, V­ the exchange of Qyeens.
Georgiev, Kir /ol Calvia 2004 19. . . '\Wb6
9. . . ig5?! 10. ttlxe4 ixcl 11. �xcl The alternative was 19. . . '\We8 with a
ttlxe4 12. �xe4 ttlxe5 13. dxe5± Pills­ solid position.
bury, H-Halprin, A /Vienna 1898 20. '1Wxb6 axb6 21. !J.e3 !J.c5
9. . . ttlf5 Showalter, ]-Pillsbury, H I
New York 1897 (m/6)

84
 22. 1!lg1!
The return ofthe king!
22 . . . l!lg8 23. c3 he3+ 24. lhe3 b5
25. a3 .if5 26. g(l gae8 27. h3 h5 28.
gf4 g6 29. a4 bxa430. lha4ga8 31. gf4
b5 32. 1!lh2
32. . . gae8?!
Correct is 32 . . . @g7. Now if33. g4,
then 33 . . . hxg4 34. hxg4 i.e4
33. g4 hxg4 34. hxg4 i.d7?!
34 . . . ibl!?
35. 1!lg3 1!lg7?!
35 . . . g5 36. gxf8+ @xf8 37. ic2
@e7 38. if5 ie6 39. b4 (39. l"i:el l"i:f8
40. l"i:fl c5) 39. . . l"i:a8 with counterplay
for Black
36. i.c2 .ie6
85
37. b4! gxf4?!
The final error. 37. . . g5
38. ®xf4
Now Black's position is in danger.
38 . . . .if7 39. .id3 ge7 40. ge2 ges
41. gel ge7 42. gal ges 43. ga7 ®f8
44. gd7 ge6 45. gd6 ®e7 46. gxe6+
®xe6
47. g5 .ie8 48 . .ifl .id7 49 . .ih3+
®e7 50 . .ixd7 ®xd7 51. ®e3 ®e6 52.
®d4 ®f5 53. ®c5
1-0
Brilliant positional play by Pillsbury
and a highly instructive game.
He showed a constant striving for vic­
tory. Playing to the end, to the last practi­
cal chance, is highly typical for Pillsbury's
)!,arne. l ie also did much to promote
rhess in the whole world. As one of the
very first chess professionals, he strove not
only to play well but also to achieve good
conditions for chess players.
The same approach was later adopt­
ed by Robert Fischer. This was no acci­
dent and seems a logical inheritance to a
new generation. Fischer became Fisch­
er to a large extent thanks to his study of
Pillsbury's contribution to chess.
10 . . . ltlg4
This perhaps looks tempting, but it
does not result in the desired exchange
ofknight for bishop.
11. ltlxc6 bxc6 12 . .id4 .ixd4+ 13.
�xd4 �b6 14. �xb6 axb6 15. ixg4
.bg4
7

5
GAME 38 873
4

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson 3

• Howell, Clarance Seaman

Buffalo, 1901

" Last night Pillsbury won a hard 16. f5

game from Howell, who defended with After this move White gains the ini­
a Sicilian. In the opening Pillsbury se­ tiative.
cured a strategic superiority, which he 16 . . . gxf5 17. h3 ih5 18. exf5 f6 19.
pursued with unerring vigour, eventual­ �ae1 �fe8 20. �f4 if7
ly scoring the game in forty-two moves."
New York Daily Tribune, 18. 08. 1901
1. e4 c5 2. ltlf3 ltlc6 3. d4 cxd4 4.
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5. ltlc3 d6 6. ie2 .id7 7. ie3
g6 8. 0-0 ig7 9. �d2 0-0 10. f4

21. �b4 �a6

If21 . . . b5, then 22. �be4 followed
by23. a3
22. a3 h5 23. ltle2
23. �be4!?

86
 23. . .<;!?£8
A better try was 23 . . . e5 24. dxe6
Ei:xe6 25. <;!?£2 d5
24. Ei:e4 dS 2S. ge3 eS
Now it is too late, as Pillsbury dem­
onstrates.
26. fxe6 gxe6 27. gxe6 .ixe6 28.
ltlf4 .if7
29. ltle6+! <;!?g8 30. ltld8 cS 31. ge7
.ig6 32. c3 gas
32 . . . d4 33. cxd4 cxd4 34. li:le6 d3 35.
Ei:g7+ <;!?h8 36. Ei:d7 (36 . . . Ei:a5 37. Ei:d8+
'tt>h7 38. li:lf8+ 'tt>g7 39. li:lxg6) .if5 37.
Ei:d8+ 'tt>h7 38. li:lf4, winning the pawn
33. ltlc6 ga6 34. ge6 <;!?f7 3S. ltld8+
'tt>g7 36. gd6 .ie4 37. ll:\ e6+ <;!?£7 38.
ll:\xcS <;!?e7 39. ge6+ <;!?f7 40. gc6 gas
41. ll:\b7 ga7 42. �b6
1-0
An interesting endgame
For 4. e5 ltlfd7 5. f4, see the game Pills­
bury, H - Lasker, Em I Nuremberg 1896
4 . . . .ih4
4 . . . fi.e7 5. fi.xf6 (5. e5) 5 . . . .ixf6 6.
li:lf3 0-0 7. e5 .ie7 8. fi.d3 c5 9. h4 li:lc6
10. fi.xh7+ 'tt>xh7 1l. li:lg5+ 'tt>g6 12. Wl'd3+
f5 13. exf6+ 'tt>xf6 14. Wff3+ <;!?g6 15. h5+
'tt>h6 16. ll:\f7++- Pillsbury, H-Marshall,
F, Blindfold 1899 (1 of 8 games played
at the Brooklyn Chess Club, Brooklyn,
New York. Results: +6 -0=2).
5. eS
For 5. exd5, see the game Olland, A­
Pillsbury, H /Hanover, 1902
5 . . . h6
The McCutcheon variation of the
French Defence.
6 . .ih4
The main alternative is 6 . .id2. The
game Cherniaev, A-Kobalia, M /Mos­
cow-ch, 1996, went 6 . . . .ixc3 7. bxc3
ll:\e4 8 . Wl'g4 g6 9. fi.d3 (Another criti­
cal continuation is 9. Wl'f4) 9. . . li:lxd2 10.
l!txd2 c5 11. li:lf3 .id7 12. h4 Wl'e7 13.
Ei:he1 ll:\c6 (13 . . . .ic6 followed by li:lb8-
d7 deserves attention.) 14. Wl'f4 cxd4?!
15. cxd4 li:lb4 16. Wff6! Ei:g8 17. Ei:abl
ll:\xd3 18. cxd3 with the better game for
White.
6 . . . g5 7. fi.g3 ll:\e4 8. ll:\ge2 c5 9. a3

GAME 39 C12

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Marshall, Frank James

Monte Carlo, 1902

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ll:\c3 ll:\f6 4 . .ig5

87
 9. . . .ixc3+
9. . . !aS 10. b4 tt:lxc3 11. tt:lxc3 cxb4
12. tt:lbS bxa3+ 13. c3 !c7 14. h4 a6 15.
:Bxa3 id7 16. tt:lxc7+ Wixc7 17. hxgS
tt:lc6 18. gxh6 tt:laS 19. Wicl! Pillsbury,
H-Reggio, A /Monte Carlo 1902

10. tt:lxc3 tt:lxc3

10. . . Wia5 11. Wid3 tt:lc6 12. dxcS id7
13. 0-0-0 tt:lxc3 14. Wixc3 Wixc3 15. bxc3
:Bc8 16. h4 :Bg8 17. hxgS hxgS 18. f3;!;
Landa, K-Minasian, A/Linares 1999

11. bxc3 Wia5 12. Wid2 cxd4 13. cxd4 22. !e1!
'I!;Vxd2+ 14. @xd2 Now the end comes quickly.
22 . . . :Bb3
22 . . . :Bxa3 23. ib4++-
23. ha5
Black is piece down.
23 . . . :Bh2+ 24. id2 gxf4 25. :Bb1
�xb1 26 . .ixb1 i'd8 27. .ixf4 @c7 28 .
.id3 b5 29. .id2 @b6 30 . .ib4 a5 31.
.ic5+ 'it>c6 32. @f3 .ic8 33. @f4
1-0

GAME 40 C84

The ending that now arisen is more o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

promising for White. • Tarrasch, Siegbert

· 14. . . lL!c6 15. c3 Monte Carlo, 1902

15. i'e3?! tt:le7
15. h4!? Notes by Karpov, An
15 . . . .id7
15 . . . tt:la5!? Of the players from the end of the
16. h4 @e7 17. hxg5 hxg5 18 . .id3 19th century and the start of the 20th,
lL!a5 19. @e2 �xh1? the one who is closest to us in spirit and
An error of judgement. Marshall style of play is undoubtedly Pillsbury.
missed White's twenty-second move. His play was highly diverse, he was al­
ways guided by the demands of the po­
20. �xh1 �c8 21. f4 �xc3?? sition, he employed a variety of open­
A blunder. ing variations, and, most important, he

88
was the first prominent player to begin 10 . . . c6 11. .!Llg3 Wic7 12. Wie2 c5
thinking not only in variations, but also Tarrash plays inconsistently. He was
schematically. evidently first planning to play. . . dS,
1. e4 e5 2 . .!Llf3 .!Llc6 3 . .ih5 a6 4 . .ia4 and then he gave up this idea, as a result
.!Llf6 5. 0-0 .ie7 6 . .!Llc3 b5 ofwhich he was simply lost a tempo.
6 . . . d6 was also possible, e. g. 7. d4 13 . .id2 .!Llc6 14. c3
(or 7. .ixc6+ bxc6 8 . d4 .!Lld7 9. dxeS
dxeS 10 . .!Lla4 0-0 11. .ie3 .id6 12. c4
Wie7 13. Elcl Wie6 with equality in Keres,
P-Smyslov, VIAmsterdam 19S6) 7. . . bS
8. dxeS .!LlxeS 9. li:lxeS dxeS 10. Wixd8+
.ixd8 11. .ib3 .ie6 12 . .igS h6 with the
equal game Maroczy, G-Chigorin, M I
Paris 1900
7. .ih3 d6 8. d3
It would have been premature to at­
tack by 8. idS li:lxdS 9. li:lxdS 0-0 10. c3
fS, or8. li:lgS 0-0 9. f4 .!Lld4 10. d3 aS, in
both cases with advantage for Black.
Note how subtly Pillsbury solves
the problem of the struggle for the cen­
tre. As long as the black knight stood at
aS, White refrained from c2-c3, so that
in the event of the exchange on b3 the
points b3 and d3 should not be weak­
ened, and also so as not to sever the bish­
op's path to aS. Black should neverthe­
less have made this exchange, and then
tried to play. . . dS.
In spite ofthe absence ofany concrete
threats, the diagram position is difficult
for Black. A breakthrough in the centre
In spite of its apparent harmlessness, is not possible, he has no other counter­
the system of development employed by play, and White's attack on the 'it>-side
Pillsbury is fairly unpleasant for Black. develops easily.
For the moment White avoids under­ Although not equipped with Rau­
mining the centre with his pawn, and zer's methods, Pillsbury conducts the
probably was already planning the com­ finish to the game so energetically, that
ing cavalry attack on the 'it>-side. one gains the impression that the player
8 . . . .!baS 9. h3 0-0 10 . .!Lle2 with White is a prominent modern-day
Only here does Pillsbury 'deviate' specialist on the Spanish Game.
from modern theory, which advices 10. 14 . . . .ie6 15 . .!Llg5 .bh3 16. axb3 h6
.igS 17. .!Llf3 Elfe8 18 . .!Llf5 .if8 19. g4

