GM Harry Nelson Pillsbury - GM Emanuel Lasker; 

  Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania; (U.S.A.) 1904. 


   This is mostly a text-based page, with only a few diagrams.    
   Therefore, you will probably want ... or need a chess-board.    

   Click  HERE   to see this game (UN-annotated) ... in java-script re-play form.   

   Click  HERE  to see an explanation of the symbols that I use in annotating a chess game.  


This is easily one of the more famous games of all time. Mr. J.O. Pope ... of the Pensacola Chess Club - poor fellow died of cancer ... had a book of Pillsbury's games. When I was very young, he lent that book to me. This game was in said book. This game is also one of the better games Pillsbury ever played, and also one of the more famous. (And while it did not win a brilliancy prize, it easily could have!) I have had at least one or two-hundred requests to do this game  ...  and now I have. Respect my copyright ... and - ENJOY!! 

***

--->  Many thanks to (proof-reader) Steve Etzel ... who has a very nice site on this tournament. He was kind enough to review this page. He offered many constructive ideas and caught many errors. His help is greatly appreciated. 


H.N. Pillsbury (2689) - Em. Lasker (2767)
[D40]
 Super-Master Tournament 
  Cambridge Springs, PA; {USA}  (Rd. # 6)03.05.1904  

[A.J. Goldsby I]

***************************************************************************

A beautiful game by Pillsbury, many consider it his best and/or greatest game. (It was also played in the twilight of his career, Pillsbury died just two years later in 1906.)

It IS an exceptional and very beautiful game of chess ... it is also the last time Lasker and PIllsbury played. And in a modern tournament, this game would have easily carried off a 
"best game" prize. 

 ******* 

 Here is also one of the most famous of all stories in all the realm of chess.   
You see, Pillsbury had lost to Lasker in St. Petersburg, 1895/96 in this line. (A fantastic encounter that is considered by some to be Lasker's finest and also  his most brilliant game.) Despite the fact that Pillsbury had literally DOZENS of opportunities to play a possible improvement - which he had burned untold hours of ... 'midnight oil'  on  -  he saved the big surprise for his next encounter with Lasker. (And Lasker alone!) No one else was deemed worthy of Pillsbury's great idea. And though he played the great Lasker many times, it seemed he would never get the opportunity to use his new idea. (Either the color was wrong, or Lasker played another line.) But finally ... in their very LAST game together ... Pillsbury got to spring the trap!! (All of Pillsbury's hard work paid off - Lasker was rarely beaten in such a one-sided contest.)  --->  ( Read  ...  about the great debate! [more] )  

*******

This is also a very famous game ...  it seems virtually every annotator who ever lived (since) has tried his hand at this epic struggle. 
(Two brand-new books that I just purchased contain this grand contest!!) 

***

The ratings come from the website of Jeff Sonas. 

The game starts off as a fairly normal Queen's Gambit Declined.

***************************************************************************

1.d4 d5;  2.c4 e6;  3.Nc3 Nf6;   4.Nf3!?,  
While not the main line, which is Bg5; Pillsbury also liked to play this on occasion. 
(The database clearly shows that Pillsbury used this line on a regular basis, at least 10-15 different times.)

      [ Of course the move:  4.Bg5, 
         leads to the Pillsbury Attack, the line which he practically patented. 
         (Pillsbury may not have played this line because Lasker may have found 
          a fairly effective antidote the very first time he faced this system OTB.) ]  

 

4...c5!?;  (Possibly - '!')  {Diagram?}  
Many give this an exclam here ...  "an example of Lasker's very energetic opening(s)," says one author. But it is not really clear which line is best at this point.  

     [ By playing the continuation:  4...c65.e3 Nbd76.Bd3 dxc47.Bxc4, "+/=" {D?} 
        a modern line - known as the Meran System - is reached. (This line gives a solid 
        edge for White. But it is an extremely popular system for Black.) 

***

       The simple developing move of  4...Be7;  preparing a quick  ...0-0   
        was also very playable for Black. (This line probably yields close to 
        full equality for the second player from this position.) ]  

 

5.Bg5!?,  (Maybe - '!')  
Many authors give this move an exclam ... but is it really the best move here? 

Once again, theory has vacillated many times over what the correct continuation is at this particular junction. 

For my part, I like this move. White develops normally, and puts a lot of pressure on Black's slightly exposed central pawn set-up. 

"In the fashionable variation, 5.BPxP,  5...KntxP! etc., White obtains very little advantage."  - Fred Reinfeld. 

 

*************************

     [ According to modern theory, a better line for White would be: 
        >/=  5.cxd5! Nxd5;  {Diagram?}  
        I think this is the move that most books recommend here for Black. 

