Agreed what type of style of player was he and are there any book's solely about him.
Why does no one talk about Pillsbury
Sort:
Not To mention Daniel Noteboom.
Apr 24, 2011
0
#4
I've heard his name before, but i didnt know any details about him, except the simul thing.
He has never made a bad move? That makes no sence. What is a 'bad move' excacly, and what about when he started playing chess?
SimonSeirup wrote:
I've heard his name before, but i didnt know any details about him, except the simul thing.
He has never made a bad move? That makes no sence. What is a 'bad move' excacly, and what about when he started playing chess?
why even ask when he started playing what do you think the answer is
the study was based off his game's against other master's if you don't believe me instead of just poting you don't look it up yourself first.
I'm not sure he could both a) not play any bad moves and b) lose games.
Simon: Sorry about that when it comes Pillsbury I just have a lot of respect for him even more than Kasparov
Nytik: his only loses came from him playing not the best but decent moves but no record of him actually playing a sole bad or inaccurate move
He must have played an inaccurate move to lose. This much is obvious.
you try to find out
paulgottlieb wrote:
I don't know of any good books of Pillsbury's games, but you can see some of them at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1017727.
In terms of style, I believe he was a very aggressive player, but his aggression was based on sound positional principals. He practically invented the modern Queen's Gambit Declined with Bg5. Check out the ending in his game versus Gunsberg at Hastings 1895!
I have a Dover book : Pillsbury's Chess Career by P W Sergeant & W H Watts
It has 233 of his games from 1893-1900
Fezzik wrote:
A ridiculous claim, "never made a bad move". You can't lose without making bad moves. Even the Pillsbury System of the QGD is questionable. Clever, yes. Useful against weaker opposition, usually. But the best system to win with? No.
Pillsbury, like Leonid Stein and others, will always have a fanbase in part because he played some beautiful chess but even more because they died before they could reach their potential. Personally, I don't think Pillsbury was ever going to eclipse Marshall as America's best player of that generation, even if he hadn't fallen ill. (And it's not certain that Pillsbury contracted syphilis. It's just the most likely explanation of his symptoms.)
Man your like a broken record obviously other;s just said the same thing why would it matter that your saying it to just leave this forum The forum is towards finding out more about the guy not repeating others then getting off the topic stating your own opinion start your post doing that.
Fezzik wrote:
I have that book too, Reb! (Somewhere.)
LOL How many chess books do you have ? Mine sometimes get "lost" because I have a habit of loaning them out and sometimes they never find their way back home.... I guess I should stop being so nice ? My brother always said I was way too gullible.... I also have a bad habit of having several books out at any given time and if my wife has a " cleaning fit " she puts them back in the bookcase but NEVER in their proper places so then I have to hunt them......
I think it's fine for Fezzik to emphasise that, as it is one of your original claims in the description of the man, post #1!
To respond to your challenge, post #14, I offer this example, which obviously is not alone in showing Pillsbury's flawed moves:
It doesn't seem correct to talk about Pillsbuy eclipsing Marshall. Pillsbury was older and came first. In fact, Marshall once played (and lost) in a Pillsbury Simul.
Nytik: Again I said he was known to play decent moves but has never played a sole bad or inaccurate move the loss you showed if you showed the whole game it would be clear that the guy playing white took risk early to get a unusual position where normal moves aren,t acceptable. Now here's a question to you do you know something like a book or article for pillsbury WHICH IS THE TOPIC OF THIS FORUM or are just posting cause you wanna prove something if do it on another fourm but you sorta clogging the one up.
Marshall was never in the top elite as a match player. He style was ideal for tournaments where he ran rough shod over the bottom half of the table. He just barely edged out Edward Lasker (who was no where near GM strength) in a match for the US championship. He did seem to have Nimzovitch's number and beat him regularly.
paulgottlieb wrote:
I don't know of any good books of Pillsbury's games, but you can see some of them at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1017727.
In terms of style, I believe he was a very aggressive player, but his aggression was based on sound positional principals. He practically invented the modern Queen's Gambit Declined with Bg5. Check out the ending in his game versus Gunsberg at Hastings 1895!
I actually have the original Hastings 1985 in a reprint, and there's a very interesting discussion in it, about the merits of Bg5 in the QGD. Some masters, such as Lasker, Pillsbury etc agrees with Bg5, and there's the opposition, I cant remember any names, but I think Amos Burns didn't agree with it.
And then there's Tarrasch, who claims that the whole discussion is absurd, since the best move for black is 3...c5!
Seems to me, I remember one of the anotations of a game in Hastings 1895 Tourment going: 1 d4 d5 2.c4 "premature."
blake78613 wrote:
Seems to me, I remember one of the anotations of a game in Hastings 1895 Tourment going: 1 d4 d5 2.c4 "premature."
You remember wrong.
The original Hastings 1895 Tournament Book is in the public domain and an e-book version can be downloaded for free.
http://www.chessville.com/downloads/ebooks.htm#Hastings1895
Henry Nelson Pillsbury was one of the top 20-10 players in the world in the early 1900's he won the stronget tournament (Hastings) when he was only 22. He played a 22 game simul blindfolded with to master's in the exhibition with only one loss from the entire exbidition and winning the majority. According to wikipedia no bad move has ever been played by. He was also the leading expert in the Queens Gambit (1.d4 main opening) and RuyLopez (1.e4 main opening) Why is this guy not mentioned anywhere I know there are some articile's on him there must but can you honestly say it's enough since hasting was the strongest tournament back in the day and he won it he should be treated as a World Champion or anylist that compare's the game's greatest of all time.