89

19. . . c!Llh7
19. . . dS was bad due to 20. gS hxgS
21. ixgS, but 19. . . c!Lle7!? came into con­
sideration.
20. ®h2 Yl!fd8 21. �g1 ltlg5 22. h4
ltlxf3+ 23. Yl!fxf3 g5
On 23 . . . g6 White has the decisive
24. ixh6 gxfS 25. gxf5+ ®h7 26. igS
followed by 27. �h5+
24. hxg5 hxg5 25. ®g2 �e6 26. �h1
�g7?
26 . . . Ei:g6 27. Yl!fh3 ig7 should
of course have been played, but after
28. �h7+ ®f8 29. Ei:h5 the g-pawn is
doomed.
90
The game is concluded by a simple
but elegant combination on the theme
of diversion.
27. c!Llxg7 ®xg7 28. �h7+! ®xh7 29.
Yl!fxf7+
1-0
GAME 41 021
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Gunsberg, lsidor
Monte Carlo, 1902
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. c!Llf3
Nowadays 3. e4 is preferred by Ana­
toly Karpov among other players.
3 . . . c5 4. e3
4. d5 e6 5. li:lc3 a6 6. a4 li:lf6 7. e4
exdS 8. exdS id6 9. ixc4 0-0 10. 0-0
ig4 11. h3 ixf3 12. �xf3 li:lbd7 13.
�d1 �c7 14. aS Ei:fe8 15. id2 Ei:e7 16.
Ei:e1 Ei:xe1+ 17. ixe1 Ei:e8= Aleksandrov,
A-Horvath, J /Saint Vincent 2005
4 . . . cxd4 5. hc4
5 . . . e6
5 . . . dxe 3?? 6 . ixf7+ wins the
Qyeen
 The modern line is 5 . . . Wic7 6. Wib3
e6 7. exd4 tt:\c6 8. tt:\c3 a6 9. Wid1 b5 10.
ib3 tt:\a5 11. 0-0 ib7 12. d5! Graf, A­
Azmaiparashvili, Z /Benidorm 2003
6. exd4 tt:\f6 7. 0-0 ie7
Also playable is 7. . . tt:\c6
8. �e2
Also possible is 8. tt:\c3 tt:\c6 9. :1!el 0-
0 10. a3 a6 11. ia2 b5 12. d5 Khenkin,
1-Bagirov, V/NRW-Cup Masters 1997
8 . . . tt:\bd7
8 . . . 0-0 9. tt:\c3 tt:\c6 is the usual
move-order, for example: 10. ie3 tt:\a5
11. id3 b6 12. ig5 ib7 13. :1!ad1 :1!c8 19. f5!
14. :1!fe1 h6 15. icl ib4 16. id2 ixc3 Gunsberg had to have a sick feeling
17. bxc3 Wid5= Spassky, B-Pertosian, T of deja vu when he saw 19 f5! appear on
I Moscow Wch m/26, 1966 the board, recalling 27 f5! seven years
9. �c3 �b6 10. ib3 �bd5 11. ig5 0-0 earlier (Game 8).
19. . . gxf5
19. . . exf5 20. tllf4+-
20. :1!h3 :af7 21. �h5 !J..f8

12. tt:\e5
White has now reached a fairly com­
mon position in the Qyeen's Gambit
Declined, but with a move in hand.
12 . . . tt:\xc3
Giving White hanging pawns, but
also giving up the strong square on d5.
Obviously 12 . . . id7 is more solid.
13. bxc3 tt:\d5 14. .id2 .if6 15. f4 g6
16. :1!f3 !J..g7 17. :aaf1 f6
A weakening move.
18. tll d3 b6
22. :1!xf5?!
An interesting Rook sacrifice. But it
doesn't deserve an exclam.
A simple and effective 22. :1!ff3! was
correct, for example: 22 . . . id6 23. hd5
exd5 24. if4+-
22. . . exf5 23. tllf4 ih7 24. :ag3+ ig7
If 24 . . . :1!g7, then 25. tll e 6 �e7
(25 . . . Wid7 26. tt:\xg7 ixg7 27. ih6+-)

91
''• .'. " ! '. / I!; '1'/ D. \Mfx!S )"'dH 28. �c2 32. �g3+
,I, 1 H !'I. \Mfx h/ 1,; \t:uo. )lg4 lt'lc6 31. �h6 Forcing the King into the corner, out
w l l h �.l rong a l l ack. of play.
32 . . . 'i!:lh8 33. i.xf7 �xf7 34. @f2
25. �h3 �h8? �c7 35. 'i!:le2 �c4 36. 'i!:ld3 b5
Gunsberg could have resisted with 36 . . . �a4 37. d5 winning the game.
25 . . . �f8 26. �g3+ (26 . Wfxf5? Wfd7)
26 . . . �g7= 37. �e3 �a4 38. d5 �xa2 39. d6 �a6
26. Wfxf5 Wfd7 40. �e6 'i!:lg7 41. d7 �e6 42. d8=Wf �e5
43. �d7+ 'i!:lg6 44. �xa7 h5 45. 'i!:ld4
�g5 46. �e7

1-0

GAME 42 C48

o Atkins, Henry Ernst

• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

DSB-13. Kongress Hannover, 1902

27. lt:lxd5 hd5 1. e4 e5 2. lt:lf3 lt:lc6 3. i.b5 lt:lf6 4.

27. . . Wfxf5 28. lt'le7+ 'i!:lf8 29. lt'lxf5 d3
and Black is defenceless. Playable and very solid. Best is the
28. Wfxd5 �xd5 29. �xd5 �af8 30. usual 4. 0 -0
�h6 �g7 31. hg7 4 . . . �c5
Weaker is 31. :!'lg3 'i!:lh8 32. �xfl Lh6 4 . . . d6 5. 0-0 g6 6. d4 �d7 7. �e1
i.g7 8. d5 CiJe7 9. i.xd7+ CiJxd7 10. i.e3
31. . . @xg7 f5 11. lt'lg5;!; Sutovsky, E-Kramnik, V I
Dortmund, 2005
a b c d e t g h

5. CiJc3
5. i.e3 ixe3 6. fxe3 lt'le7 7. 0-0 c6
8. �c4 d6 9. �b3 CiJg6 10. CiJc3 Wfe7 11.
CiJe2 d5 12. exd5 CiJxd5 13. Wfd2 ie6 14.
e4 with the better game for White Tarr­
asch, S-Pillsbury, H /Vienna 1898
5. . . d6 6. �g5

92
 12 . . . ixc6 13. f3 tllh5 14. d4 b6 15.
g3 l3g8 16. ®h1
16. f4 lLlxf4!
16 . . . �e7 17. '1We2
17. i£2!?
a b c d e f g h

6 . . . .ih4!?
Totally unexpected but consistent.
Black is now a tempo down in the Four
Knights game. Black's plan is to keep
his king in the centre and push his king­
side pawns. 17. . . l3g6!
For 6 . . . h6, see the game Walbrodt, An excellent move.
C-Pillsbury, Vienna 1898.
7. 0-0 hc3 8. bxc3 h6 9. .ie3 18 . .if2 tllg7 19. l3fe1 ®f8 20. tllfl
9. ixf6 '1Wxf6 is OK for Black.
9. ih4!?
9. . . id7 10. tlld2

20 . . . f5! 21. d5
21. ex£5 g4!
21 . . . ih5 22. c4 .id7 23. g4 f4 24.
10 . . . g5! ®g2 h5 25. h3 ®f7 26. tll d2 l3h6 27.
A fine idea, preventing f4 while set­ l3h1 tlle8 28. l3h2 tllf6 29. .ig1 ®g6 30.
ting up an attack. tll fl �h7
11. l3b1 a6 12. hc6
12 . .ia4 deserves attention.

93
 " I• c d e A dubious experiment as Pillsbury
II .. show.
4. �f3 .ib7 5. cxd5 exd5

a b c d e

5 8

4 7

The position is now strategically won

for Black.
31. �f2 hxg4 32. hxg4 gxh2+ 33.
�xh2 '!Wh4+ 34. �fl '!Wg3 35. '!Wf2 gh8 6. e4!
36. gb3 .ia4 37. gd3? A fine gambit style move.
A blunder in a bad position. 6 . . dxe4
.

37. . . '!Wxf2+ 38. �xf2 .ixc2 39. ga3 After 6 . . . ltJf6, 7. e5 is quite strong.
a5 40. �e2 gh3 41. �d2 he4 42. gb3 7. �e5
gg3 With the threat 8 . .ic4.
0-1 7. . . .id6
A game played in the grand manner
by Pillsbury. Such an attack will be fa­
miliar to modern King's Indian players.
In Pillsbury's time however, it represent­
ed novel play and was a fantastic dem­
onstration of Black's aggressive possi­
bilities.

GAME 43 0 31

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Swiderski, Rudolf
8. '!Wg4!
DSB-13. Kongress Hannover, 1902 Pressing on the just weakened g7.
8 . . . �£8
Notes by Ken Smith A sorry move, 8 . . g6 is very bad
.

too.
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. �c3 b6?! 9. .ic4 he5

94
 To defend f7, but now White's dark 15. 0-0-0! c!tle8
squared Bishop will be powerful. 15 . . . c!tlxe4 loses to 16. E!:d8+

10. dxe5 �d4 16. �g3 c!tla6 17. :She1 :Sd8

At first this seems good, but now Black could resign, but prefers to
comes a surprise. "hang on" a few more moves.
18. �d5 �c5

11. �d5! c6
After 11. . . i.xdS 12. �c8+ 'i!1e7 13. 19. :SXe8+!
i.g5+ f6 14. E!:d1 White wins. Blasting his way through Black's de­
fences.
12. �xe4 �xe5 19. . . ®xeS
True, Black has an extra pawn, but Of course not 19 . . . E!:xe8 20. i.d6+
White's dynamic lead in development
plus Black's exposed uncastled King 20. �xg7 cxd5
provide overwhelming compensation. on 20 . . . �f8 White wins with 21.
i.xf7+ �xf7 22. �xh8+ �f8 23. E!:xd8+
13. �f4 c!tlf6 14. �h4 �e7
21. �xh8+ i>d7 22. �xh7
The rest is easy.

22. . . 'i!?c8 23. �xf7 d4

This looks like a resource but. . .

24. �e6+ �d7 25. �g8+

Commencing an elegant maneuver.

