Today we can handle Syphilis, continue the dipping everyone.
Why does no one talk about Pillsbury
Sort:
Apr 26, 2011
0
#23
Some talk about Pillsbury: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/search/label/Pillsbury
The second post found there was mentioned by Edward Winter in Chess Notes 5772.
Apr 27, 2011
0
#24
The Dover book on Pillsbury is way better than no book on Pillsbury. The annotations range from mostly quaint/obsolete to useless but the intro pointing out a dozen or more of Pillsbury's greatest achievements is quite handy. And many of his famous games are also available with annotations in other works.
As for his relative obscurity, what did you expect about someone who died in 1906 without playing a title match much less winning the World CH. How familar are you with Geza Maroczy, Akiba Rubinstein, Karl Schlecter, and many other famous GMs of yesteryear? Maybe you are (ie knowledgable about them) but how many other players share that distinction? Hell I've read many of today's chess playing airheads couldn't tell you who Smyslov was for crying out loud!
Apr 27, 2011
0
#25
paulgottlieb wrote:
It is worth noting that the two greatest players of all time, Fischer and Kasparov, were steeped in the history of the game
Indeed! Kasparov devotes several pages to Pillsbury in My Great Predecessors, including four complete games and one fragment.
Sergeant ( who also published Morphy's Games of Chess) which was reprinted by Dover. More recently US Chess Historian published a book on Pillsbury (probably around 1998) that has all of his known games (and he id a great job researching and finding them) and in German Bachmann (in the 1920's0 did a book on Pillsbury--so there have been several books written on Pillsbury. Also as mentioned Hasting 1895 was a fairly widely distributed book and I think Pillsbury contributed some notes to games in that as well.
Apr 27, 2011
0
#27
I, too, have memorized (and forgotten) a few Anderssen games, and none by Pillsbury. However, I was quite close to memorizing Pillsbury-Lasker 1896 when I was studying it through Lasker's commentary in Lasker's Manual of Chess. Lasker's comments on his own failings in the loss of time in the opening, and Pillsbury's pawn sacrifice to wrench open the position and expose the Black monarch are insightful. They also strike me as a rare act of generosity in praise of one's opponent.
AnthonyRBrown wrote:
François-André Danican Philidor Would have Masacared Pillsbury
Agreed I'm a huge Philidor fan
Aplayer way ahead of his time.
paulgottlieb wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think it does. In fact, I don't think it's actually a word. In any case, it's absolute nonsense. Philador was a great pioneer chess thinker, but the level of master play had improved tremendously between Philidor and Pillsbury.
No Philidor could beat pillsbury seeing he was the world's best all when he was alive. It's my opinion so can we a agree to disagree and end it that way.
If Pillsbury visited half as many ladies as AnthonyRBrown keeps implying that deserves even more praise than his chess.