95
 27. .ie3! ll. g4?
The point. Now far from winning the An ill-judged advance, ofwhich Pills­
lLlc3, the Black d-pawn is lost. bury takes full advantage, saddling 01-
27. . . .ixg2 28. �xd4 land with a permanently weak f-pawn.
11. . . @h8 12. f4 �g8 13. h3
1-0

8 8

GAME 44 COl 7

6 6
o Olland, Adolf Georg 5 5
• Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
4 4

DSB-13. Kongress Hannover, 1902 3

2 2
Notes by Sergeant & Watts

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. lLlc3 lLlf6 4. .ig5

.ib4 5. exd5 exd5 6. en 13 . . . f5! 14. g5 .id6 15. h4 f6 16 .
Olland's plan is to play 0 -0 -0, af­ .ih3 li.:lb6 17. �dfl .id7 18. ltlg3 fxg5
ter breaking up his opponent's king side. 19. hxg5 �af8 20. li.:l h5 .ie7 21. �el
But6 . .id3, followed by lLle2 and 0 -0, .idS 22. li.:le2 li.:l c4 23. li.:leg3 �g6 24.
looks better. b3 li.:ld6 25. li.:lfl li.:le4 26. li.:lfg3 h6 27.
6 . . o-o 1. hf6 exf6 s. exf6 gxf6 9.
. li.:lxe4 dxe4 28. li.:lg3 .ic7 29. li.:le2 @g7
li.:lge2 c6 10. 0-0-0 li.:ld7 30. gxh6+ fuh6

96

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2
Pillsbury's manoeuvres have been ad­
mirable, and he now has a position that
must win in due course.
3 1 . gegl+ @f6 32 . .tfl gfhs 33.
gxh6+ gxh6 34. @d2 gh4 35. c.t>e3
.te8 36. ggs
This does not help matters. The rook
is needed for the defence.
36 . . . .th5 37. gf8+ 'i!?g6 38. gg8+
'i!?f7 39. gcs .td6 40. ghs <.t>g7 41 .
gxh5
The only way to hold the f-pawn, but
it does not save the game.
41 . . . gxh5 42. ll:lg3
42 . . . gg5!
97
A knock-out blow. The opposite
colours of the bishops does not avail
White.
43. fxg5 .ixg3 44. c4 @g6 45. a4
<.t>xg5 46 . .ih3 .ih2 47. @f2 a5 48 . .tfl
.if4 49. .th3 .tel 50. d5 cxd5 51. cxd5
.ia3 52 . .ifl .ic5+ 53. <.t>el f4 54 . .tc4
b6 55. @d2 f3 56. d6 hd6 57. <.t>e3 @f5
58. @f2 @f4 59. ih5 e3+
0-1
GAME 45 A83
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Levin, Alexander
DSB-13. Kongress Hannover, 1902
Notes by Sergeant & Watts
1. d4 f5 2. e4 fxe43. ll:\c3 ll:lf6 4. .tg5
c6 5. f3 exf3 6. ll:lxf3 d5 7. .td3 .tg4
To prevent 8. lt:le5, which was pos­
sibly White's best last move, Pillsbury
makes use of Black's move, however, to
develop his queen.
8. h3 hf3 9. �xf3 ll:lbd7 10. 0-0-0
�a5 11. ghel 0-0-0
 GAME 46 C90

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Marco, Georg

Monte Carlo, 1903

1. e4 e5 2. tl:lf3 tl:lc6 3. .ib5 a6 4. .ia4

tl:lf6 5. 0-0 .ie7 6. �e1 b5 7. .ib3 d6
7. . . 0-0!? 8. c3 (8. a4; 8. h3!?) 8 . . . dS
9. exdS lLlxdS lO. lLlxeS lLlxeS 11. �xeS
l2'lf6 12. �e1 .id6 13. h3 lLlg4 14. Wf3
Wh4 1S. d4 lLlxf2 16. �e2 ig4 17. hxg4
12. �e6! ih2+ 18. i>fl± Capablanca,J-Marshall,
Probably unexpected, and very em­ F /New York, 1918
barrassing to Black's development. He 8. a4
seems compelled to play 12 . . . lLle4 to
obtain any freedom. But even the sur­
render of a pawn cannot save him.
12 . . . l2'le4 13. he4dxe4 14. \Wg4 h5
15. \Wf4 l2'lf6 16. �e5 \Wc7 17. tl:lxe4 �d5
18. tl:lc5 tl:ld7

8. c3 is the main line.

8 . . . .ig4
8 . . . ib7 9. c3 lLlaS 10. ic2 cS 11. d4
0-0 12. lLlbd2 cxd4 13. cxd4 l2'lc6 14.
lLlb3 dS 1S. axbS axbS 16. �xa8 ixa8 17.
dxeS l2'lxe4 18. ti:lfd4 l2'lxd4 19. ti:lxd4;!;
19. tl:le6 \Wd6 20. �xd5! \Wxf4+ Kupreichik, V-Hjartarson, J /Winni­
If20. . . cxdS, then 21. Wxd6 exd6 22. peg 1986
�fl e.t.c. The finish is very neatly han­ 8 . . . b4 9. c3 0-0 10. aS �b8 (10 . . .
dled by White. ie6!?) 11. ic4 ie6 12. ixa6 �a8 13.
21. tl:lxf4 cxd5 22. tl:lg6 �g8 23. he7 We2 Wb8 14. d4 bxc3 1S. dS! Morozev­
�c7 24. .ixf8 ich, A-Bacrot, E /Biel 2003
1-0 9. c3 0-0 10. h3 .ih5

98

8 8
7 26. tllg3 exf4 27. tll e2 g5?
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
25 . . . g6
25 . . . exf4 deserves attention.
27. . . '1Wc8 is stronger.
28. tllf5
White now obtains a positional com-
pensation.
28 . . . tllg7 29. tllxg7 hg7

ll. d3
Considered the most effective plan
against the pin.
11 . . . '1Wd7 12. tllbd2 �ae8 13. axb5
axb5 14. tll f1 �a8 15. �xa8 �xa8 16.
tllg3 .ig6 17. .id2 tll a5 18 . .ic2 tll e8 19.
.icl c6
If 19 . . . c5, then 20. d4 with an ad­
vantage for White. 30. g3! fxg3 31. tllxg3 .ig6 32. tll f5
20. d4 V!!c7 21. tllf5 f6 22. tll 3h4.if7 �e8 33. h4 h6 34. �g1 lt:\c4 35. hxg5
23. 1Wg4 .if8 fxg5
a b c d e f g h
8
7

6
5
4

24. f4
White has some initiative after 24.
lt:\h6+!? 't!?h8 25. lt:\xfl+ 'IWxfl 26. 'IWdl,
thanks for the bishop pair.
24 . . . 't!?h8 25. 'it>h1?
This pawn sacrifice is wrong.
36 . .ixg5
More accurate is 36. b3 lt:\b6 37.
ixg5 hxg5 38. 1Wxg5 �e6 39. d5 cxd5
(39. . . �f6 40. e5 dxe5 41. lt:\xg7 '1Wxg7
42. ixg6+-) 40. exd5 lt:\xd5 41 . lt:\xg7
1Wxg7 42. ixg6±

99
 :16 . . . hxg5 37. W'xg5 .ixf5??
!\ big blunder. 37. . . �h7? 38. eS �g8
:W. 41c7+-
The only move was 37. . . �e6, for
instance 38. W'h4+ (38. d5 �f6; 38. b3
�xf5 39. exf5 �h6+) 38 . . . Wg8 39. e5
Wf8 (39 . . . dxeS 40. �xg6 �xg6 41.
l/Je7+) 40. l/Jxg7 'Wxg7 41. 'Wd8+ �e8 42.
'Wh4= led to a draw.
38. 'Wh5+
1-0
tunity to pursue aggressive tactics on the
king's side. 12 . . . cxd4 followed by 13 . . .
l/Je4 was probably better.
13 . .if5 b5 14. �f3 �e8 15. :Bh3 g6
16 . .ib1 l/Jxe5 17. fxe5 l/Jd7
Better was 17. . . l/Je4. Black entirely
underrates the opponent's attack, which
soon becomes overwhelming.
18. h.e7 :Bxe7 19. W'f3 l/Jf8 20. :Bfl

GAME 47 063

o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson

• Wolf, Heinrich

Monte Carlo, 1903

Notes by Kemeny

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. l/Jc3 l/Jf6 4 . .ig5 20 . . . W'd7 21. W'f6 b4

l/Jbd7 5. l/Jf3 .ie7 6. e3 0-0 7. �cl b6 8.
cxd5 exd5 9. l/Je5 .ib7 10. f4 a6 11 . .id3
c5 12. 0-0
The king's side was too seriously en­
dangered to permit a counter attack on
the queen's wing. The move proves di­
sastrous, for it enables White to play 22.
l/Ja4, followed by 23. l/Jc5
22. l/Ja4 W'c7 23. l/Jc5 .ic8 24. :Bh6
a5 25. :Bf4 :Bb8

12 . . . c4
In order to establish a majority of
pawns on the queen's wing, the disad­
vantage is that it gives White an oppor-

100
 The intention to continue 26 . . . !!b6 ing mate. 34. . . tiJg7 would not be avail­
in order to dislodge the adverse queen. able on account of35. !!f8#
It has been delayed too long and White
now brilliantly wins with 26. ixg6
26. hg6 !!b6 GAME 48 C39
He could not play 26 . . . hxg6 27.
'Wh8# o Marco, Georg
or 26 . . . fxg6 27. 'Wxf8# • Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
Nor was 26 . . . liJxg6 available, for 27.
!!xg6+ and 28. l:!h4 would have won for Vienna Gambit, 1903
White.
Notes by Sergeant & Watts
a b c d e g h

1. e4e5 2. f4 exf4 3. c!Llf3 g5 4. h4 g4

5. c!Llg5 h6 6. c!Llxf7 �xf7 7. .ic4+ d5 8.
hd5+ �e8 9. d4 c!Llf6 10. c!Llc3 .ib4 11.
0-0 f3 12. 'Wd3 .ixc3 13. bxc3 fxg2

27. 'Wxb6
27. tiJe6 forces mate in five moves
Boyce, ]. C.
27. . . c!Llxg6
Had he played 27. . . 'Wxb6 White
would have continued 28. ixh7+ and
29. !!xb6. Bringing about a game in which his
king is astonishingly unprotected, yet
28. 'Wf6 !!e8 comes to no harm.
The capture of the rook would have
hastened defeat, 29. exf4 and 30. !!hS 14. :gf2 c!Llxd5 15. exd5 'Wxh4 16.
would have followed. 'Wg6+ �d8 17. :gxg2 .id7
29. :gf1 .ie6 30. 'Wg5 �h8 31. 'Wh5
c!Llf8 32. c!Llxe6 lhe6 33. :gxe6

1-0

Ifnow 33 . . . liJxe6, White answers 34.

!!xf7 attacking the queen and threaten-

101
 Black could draw by perpetual check,
but prefers to try for a win.
18 . .if4 �c8 19. ge2 b6 20. fig7
fid8
White designs to shut in the black
queen are obvious.
21. ge7
Much inferior to 21. gael
21. . . gg8 22. fih7 gfs 23 . .ig3
23 . . . gf3
Marco in his notes comments on the
strength of Black's one really developed
piece, compared with all the white piec­
es.
24 . .ih4 fif8 25. c4 fif4 26. fih8+
�b7 27. fie5 fixe5 28. dxe5
102
28 . . . �c6!!
This pretty move must have come as
a surprise to White.
29. gxd7
If, in reply, 29. dxc6+ .ixc6 30. :1!el
:1!h3 31. .if6 g3 32. @fl .if3 e.t.c. There
is no saving the game.
29. . . �xe5 30. gg7 �xc4 31. gxg4
�e3 32. gg6 �xd5 33. c4 �f4 34. gg7
lf34. gxh6 gg8+
34 . . . ge8 35. gdl ge4 36. c5 �e6 37.
gg6 �xc5 38. :gm6 ge2
0-1
GAME 49 0 60
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Barry, John Finan
Cambridge Springs, 1904
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. �c3 �f6 4. .ig5
.ie7 5. e3 0-0 6. �f3 �bd7 7. .id3 b6
8. cxd5 exd5 9. �e5 .ib7 10. f4 �e4 11.
.ixe7 fixe7 12 . .ixe4 dxe4 13. 0-0 f5

14. �h3+
14. l':1cl l2Jf6 1S. tLlbS tLldS 16. �b3
@h8 17. l2Jc6 ixc6 18. l':1xc6 !:1fd8 19.
E1fcl !:1d7 is unclear Pillsbury, H-Ma­
son, ]/Monte Carlo 1903
For 14. g4, see the game Pillsbury, H­
Schiffers, E /Vienna, 1898
14 . . . @h8 15. E:fd1 .!ilf6 16. E:acl c6
In Pillsbury, H-Fox, A/Cambridge
Springs1904, White had the better po­
sition after 16 . . . !:1ac8 17. tLlbS idS 18.
�a4 aS 19. l2Ja7 !:1a8 20. l2Jac6
17. .!Lle2 E:ac8 18. @h1 .!ild5 19. a3
E:c7 20 . .!Llg3 g6
This move weakens the kingside 20 . . .
'1We6 seems preferable.
21. E:e1
103
A waiting prophylactic move.
21. . . �e6 22. �d1 E:fc8 23. b4 E:a8
24. �d2 a5 25. bxa5 E:xa5 26 . .!Llc4
a b c d e I g h
26. . . E:a8?
Correct is 26 . . . !:1a6 with counter­
play for Black.
27. �b2 E:a6 28 . .!Lle2 @g8 29. .!Llc3
b5
After 29. . . l2Jxf4 30. exf4 '1Wxc4 31.
l2Jxe4! (31. tLlbS cxbS 32. l':1xc4 bxc4) 31. . .
�d3 32. tLlgS Black is lost.
30 . .!Lle5 �d6 31. .!ilxd5 �xd5 32.
E:c5 �d6 33. E:ecl E:e7 34. E:1c3 E:e6
35. h3 E:e7
36. @h2
The threat is stronger than it's exe­
cution!
 :\6 . . . 'it>g7?
' l lu: fi n a l mistake in a difficult posi-
t ion.
37. d5 cxd5 38. �xb5 �a7 39. �b6
'I!Nd8 40. �cb3
1-0
GAME 50
o Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
• Lasker, Emanuel
Cambridge Springs, 1904
Notes by Kasparov, Garry
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. ll:lc3 ll:lf6 4. ll:lf3
c5 5 . .ig5 cxd4 6. 'I!Nxd4 lll c6
6 . . . .ie7!?
7. hf6!
A new move, which had awaited its
hour for many years.
Eight years ago they played 7. 'I!Nh4
fie7 8. 0-0-0?! 'I!NaS 9. e3 fid7 10. i>b1
h6 11. cxdS exdS 12. lLld4 0-0 13. hf6
hf6 14. 'I!NhS lLlxd4 1S. exd4 fie6 16. f4
�ac8 17. fS �xc3 18. fxe6 E:a3 19. exf7+
E:xf7 20. bxa3 'I!Nb6+ 21. fibS 'I!NxbS+ 22.
i>a1 E:c7 23. E:d2 E:c4 24. E:hd1 E:c3 2S.
'I!NfS 'I!Nc4 26. i>b2 E:xa3 27. 'I!Ne6+ l!?h7
28. i>xa3 'I!Nc3+ 29. l!?a4 bS+ 30. i>xbS
'1Wc4+ 31. 'it>aS fid8+ 0-1 Pillsbury, H­
Lasker, E /St Petersburg 189S/96
7. . . gxf6
It transpires that White is better after
7. . . lLlxd4 8. fixd8 lll c2+ (8 . . . lllxf3+? 9.
gxf3 1!lxd8 10. cxdS exdS 11. 0-0-0 (or
0 40 immediately 11. lLlxdS with extra pawn.)
9. i>d2 lLlxa1 10. fic7 (10. fih4 fid6 11.
e3) 10 . . . dxc4 11. e4 lLlb3+ 12. axb3
cxb3 13. fic4 e.t.c.
8. 'I!Nh4 dxc4
8 . . . d4?! 9. 0-0-0! eS 10. e3
9. E:d1!?
If 9. '1Wxc4, then 9 . . . '1Wb6 is good,
while if9. e3 - 9. . . fS 10. '1Wxd8+ lLlxd8
11. fixc4 lLlc6 12. fibS fid7 13. l!?e2 a6
14. fixc6 .ixc6 1S. E:hd1 fig7 16. E:ac1
l!?e7 17. g3 E:hd8 is equal (Bogoljubow,
E-Alekhine, A /Munich 1942)
9. . . 1d7 10. e3
The critical position of the variation.
10 . . . ll:le5?!
Lasker falters!
Later he recommended 10 . . . fS, for
example 11. '1Wg3 (or 11. '1Wxc4 fig7 12.
'1Wb3 ixc3+ 13. '1Wxc3 '\WaS 14. 'IWxaS
lLlxaS 1S. lLleS fia4 16. E:d4 lLl c6 17.
E:xa4 lLlxeS 18. fibS+ l!?e7 with equal
104
chances Dus Khotimirsky, F-Znosko lf15 . . . .ic6, then 16 . .if3
Borovsky, E/St Petersburg 1905) 11 . . . 16. ttle4 ie7
h5 (11 . . . 1Wb6!?) 12 . .ixc4 h4 13. 1Wf4 Another defensive try was 16 . . . 1Wc2!?
Ei:g8 14. ltle5 ltlxe5 15. '\WxeS .ig7!? (15 . . . 17. tt:\d6+ .ixd6 18. 1Wxd6 1Wc5
a6 16. 0-0 Ei:c8 is level.) 16. '\Wd6 .ixc3+
17. bxc3 Ei:xg2 18. 1Wb41Wb6 with a com­
fortable game
Euwe suggested 10 . . . .ie7. After 11.
.ixc4 \WaS 12. 0 -0 f5 13. 1Wf4 0 -0 -0
and . . . Ei:h8-g8-g6 Black has clear coun­
terpaly (Fuster-Cuellar, Havana 1966).

11. ttlxe5
After 11. .ie2?! Ei:c8 12. tt:lxe5 fxe5 13.
1Wg3 1Wa5 there is no real compensation
for the pawn (Guimard-Grau, Argen­
tina, 1938)
11 . . . fxe5 12. 1Wxc4 '\Wb6 17. ttld6+
Inadequate was 17. Ei:d2 '1Wb6 18. Ei:b1
'\Wc6 19. .if3 '\Wa6! 20. 1Wxa6 bxa6 with a
tenable endgame.
17. . . �f8
After 17. . . Ld6 18. '\Wxd6 '1Wb6 (18 . . .
'\Wc3? 19. .ib5!) 19. 1Wxe5 Black's posi­
tion is catastrophic: 19. . . Ei:g8 (19. . . 0-
0 20. Ei:b1 (or 20. �g5+!? 'it>h8 21. 1Wf6+
'it>g8 22. l:'i:d4 e5 23. '\WxeS)) 20. .ih5! (20.
Ei:d6 '\Wc5 21. 1Wxc5 Ei:xc5 22. Ei:fd1 Ei:c7?
23. Ei:xd7 Ei:xd7 24. .ib5 (B. Vainstein).
However, 22 . . . ia4! is stronger.) 20 . . .
'\Wc6 21. e4 with an attack - bad is 21. . .
13 .ie2!
• '\WcS? 22. ix£7+ 'it>xf7 23. Ei:xd7+
A bold and fully justified pawn sacri­
fice. White quickly completes his devel­ 18. ttlc4 1Wb5 19. f4! exf4?
opment and throws all his forces against Far more solid was 19. . . ic6 20. fxe5
the enemy king. (20. tt:lxe5?! '\Wxd3 21. ixd3 .ic5!) 20 . . .
Much more passive was 1 3 . Ei:d2 '\Wd5 21. 1Wxd5 .ixd5 22. tt:\d6 ixd6 23.
.ic6 exd6 Ei:c2 24. .if3, when White has only
13 ••• 1Wxb2 14. 0-0! minimal advantage.
14 . .ih5 Ei:c8! 15 . .ixf7+ \tlxf7 16.
Ei:xd7+ .ie7 17. tt:\d1 Ei:xc4 18. tt:lxb2 Ei:cl+
19. tt:ld1 Ei:d8 was unclear.
14 ••• Ei:c8 15. �d3 Ei:c7

105
 20. �d4! f6 25 . .ic4!!
If20 . . . �g8 or 20 . . . lt>g8, then also The right way! 2S. �xfS+ �xfS (2S . . .
21. �xf4 exfS? 26. j,c4+! �xc4 27. �eS+ and
�xc4) 26. �fl �cS! was unclear.
21. �xf4 �c5 25. . . �c6
But not 21 . . . �c8 22. �d4 j,c6 23. 2S . . . �xc4? 26. �eS+
�xf6+!
26. lhf5+! Wl'xf5 27. �fl Wi'xfl+
22. �e5 .ie8 23. �g4 or 27. . . �xc4 28. �xfS+ exfS 29.
23. �d4 was also interesting, for ex­ �eS+
ample: 23 . . . �g8 (or 23 . . . lt>g7 24. �g4
eS 2S. �h6+ lt>g8 26. j,c4+ and wins.) 28. lt>xfl .id7 29. Wl'h5+ c.!?f8 30.
24. �c4 �dS 2S. j,f3 �xeS 26. �xeS �e5
�xc4 27. �xe6
23 . . . f5 1 0
-

In view of what follows, more tena­

cious was 23 . . . j,g6! 24. �xf6 (24. �d4
�c6 2S. �xf6 lt>g7 26. �d7 �gS) 24 . . .
lt>g7 2S. �d7 �c3 26 . .ig4 with an at­
tacking position for White.

24. �h6+ c.!?f7

The culmination of this gripping
duel.

106
 PILLSBURY'S TOURNAMENT RECORD

Event Year Score Place Winner

New York "Impromptu" 1893 7-6 7th Lasker

New York Master's 1893 7-2 1st Pillsbury
Buffalo Staats-Zeitung Cup 1894 3lh-2lh 2nd Showalter
New York lnt'l Master's 1894 5-5 =5th Steinitz
Hastings 1895 16lh-4lh 1st Pillsbury
St. Petersburg 1896 8-10 3rd Lasker
Nuremberg 1896 12-6 =3rd Lasker
Budapest 1896 7lh-4lh 3rd Chigorin
Vienna Kaiser Jubilee 1898 27lh-8lh =1st Tarrasch
London lnt'l Congress 1899 18-9 =2nd Lasker
Paris 1900 12lh-3lh 2nd Lasker
Munich 1900 12-3 =1st Pillsbury
Buffalo 1901 9-1 1st Pillsbury
Monte Carlo 1902 14lh-4lh 2nd Maroczy
Hanover 1902 12-5 2nd Janowski
Monte Carlo 1903 18 lh-7 lh 3rd Tarrasch
Vienna Gambit Tournament 1903 10-8 4th Chigorin
Cambridge Springs 1904 7-8 =8th Marshall

107
 'Impromptu' Tournament 1893

Site: Manhattan Chess Club, New York

Place: 7th [+7-6=0]
Prizes: None

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
.
1 Lasker 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13,0
.
2 Albin 0 1 1 1 1 1 'h 0 0 1 1 0 1 8,5
.
3 Delmar 0 0 'h 'h 0 1 1 1 'h 1 1 1 'h 8,0
.
4 Lee 0 0 'h 0 1 1 'h 1 1 1 0 1 1 8,0
......
.
� 5 Showalter 0 0 'h 1 1 0 1 'h 1 1 1 0 1 8,0
.
6 Hanham 0 0 1 0 0 1 'h 1 1 1 1 1 0 7,5
.
7 Pillsbury 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7,0
.
8 Taubenhaus 0 'h 0 'h 0 'h 0 0 'h 1 1 1 1 6,0
.
9 Pollock 0 1 0 0 'h 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 'h 5,0
.
10 Ryan 0 1 'h 0 0 0 0 'h 1 0 0 1 1 5,0
.
11 Schmidt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5,0
.
12 J asnogrodsky 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4,0
.
13 Oily 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 'h 3,5
.
14 Gossip 0 0 'h 0 0 1 0 0 'h 0 0 0 'h 2,5
L__ ---- ---
The Master's Chess Tournament 1893

Site: The Manhattan Cafe, New York

Place: 1st [+7-2=0]
Prizes: $100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Pillsbury
.
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7,0

2 Hodges 1
.
0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 6,0

3 Showalter 0 1 .
0 0 1 1 1 1 1h 5,5

4 Albin 0 0 1 .
1 1 1 0 1 0 5,0

5 Baird,].W. 0 0 1 0 .
0 1 1h 1 1 4,5

6 Halpern 0 0 0 0 1 .
1 1h 1 1 4,5

7 Baird,D.G. 0 1 0 0 0 0 .
1 1 1 4,0

8 Ettlinger 1 0 0 1 1h 1h 0 .
0 0 3,0

9 Hanham 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 .
1 3,0

10 Delmar 0 0 1h 1 0 0 0 1 0 .
2,5

The Staats-Zeitung Cup Tournament 1894

Site: The Hermitage, Buffalo, New York

Place: 2nd [+3-2=1]
Prizes: $20 + Trophy (a pair of opera glasses)

1 2 3 4

1 Showalter
. .
1h 1 1 1 1 1h 4

2 Pillsbury 1h 0 . .
1 0 1 1 3,5

3 Albin 0 1 0 1
. .
0 1h 2,5

4 Farnswotrh 0 1h 0 0 1 1h
. •
2

109
 International Master's Tournament 1894

Site: City Chess Club, Union Square Hotel, New York

Place: 5th-6th [+4-4=2]
Prizes: None

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.
1 Steinitz 0 'lz 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8,5
.
2 Albin 1 0 1 'lz 0 1 0 1 1 1 8,5
.
3 Hymes 'lz 1 0 1 'lz 'lz 1 1 'lz 0 6
......
...... .
<;::) 4 Showalter 0 0 1 'lz 1 1 1 0 'lz 1 6
•
5 Delmar 0 'lz 0 'lz 0 1 'lz 1 'lz 1 5
.
6 Pillsbury 0 1 'lz 0 1 0 'lz 0 1 1 5
.
7 H alpern 0 0 'lz 0 0 1 1 0 1 'lz 4
.
8 Hanham 0 1 0 0 'lz 'lz 0 1 1 0 4
.
9 Rocamora 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 4
.
10 Baird, D.G. 0 0 'lz 'lz 'lz 0 0 0 1 'lz 3
.
11 Jasnogrodsky 0 0 1 0 0 0 'lz 1 0 'lz 3
Hastings Tournament 1895

Site: Brassey Institute, Hastings, England

Place: 1st [+15-3 =3]
Prizes: £150

Hastings 1895 is one strong contender for the strongest tournament of all time.
All of the top twelve of the time were present. The tournament took place between
August 5th and September 2nd 1895.
The young American Harry Nelson Pillsbury won the tournament in fine style,
ahead of Mikhail Chigorin, recently crowned world champion Emanuel Lasker,
Seigbert Tarrasch and former champion Wilhelm Steinitz.
Pillsbury was a protege ofSteinitz's, and had played against Lasker during the
latter's visit to the U.S. Pillsbury refused to join the others in the same hotel. "I want
to be quiet. I mean to win this tournament."

111
The International Chess Tournament

Pillsbury's article on Hastingsfor the Saturday Review, published August 31, 1895.

In a few days the great International Chess Tournament will have come to an
end, and it is not too much to say that a more successful affair, from start to finish,
never took place.
It seems very likely now that a tie for first place may occur, and if by chance or
mischance the three leaders in the competition - Lasker, Tschigorin, and Pillsbury ­
should be even, then the good old town ofHastings would witness a three-cornered
fight of surpassing interest.
While the first three prizes are, and practically have been for some time, quite
assured to the three leading players, on the other hand, no less than nine players -
Steinitz, Dr. Tarrasch, Walbrodt, Bardeleben, Schlechter, Pollock, Gunsberg, Ma­
son, and Teichmann - are making heroic efforts to secure the other four places of
honour. It seems highly probable that the first three named will be placed, but the
combat is so close that the slightest error may allow the others to creep in ahead.
Perhaps to those who are interested in the sense in which the world is absorbed
in watching a great conflict, mental or physical, rather than to those who are close­
ly connected with the game itself, a briefaccount of the various players may be wel­
come.
When the committee of the tournament announced that they were prepared to
receive entries they were surprised at the unprecedented number of applicants, no
less than thirty-eight players ofrecognized ability sending in their names. The man­
agement, however, deemed it essential to success that the tournament should not
last over a month, and they felt obliged to limit the number of competitors to twen­
ty-two, selecting them, after considering their strength as players and the countries
they represented.
For instance, Italy is for the first time in thirty-three years represented by Ver­
gani, who, while quite the weakest of the players, has yet to his credit the well-won
victories over Gunsberg and Schlechter. It is to be hoped that sunny Italy will again
take part in great international chess contests, and that the playing ability of her
experts will increase thereby. It seems a pity that a country which has produced so
many great men in every branch ofhuman endeavour should not be on an equality
in regard to chess with the Germans or English.
France, too, has done little in the cause ofour noble game, the one representative,
Janowski, not being a native ofFrance: and the lack ofinterest taken by Frenchmen
in these competitions is also a matter of deep regret.
On the other hand, Germany, England, and America, have come forward with
several candidates for high honours, and while Russia and Austria have sent but two
each, yet their players are among the most feared by their opponents.
Russia sends the brilliant Tschigorin, whose powers of combination are known;
he is, probably, the most aggressive player of the day, and already certain of one of

112
the leading places, and very likely to rank first; also Schiffers, who although ofsome­
what lesser strength, had the distinguished honour ofwinning his individual game
with Tschigorin in very brilliant fashion.
From Vienna come Marco and Schlechter, both ofwhom would doubtless have
taken much higher rank but for the teaching of the Viennese school, which make
them overcautious; they both naturally play to draw, and only attempt to win when
their opponents give the game away. Schlechter has achieved the remarkable num­
ber of twelve drawn games out of seventeen.
Out of Germany come Dr. Tarrasch, Walbrodt, Bardeleben, and Mieses. The
Nuremberg physician has not been as successful as many of his admirers expected.
But it should be borne in mind that he has never played in so strong a tournament
before, nor indeed has anyone else. Never before have the great four - Lasker, Stein­
itz, Tschigorin, and Tarrasch - met in tournament.
But Tarrasch was unfortunate in starting; owing to a misunderstanding he lost
his first game with Mason by exceeding the time-limit, and in his second game he
doubtless underrated his American opponent. Oflate, however, he has shown im­
proved form, and will probably take either fourth or fifth place. Of a genial, whole­
souled disposition, one cannot be surprised that he has so many friends.
Walbrodt is one of the youngest of the players, being barely twenty-three years
of age. He is a very small man also, the smallest of all the competitors; a player more
prosaic by far than the Nuremberger, but a very accurate player, and very difficult to
overcome. Bardeleben started very well in the tournament, but failed to keep up his
score after the eighth and ninth rounds, and it looks quite likely
that he will not be placed at all. Mieses also started finely, but the pressure of
newspaper correspondence seems to have been too much for him. He is a player of
great promise, however, and would doubtless have done much better were he not
overburdened with business cares.
Old England may fairly be proud of her representatives, Blackburne, Bird,
Mason, Gunsberg, Tinsley, Burn, Teichmann, and lastly, the world's champi­
on, Lasker.
Lasker bids fair to uphold the honour of his adopted country by winning for it
the first honours. Some ofhis games have been of a very high order of chess, and he
has all along displayed that element of'deadly accuracy' which has been, perhaps,
the most important factor in his career.
Blackburne has been a disappointment to native Englishmen; he seems to fail
at the critical moment, for after all in chess, as in life, the margin between success
and failure is but slight.
Bird, the 'Grand Old Man' of chess, who is seventy-four years old, has played in
almost every important competition since 1851. A most ingenious player, but a trifle
unsound, he is apt to win most brilliantly from a stronger player, or to lose to a weak­
er one, playing at so rapid a rate that he is liable to oversights or misjudgements.
Mason is still likely to be a prize-winner, also Gunsberg, but on the whole their
play has been below their previous performances. The same might be said of Burn,

113
although the lack of serious practice has told heavily against him. Teichmann is a
rising young player, and will doubtless be heard of in future; he is an accurate and
conscientious player, and ofgreat promise. Tinsley probably will not be placed; he
has won several fine games, but his persistent adoption of the French defence has
been to his disadvantage.
A noteworthy theoretical point might here be made - that the four leaders, Tsch­
igorin, Lasker, Pillsbury, and Steinitz, have not, as second players, once adopted the
French defence. Ergo, it must be against their theories, and therefore highly ques­
tionable as affording a satisfactory game to the second player.
In regard to the American players, who has not heard of the great 'Bohemian
Caesar' Steinitz, for many years a resident of London, now resident in the United
States? For twenty-eight years he upheld in match-play against Andersson, Zuck­
ertort, Tschigorin, Guns berg, and Blackburne, the proud tide of champion of the
world, and when forced to lower his colours to a younger man, Lasker, only did so
after a gallant struggle. Certainly, as the pioneer in introducing new ideas into the
noble game, he will always occupy a prominent page in chess history.
Perhaps age is beginning to tell on him, and this may be the reason of his not
reaching the highest place in the tournament. But if his actual playing powers do
not return to him, his analytical powers remain as great as ever, an unfailing source
of enrichment to the literature of chess.
He has been called the master ofmodern chess in opposition to Paul Morphy, and
the name is not undeserved. Some have taken pleasure in comparing Paul Morphy
and Steinitz to Napoleon and Moltke as opponents of very different kinds of strat­
egy. Like other masters in the past, Morphy never hesitated to sacrifice a piece or
even two in developing some brilliant combination of attack, whereas Steinitz was
among the first to insist that no advantage should be given to one's opponent unless
a positive gain was seen to be the result of it. He has always declared that an infini­
tesimal advantage ifwell used is sufficient to win a game, and that it is always better
to draw than to lose. So he has erred on the safe side, while Morphy and the others
often sacrificed soundness to brilliancy.
Albin comes originally from Vienna, but intends returning to New York, which
for three years past he has made his headquarters. He has played at times very fine­
ly, at times very badly. His health has not been very good, which may account for his
unfortunate performances. His drawn games with Tschigorin and Lasker, however,
may have an important bearing on the final results for the first three places.
Pollock may be classed as an American, although playing for Canada. Pollock
came originally from Ireland, and is still, I believe, a British subject. In 1889 he
crossed the Atlantic and took part in the International Tourney at New York; while
not among the prize-winners, he nevertheless won a most remarkable game from
Weiss of Vienna (who with Tschigorin divided first and second honours). For this
Pollock was awarded the brilliancy prize. He is the conductor of several chess col­
umns in the States, though latterly he has lived in Montreal.
I prefer to leave the task of appreciating Pillsbury to others or to the future.

114
 There is one result ofthe present tournament which will doubtless be ofgreat in­
terest. The St. Petersburg club is endeavouring to arrange for a meeting of the five or
six most prominent masters in the chess world. This event will probably be held to­
wards the close ofthis year. Tschigorin, Lasker, Steinitz, Tarrasch, and Pillsbury are
among those invited. The plan is that each player shall contest three or four games
with each of the other players. In case this event does take place, let us hope that
chess and chess literature may be thereby enriched.
H. N Pillsbury

115
 Hastings 1895 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
.
1 Pillsbury 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 'h 'h 1 1 1 1 1 1 'h 1 1 1 1 16,5
.
2 Chigorin 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 'h 0 1 1 1 'h 'h 1 1 'h 1 1 16.0
.
3 Lasker 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 'h 1 1 1 'h 1 1 'h 1 1 15,5
.
4 Tarrasch 0 0 1 1 1 'h 0 'h 1 1 1 0 1 'h 1 1 1 0 'h 1 1 14.0
.
5 Steinitz 0 1 0 0 1 1 'h 'h 1 1 0 1 'h 1 0 1 1 0 'h 1 1 13.0
.
6 Schiffers 0 1 0 0 0 'h 'h 0 1 1 1 'h 'h 1 1 0 'h 1 'h 1 1 12.0
.
7 Bardeleben 0 0 1 'h 0 'h 'h 'h 0 0 'h 1 1 1 'h 'h 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 ,5
.
8 Teichmann 0 0 0 1 15 'h 'h 'h 0 0 'h 1 1 0 1 'h 1 'h 1 1 1 1 1 ,5
.
9 Schlechter 1 0 0 'h 'h 1 'h 'h 'h 'h 0 1 1 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 1 0 1 1 .0
.
...... 10 Blackburne 'h 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 'h 0 1 0 1 0 'h 1 0 1 0 1 1 10,5
......
.
0\ 11 Walbrodt 'h 'h 0 0 0 0 1 1 'h 1 0 'h 0 'h 'h 0 'h 'h 1 1 1 10.0
.
12 Janowsky 0 1 0 0 1 0 'h 'h 1 0 1 'h 0 0 'h 0 1 'h 1 0 1 9,5
.
13 Mason 0 0 'h 1 0 'h 0 0 0 1 'h 'h 1 0 1 'h 0 1 1 0 1 9,5
.
14 Burn 0 0 0 0 'h 'h 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 'h 1 1 1 1 1 1 9,5
.
15 Gunsberg 0 0 0 'h 0 0 0 1 'h 1 'h 1 1 1 0 1 'h 0 1 0 0 9.0
.
16 Bird 0 'h 0 0 1 0 'h 0 'h 'h 'h 'h 0 'h 1 1 'h 0 'h 'h 1 9.0
•
17 Albin 0 'h 'h 0 0 1 'h 'h 'h 0 1 1 'h 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 'h 8,5
.
18 Marco 'h 0 0 0 0 'h 0 0 'h 1 'h 0 1 0 'h 'h 1 1 1 0 'h 8,5
.
19 Pollock 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 'h 'h 0 'h 'h 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 8.0
.
20 Mieses 0 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 0 0 'h 1 0 0 0 0 0 'h 0 0 1 1 1 7,5
.
21 Tinsley 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 'h 0 1 1 0 1 7,5
•
22 Vergani 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 'h 'h 0 0 0 3.0
The St.Petersburg Tournament 1895-96

Site: St. Petersburg Chess Club, St.Petersburg, Russia

Place: 3rd [+5-7=6]
Prizes: 400 Marks + 780 Marks (for game remunerations)

1 2 3 4

.. ,.. .,.. ..
1 Lasker 11'hPhO 0101hWh 1'1.!11¥.!1 1 1 ,5

"'**"'**
2 Steinitz 00¥.!0¥.!1 11¥.!¥.!11 01100¥.! 9, 5

"'*"'*"'*
3 Pillsbury 101'hWh 00¥.!¥.!00 11¥.!100 8,0

........
4 Chigorin 0¥.!00¥.!0 10011¥.! 00¥.!011 7,0

Nuremberg Tournament 1896

Site: Museums-Gesellschaft, Nuremberg, Germany

Place: 3rd -4th [+10-4=4]
Prizes: 1250 Marks + 300 Marks (brilliancy prize for Pillsbury-Lasker)
 Nuremberg 18'96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
.
1 Lasker, Emanuel 'h 1 0 0 1 'h 'h 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13,5
.
2 Maroczy, Geza 'h 'h 1 1 0 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 1 'h 1 1 1 1 1 'h 12,5
•
3 Tarrasch, Siegbert 0 'h 0 1 1 'h 'h 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 'h 'h 'h 1 12,0
.
4 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson 1 0 1 'h 1 0 'h 0 1 0 'h 1 1 1 1 'h 1 1 12,0
.
5 Janowski, Dawid 1 0 0 'h 1 1 1 1 0 'h 0 1 'h 1 0 1 1 1 11,5
.
6 Steinitz, Wilhelm 0 1 0 0 0 'h 1 'h 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,0
.
7 Walbrodt, Carl 'h 'h 'h 1 0 'h 'h 'h 1 0 0 'h 1 1 1 1 1 0 10,5
.
8 Schlechter, Carl 'h 'h 'h 'h 0 0 'h 'h 1 'h 'h 'h 1 1 'h 'h 1 1 10,5
.
...... 9 Schiffers, Emanuel 0 'h 0 1 0 'h 'h 'h 'h 0 'h 'h 1 'h 1 'h 1 1 9,5
......
Oo .
10 Chigorin, Mikhail 0 'h 0 0 1 0 0 0 'h 1 1 'h 1 1 0 1 1 1 9,5
.
11 Blackburne, Joseph Henry 0 'h 1 1 'h 0 1 'h 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 'h 9,0
.
12 Charousek, Rudolf 1 0 0 'h 1 0 1 'h 'h 0 1 'h 0 'h 1 1 0 0 8,5
•
13 Marco, George 0 'h 0 0 0 0 'h 'h 'h 'h 1 'h 'h 1 'h 'h 1 'h 8,0
.
14 Albin, Adolf 0 0 0 0 'h 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 'h 0 'h 'h 1 1 7,0
.
15 Winawer, Szymon 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 'h 0 0 'h 0 1 1 1 1 'h 6,5
.
16 Showalter, Jackson Whipps 0 0 'h 0 1 0 0 'h 0 1 0 0 'h 'h 0 'h 0 1 5,5
.
17 Porges, M 0 0 'h 'h 0 0 0 'h 'h 0 1 0 'h 'h 0 'h 0 1 5,5
.
18 Schallopp, Emil 0 0 'h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 4,5
.
19 Teichmann, Richard 0 'h 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 'h 1 'h 0 'h 0 0 0 4,0
 Budapest 1896

Site: Hotel Erzherwg Stephan, Budapest, Hungary

Place: 3rd [+6-3=3]
Prizes: 1500 Kronen

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
•
1 Charousek 1 1 0 1h 1h 1 1h 1 1 0 1 1 8,5
•
2 Chigorin 0 1h 1 0 1 1h 1 1 1 1 1h 1 8,5
...... •
...... 3 Pillsbury 0 1h 1h 1h 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 7, 5
'0
•
4 Janowski 1 0 1h 0 0 1 0 1 1 1h 1 1 7
• 1;2
5 Schlechter 1h 1 1h 1 1h 1 1h 0 1h 1 0 7
•
6 Walbrodt 1h 0 0 1 1h 1 0 1 0 1h 1 1 6,5
*
7 Winawer 0 1h 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6,5
•
8 Tarrasch 1h 0 1 1 1h 1 0 1h 0 0 1h 1 6
*
9 Albin 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1h 0 1 1h 1 5
•
10 Maroczy 0 0 0 0 1h 1 0 1 1 1h 0 1 4 ,5
•
11 Marco 1 0 0 1h 0 1h 0 1 0 1h 1 0 4
*
12 Noa 0 1h 0 0 1h 0 0 1h 1h 1 0 1 4
•
13 Popie!_ 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
-
 Kaiser Jubilee Tournament 1898

Site: Vienna Chess club, Vienna,Austria

Place: 2nd [+25-5=7] Playoff: Pillsbury - Tarrasch [+1-2=1];
Prizes: 4000 Kronen + 400 Kronen (brilliancy prize for Halprin-Pillsbury)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
..
1 Tarrasch 01 01 l->1 l->1 l->1 m 1l-> »» 1» 1hh 11 11 11 1» l->1 11 11 l->1 27,5
..
2 Pillsbury 10 01 1h l->1 10 10 l->0 1l-> l->1 11 11 l->1 l->1 11 11 11 11 11 27,5
..
3 Janowski 10 10 11 1h »» 11 l->1 00 11 l->0 11 l->1 11 11 00 l->1 11 11 25,5
..
4 Steinitz l->0 Ol-> 00 l->1 l->1 01 »» 11 m hh 10 11 11 10 l->1 1l-> 11 11 23,5
..
5 Schlechter l->0 l->0 Ol-> l->0 »» hh 11 »» 1» l->0 l->1 l->1 1» 11 l->0 l->1 11 11 21,5
..
6 Maroczy l->0 01 »» l->0 »» Oh 1h »» hh m 11 »» 10 Oh 01 l->1 »» 11 20,0
......
..
� 7 Chigorin Oh 01 00 10 »» m 10 10 1» l->0 01 10 11 10 11 10 10 11 20,0
a
..
8 Burn Oh l->1 l->0 »» 00 Oh 01 l->1 »» »» l->0 l->0 11 10 11 1h 11 11 20,0
..
9 Lipke »» Oh 11 00 »» »» 01 l->0 hh l->0 m 11 1h l->0 1» »» 11 »» 19,5
..
10 Alapin Oh l->0 00 Oh Oh hh Ol-> »» »» l->1 m 11 00 10 11 l->1 01 11 18,0
..
11 Blackburne hh 00 l->1 »» l->1 Oh l->1 »» l->1 l->0 »» l->0 Ol-> l->0 hh 0 11 l->1 17,0
..
12 Schiffers 00 00 00 01 l->0 00 10 l->1 Oh Oh »» 10 1l-> 11 l->1 1h 11 l->1 17,0
..
13 Marco 00 l->0 l->0 00 l->0 hh 01 l->1 00 00 l->1 01 11 l-> 1 m 1h l->1 10 16,5
..
14 Showalter 00 l->0 00 00 Ol-> 01 00 00 Oh 11 m Oh 0 l-> 1 11 11 01 11 15,0
..
15 Walbrodt Oh 00 00 01 00 1l-> 01 01 l->1 01 l->1 00 l->0 l->0 00 11 Ol-> 11 14,5
..
16 Halprin l->0 00 11 l-> 0 l->1 10 00 00 Oh 00 »» l->0 Ol-> 00 11 »» l->1 1» 14,0
..
17 Caro 00 00 l->0 Ol-> l->0 l->0 01 Ol-> »» l->0 11 Oh Oh 00 00 »» 11 l-> 1 12,5
..
18 Baird 00 00 00 00 00 »» 01 00 00 10 00 00 l->0 10 1» l->0 00 1» 8,5
..
19 Trenchard l->0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 »» 00 l->0 l->0 01 00 00 Oh l->0 Ol-> 5,0
121
 London International Chess Congress 1899

Site: St. Stephen's Hall, Westminster, London

Place: 2nd-4th [+14-5=8]
Prizes: £115

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
..
1 Lasker, Emanuel 1!,2 lhlh !,2'-h !,2!,2 01 11 11 1!,2 1!,2 lhl,2 11 11 11 1 22,5
..
2 Janowsky, Dawid 0!,2 10 01 11 m 11 lhl,2 00 11 10 11 01 1 !,2 1 18,0
..
3 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson !,2!,2 01 !,2!,2 !,2!,2 0 10 !,2!,2 11 11 11 11 m 11 !,2 18,0
..
4 Maroczy, Geza !,2!,2 10 !,2!,2 !,2!,2 !,2!,2 01 1!,2 10 11 !,2!,2 !,2!,2 m 11 1 18,0
..
....... 5 Schlechter, Carl !,2!,2 00 !,2!,2 !,2!,2 m 10 !,2!,2 !,2!,2 0!,2 11 11 11 11 1 17,0
� 6 Blackburne, Joseph Henry 10 0!,2 11 !,2!,2 0!,2
..
!,2!,2 01 1'-h 01 10 m 11 11 !,2 15,5
..
7 Chigorin, Mikhail 00 00 01 10 01 lhlh 1!,2 m 01 lhl,2 10 11 10 1 15,0
..
8 Showalter, Jackson Whipps 00 !,2!,2 lhlh 0!,2 lhlh 10 0!,2 Olh Olh 1'-h 11 11 01 1 12,5
..
9 Mason, James 0!,2 11 00 01 lhlh 0!,2 Olh 1'-h 00 01 00 11 !,2!,2 1 12,0
..
10 Cohn, Wilhelm Olh 00 00 00 1!,2 10 10 m 11 0 !,2 1!,2 10 00 1 1 1 ,5 1
..
11 Steinitz, William !,2!,2 01 00 lhl,2 00 01 !,2!,2 0!,2 10 m lhlh lhl,2 11 1 1 1 ,5 !
..
12 Lee, Francis 00 00 00 !,2!,2 00 Olh 01 00 11 0!,2 !,2!,2 lhlh !,2!,2 1 9,5
..
13 Bird, Henry Edward 00 10 0!,2 0!,2 00 00 00 00 00 01 lhl,2 !,2'-h 11 1 7,0
..
14 Tinsley, S amuel 00 0!,2 00 00 00 00 01 10 lhl,2 11 00 !,2!,2 00 0 6 ,0
..
15 Teichmann, Richard 0 0 !,2 0 0 !,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2,0
 Paris Tournament 1900

Site: Grand Cercle, Paris, France

Place: 2nd [+12-3=3]
Prizes: 2500 Francs + Trophy (a vase de serves)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
..
1 Lasker 1 1 0 1 \-2112 1-21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14,5
..
2 Pillsbury 0 1 0 0 1 1 1-21 1 1 1-21-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 12,5
..
3 Maroczy 0 0 1 0 1-21-2 1 1 1-21-2 1 1 1 1-21 1-21 1 1 1 12
..
4 Marshall 1 1 0 1 1-21-2 1 1 1-21-2 0 0 1 1-21 1 1 1 1 12
..
..... 5 Burn 0 1 1 0 \-20 1-20 1 1 1 0 1-21 1 1 1 1 1 11
� 6 Chigorin 1-21-2 0 1-21-2 1-21-2 1-21
..
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,5
..
7 Marco \-20 0 0 0 1-21 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
..
8 Mieses 0 \-20 0 0 0 1 0 1-21 1 1 1-21 1 1 1-21 1 \-2 1 10
..
9 Schlechter 0 0 1-21-2 1-21-2 0 1 0 1-20 1 1-21 1 1-21 1 1 1 1 10
..
10 Janowski 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1-21 1 1 1 1 1 9
..
11 Showalter 0 1-21-2 0 1 1 1 0 0 \-20 0 1-21-2 1 1 1 1 1 9
.. ..
12 Mason 0 0 0 0\-2 0 0 1-20 0 \-20 1-21-2 1 \-20 \-21 1-21 1 4,5
..
13 Brody 0 0 1-20 1-20 0 0\-2 0 0 \-20 0 0 0 11-2 1 1 1 4
..
14 Rosen 0 0 1-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-21 01-2 0 1-21 1-21 3
••
15 Mortimer 0 0 0 0 0 0 \-20 1-20 0 0 0 \-20 0 1 1 0 2
..
16 Didier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \-20 0 \-20 0 1 1
..
17 Marquez Sterling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-20 0 0 0 0 0 1-20 1 0 1
 Munich Tournament 1900

Site: Hotel Kreuzbrau, Munich, Germany

Place: 1st-2nd [+9-0=6]
Playoff: Pillsbury - Schlechter [+1-1=2]; Pillsbury-Maroczy [+1]
Prizes: 1000 Marks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
.
1 Maroczy, Geza 1h 1h 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1h 1h 1 1 1 1 12
•
2 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson 1h lf2 1h 1h 1 1 1 1 1h 1 1 1h 1 1 1 12
.
3 Schlechter, Carl 1h 1h 1 1h 1h 1 1h 1 1h 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
•
4 Burn, Amos 0 1h 0 1 1 lf2 0 1h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,5
......
•

� 5 Marco, Georg 0 1h 1h 0 1h 1 1 1 1h 1h 1 1 1 1h 1 10
.
6 Cohn, Wilhelm 0 0 1h 0 1h 0 1 1h 1 1h 0 1 1 1 1 8
•
7 Janowski, Dawid Markelowicz 0 0 0 1h 0 1 1 1 1h 0 1 0 1h 1 1 7,5
•
8 Showalter, Jackson Whipps 0 0 1h 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7,5
.
9 Wolf, Heinrich 0 0 0 1h 0 1h 0 1 0 1 1 1h 1 1 1 7,5
•
10 Berger, Johann Nepomuk 1 1h 1h 0 1h 0 1h 0 1 1 1h 0 0 1 1 7,5
•
11 Von Popiel, Ignatz 1h 0 0 0 1h 1h 1 1 0 0 0 1h 1 1h 1 6,5
•
12 Von Gottschall, Hermann 1h 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1h 1 1 1 1h 1 6,5
•
13 Halprin, Alexander 0 1h 0 0 0 0 1 0 1h 1 1h 0 1h 1h 1h 5
•
14 Von Bardeleben, Curt 0 0 0 0 0 0 1h 0 0 1 0 0 1h 1 0 3
•
cl_5 Billecard, Moritz 0 0 0 0 1h 0 0 0 0 0 1h 1h 1h 0 1 3
Buffalo Tournament 1901

Site: Buffalo Whist and Chess Club, Ellicot Square, Buffalo, New York
Place: 1st [+8-0=2]
Prizes: $100

1 2 3 4 5 6
**
1 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson 11 11 �1 1� 11 9,0
**
2 Delmar, Eugene 00 �1 1� 11 �1 6,5
**
3 Napier, William Ewart 00 �0 11 11 11 6,5
**
4 Howell, Clarance Seaman �0 0� 00 11 �1 4,5
**
5 Marshall, Frank James 0� 00 00 00 11 2,5
**
6 Karpinski, L 00 �0 00 �0 00 1,0

Monte Carlo Tournament 1902

Site: Cercle des Etrangers, Monte Carlo, Monaco

Place: 2nd [+14-4=6]
Prizes: 3000 Francs + 500 Francs (McCutcheon prize for Pillsbury-Marshall)

Monte Carlo 1902 tournament rules

Play will be carried on every day except Sunday and Thursday, the latter being
reserved for playing off adjourned games. The rounds will be published each morn­
ing before play comments, viz.; 9 a.m. till l p.m. and to count 'A each, the first draw
to be replayed and to count 'A each in case the game is drawn again, and � to the
winner. Time limit - thirty moves for the first two hours, and fifteen moves every
subsequent hour. Analyzing adjourned games is not permitted.

The Field, 04.01.1902

125
 Monte Carlo 1902 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

..
1 Maroczy, Geza 1 \4\4 1 0 \4\4 1 \4\4 1 0 1 \4\-2 \4\4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16,5

..
2 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson 0 1 \4\4 1 1 'Al-l 'AO 1 \4\-2 1 1 1 1 \40 1 1 0 1 1 15

..
3 Janowski, Dawid \4\4 0 0 1 1 \4\-2 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 'Al-l 1 1 14,5

..
4 Teichmann, Richard 0 1;41,4 0 tAlA 1 \4\4 1 0 1 \4\-2 1 IAIA \4\-2 1 1 1 'Al-l 1 1 14

..
5 Schlechter, Carl 1 0 1 lAtA 0 \4\4 0 0 1 1 'AlA %lh 1,41,4 %1A 1,41,4 1 1 1 1 13

..
6 Tarrasch, Siegbert %% 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 'Al-l \4\4 1 1 \414 \4\-2 1 1 1 1 1 12

..
7 Wolf, Heinrich 0 'AO \40 tAlA lAtA 0 1 1 \4\-2 \40 0 1 1 1 \4\-2 1 1 1 1 12

..
8 Chigorin, Mikhail IA% \4\-2 \40 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 12

..
9 Marshall, Frank James 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 \40 0 1 1 \4\-2 1 1 11,5

..
10 Gunsberg, Isidor 1 \40 0 0 0 \40 'AO 0 1 1 1,41,4 0 1 1 'A% 1 1 1 1 11,5
�
0\
..
11 Napier, William Ewart 0 0 1 \40 0 tAlA 'Al-l 1 0 0 1 \40 \40 l-2 0 1 1 1 1 11

..
12 Mieses, Jacques \40 0 0 0 \4\4 0 1 0 1 lAtA 0 0 1 1 'Al-l 1 •Ao 1 1 10,5

..
13 Mason, James tAlA 0 1 "AlA \40 0 0 0 0 1 \4\-2 1 0 \4\4 1 0 l-2 1 1 9

..
14 Albin, Adolf 0 0 0 \40 lAtA \4\4 0 0 \4\-2 0 lAY.! 0 1 'Al-l 0 1 1 1 1 10,5

..
15 Marco, Georg 0 \4\-2 0 0 "A 'A 'AO 0 0 1 0 l-2 0 "AlA \40 0 1 1 1 1 9

..
16 Von Popiel, Ignatz 0 0 0 0 \40 0 \40 1 0 \4\4 1 \40 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 6

..
17 Von Scheve, Theodor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 l-2 'A'A 1 4

..
18 Eisenberg, LR 0 1 \40 •Ao 0 0 0 0 \40 0 0 \4\-2 l-2 0 0 0 l-2 1 0 5,5

..
19 Reggio, Arturo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 \4\4 0 1 3

..
20 Mortimer, James 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
 Hanover Tournament 1902

Site: Kaiser-Cafe Hanover, Germany

Place: 2nd [+10-3=4]
Prizes: 900 Marks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
•
1 Janowski, Dawid 1 '1-2 '1-2 1 1 1 1 '1-2 '1-2 1 1 1 1 '1-2 1 0 1 13,5
•
2 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson 0 1 '1-2 0 1 '1-2 1 1 1 1 1 0 '1-2 1 '1-2 1 1 12
•
3 Atkins, Henry Ernest '1-2 0 '1-2 '1-2 '1-2 '1-2 1 '1-2 1 1 1 1 '1-2 1 1 1 0 1 1 ,5
.
4 Mieses, Jacques 'h 'h '1-2 '1-2 0 0 '1-2 1 1 '1-2 1 1 '1-2 1 1 1 '1-2 11
•
....... 5 Napier, William Ewart 0 1 '1-2 '1-2 1 '1-2 1 1 0 0 1 0 'h 1 '1-2 '1-2 1 10
� •
'-1 6 Wolf, Heinrich 0 0 '1-2 1 0 1 0 0 1 '1-2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
•
7 Chigorin, Mikhail 0 '1-2 '1-2 1 '1-2 0 1 0 1 '1-2 '1-2 1 '1-2 1 0 0 1 9
•
8 Olland, Adolf Georg 0 0 0 '1-2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 8,5
•
9 Swiderski, Rudolf '1-2 0 '1-2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 '1-2 0 1 '1-2 '1-2 '1-2 1 8
•
10 Marshall, FrankJames '1-2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 '1-2 1 1 1 8
•
11 Levin, Alexander M 0 0 0 '1-2 1 '1-2 '1-2 1 1 0 0 1 'h '1-2 '1-2 '1-2 0 7,5
•
12 Von Gottschall, Hermann 0 0 0 0 0 1 '1-2 0 '1-2 1 1 '1-2 1 '1-2 0 '1-2 1 7,5
.
13 Cohn, Wilhelm 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 '1-2 '1-2 0 1 '1-2 '1-2 7
.
14 Suechting, Hugo 0 '1-2 '1-2 '1-2 '1-2 0 '1-2 0 0 0 '1-2 0 '1-2 '1-2 1 1 1h 6,5
•
15 Von Bardeleben, Curt 1h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'h 'h 'h 'h 1 1h 1h 1 1 6,5
•
16 Gunsberg, Isidor 0 '1-2 0 0 1h 0 1 1 'h 0 'h 1 0 0 'h 'h 0 6
•
17 Mason, James 1 0 0 0 '1-2 0 1 0 'h 0 'h 1h 'h 0 0 1h 1h 5,5
•
18 Von Popiel, Ignatz 0 0 1 'h 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 'h 'h 0 1 'h 5
 Monte Carlo Tournament 1903

Site: the Casino, Monte Carlo, Monaco

Place: 3rd [+14-3=9]
Prizes: 1180 Francs (remunerations)
Trophy (a statuette: "The water Carrier")
250 Francs (brilliancy prize for Pillsbury-Wolf)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
••
1 Tarrasch, Siegbert lhlh lh1 Olh Olh 01 11 11 11 11 1lh 11 11 11 20
••
2 Maroczy, Geza lhlh lhlh lhlh Wh 11 01 11 01 01 11 11 11 11 19
..
...... 3 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson lhO lhlh 11 11 1lh 1lh 01 Olh lh1 1lh 1lh 11 11 18,5
�
Oo ••
4 Schlechter, Carl 1lh lhlh 00 lhlh lh1 1lh lh1 01 lhO 1lh 11 11 11 17
..
5 Teichmann, Richard 1lh lhlh 00 lhlh 10 lhlh 1lh lh1 10 01 11 11 11 16,5
••
6 Marco, Georg 10 00 Olh lhO 01 1lh 11 1lh 1lh lh1 lhO 11 11 15,5
••
7 Wolf, Heinrich 00 10 Olh Olh lhlh Olh 01 1lh 11 11 01 01 11 14
••
8 Mieses, Jacques 00 00 10 lhO Olh 00 10 11 11 1lh 01 lh1 11 13
••
9 Marshall, FrankJames 00 10 1lh 10 lhO Olh O lh 00 11 01 01 10 11 12
••
10 Taubenhaus, Jean 00 10 lhO lh1 01 Olh 00 00 00 Wh 11 10 11 10,5
••
11 Mason, James Olh 00 Olh Olh 10 lhO 00 Olh 10 lhlh lh1 1lh 11 10,5
••
12 Albin, Adolf 00 00 Olh 00 00 lh1 10 10 10 00 lhO Olh 11 8
••
13 Reggio, Arturo 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 lhO 01 01 Olh 1lh 11 7,5
••
14 Moreau, C 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
 Vienna Gambit Tournament 1903

Site: Vienna Chess Club,Vienna, Austria

Place: 4th [+6-4=8]
Prizes: 600 Kronen + 100 (shared brilliancy prize, Mieses-Pillsbury)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
**
1 Chigorin, Mikhail 01 Ph lh1 01 10 11 01 11 11 13
......
t-v **
'0 2 Marshall, Frank James 10 00 11 11 11 00 1lh lhlh 11 11,5
**
3 Marco, Georg Olh 11 Olh 01 01 lh1 lh1 01 11 11
**
4 Pillsbury, Harry Nelson lhO 00 1lh lh 1 lhlh lhO 1lh lh1 11 10
**
5 Mieses, Jacques 10 00 10 lhO lhO 11 11 10 01 9
**
6 Maroczy, Geza 01 00 10 lhlh lh1 10 lhlh lh1 lhlh 9
**
7 Teichmann, Richard 00 11 lhO lh1 00 01 10 01 11 9
**
8 Swiderski, Rudolf 10 Olh lhO Olh 00 lhlh 01 11 11 8,5
**
9 Schlechter, Carl 00 lhlh 10 lhO 01 lhO 10 00 11 7
**
10 Gunsberg, lsidor 00 00 00 00 10 lhlh 00 00 00 2
 Cambridge Springs Tournament 1904

Site: Rider Hotel, Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania

Place: 9th [+4-5=6]
Prizes: None

Players 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Score
1 Marshall, F. USA X 1 lh lh 1 1 lh 1 1 1 1 1 lh 1 1 1 13
2 Janowsky, D. POL 0 X 0 lh lh 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
3 Lasker, Em. GER lh 1 X lh lh 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 lh 1 1 11
4 Marco, G. AUS lh lh lh X lh lh 1 0 lh 1 0 1 lh lh 1 1 9
5 Showalter, J. USA 0 lh lh lh X lh 1 1 1 lh 0 lh lh lh lh 1 8lh
�
<::>
6 Schlechter, C. AUS 0 0 1 lh lh X 0 lh lh 0 lh 1 1 lh 1 lh 7lh
7 Chigorin, M. RUS lh 0 0 0 0 1 X 1 lh 0 1 lh 1 1 0 1 7lh
8 Mieses, ]. GER 0 0 0 1 0 lh 0 X 1 1 1 0 1 lh 1 0 7
9 Pillsbury, H .N. USA 0 0 1 lh 0 lh lh 0 X 1 lh 0 lh 1 lh 1 7
10 Fox, A. USA 0 1 0 0 lh 1 1 0 0 X 1 1 0 1 0 0 6lh
11 Teichmann, R. GER 0 0 0 1 1 lh 0 0 lh 0 X lh 1 0 1 1 6lh
12 Lawrence, T. USA 0 0 0 0 lh 0 lh 1 1 0 lh X 1 lh 0 lh 5lh
13 Napier, W. USA lh 0 0 lh lh 0 0 0 lh 1 0 0 X 1 1 lh 5lh
14 Barry, ]. USA 0 0 lh lh lh lh 0 lh 0 0 1 lh 0 X 0 1 5
15 Hodges, A. USA 0 0 0 0 lh 0 1 0 lh 1 0 1 0 1 X 0 5
16 Delmar, E. USA 0 0 0 0 0 lh 0 1 0 1 0 lh lh 0 1 X 4lh
......
�

Cambridge Springs 1904. Front row (Ito r): Barry, Napier, Showalter, Mieses, Fox, Pillsbury, Tschigorin, Delmar,
andMarshall. Second row: Schlechter, Hodges, Helms, Janowski, Marco, Lasker, Lawrence, CaJSel, and Teichmann.