          (After the moves:   </=  5...exd5!?;  6.g3 Nc6;  7.Bg2 Be7;   8.0-0, "+/=" {D?}    
           White has obtained the formation known as: "The Rubinstein Set-up,"     
           and has a very solid edge.)    

       6.e4!,  {Diagram?}  
        To me, this appears to be the most energetic line White can adopt here. 

*******

       ( Instead of the sharp e4, White can play the simple (but effective) move of 
         just advancing the KP only one square, for example:     

         6.e3!? Nc67.Bd3 cxd48.exd4 Be79.0-0 0-010.Re1!?,  {Diagram?}  
          Many theoretical manuals give this move an exclamation mark.  

              ( I also like the move a3 here: 10.a3!? Bf6!?; 11.Qc2! h6; 12.Rd1! Qb6!;    
                13.Bc4! Rd8; 14.Ne2! Bd7; 15.Qe4!, "/\"  ("+/=")  {Diagram?}     
                 White had a very powerful initiative, that later developed into a strong      
                 K-side attack ...  that won for White.       

                 GM V. Smyslov - GM Z. RibliCandidates Match (sf) (G #5)     
                 London,  ENG;  1983.     

                 {A fantastic game ... that could be one of the most brilliant ever     
                  played. It is certainly one of Smyslov's very best games.} )        

         (Returning to the  6.e3!?  line.) 
         10...Bf611.Be4 Nce7!?12.Qd3 h613.Ne5!?,  
          White grabs the out-post.  

                ( Interesting is:  13.a3!?, "+/=" )     

         13...Nxc314.Qxc3 Nf515.Be3 a5!?16.Rac1 a4!?;  
          The end of the column.  

         17.Red1 Nxe3!?;   {Diagram?}  
          It makes sense to me for Black to pick off one of the White B's. 

                ( Karpov suggests:  17...Ra5!?; 18.Nc4 Rb5!?; "<=>" {Diag?}        
                  and calls this unclear.  "~" )     

         18.Qxe3 Qb6!?19.Ng4, "~"  {Diagram?}   
          GM Nick de Firmian calls this as ... "a solid edge for White,"  ('+/=')  
          but I am not sure if I agree.  

          GM V. Topalov - GM A. KarpovSuper-GM Tournament,   
          Linares, ESP;  1995.  (Black won a brilliant game.)  

          [ See MCO-14;  page # 428, col. # 85, and also note # (f.). ]   

                ( I prefer: >/=  19.Qe2!, "+/=" {Diagram?}  instead. );   )   

*******

       (Returning to the line with the more aggressive move of  6.e4.)  
       6...Nxc37.bxc3 cxd48.cxd4 Bb4+9.Bd2 Bxd2+10.Qxd2, "+/=" 
        White is clearly a little better, although this line is thought to give Black 
        good drawing chances. 

        GM V. Tkachiev - GM I. Rausis;  National Championship Tourney,  
        France-chT 0203,  2002.     
        (White won a fine game in only 39 moves.) ]   

*************************

 

(We now return to the actual game, after a brief foray into the theory of this line.) 
5...cxd4;  
Black exchanges to avoid an isolated pawn. 

While some have criticized this capture here ... it looks very nearly forced to me. 

     [ Even worse was:  5...Bd6?6.cxd5 cxd47.Qxd4, ''  
        and White wins at least a Pawn ... maybe more. ]  

 

6.Qxd4,  ('!')  {Diagram?}   
This looks best ... it prevents Black from playing the central advance of ...e6-to-e5. 

     [ Is taking with the Knight playable? After  6.Nxd4 dxc4!?7.e3 e5; 
        8.Nf3{Diagram?}  This might be best.  

          (</= 8.Ndb5?! a6; 9.Qxd8+!? Kxd8; 10.0-0-0+ Nbd7; 11.Nd6 Bxd6;       
            12.Rxd6 Kc7; 13.Rd1 b5; "=/+")      

        8...Qb6!?9.Qc2 Nbd710.Bxc4, "+/="  {Diagram?}  
        White is slightly better here. ]   

 

6...Nc6;  {See the diagram given just below.} 
This is probably the best move here. (Despite what Reinfeld says, who claims that ...Be7 was better.)  

 

  *************************  

   The actual game position just after Black plays ...Nc6.  (pills-lask-cs04_pos1.jpg, 22 KB)

*************************

  (r1bqkb1r/pp3ppp/2n1pn2/3p2B1/2PQ4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R3KB1R)  

 

Lasker has had this position before ...  and done quite well with it, thank you very much. He might also be wondering why Pillsbury would even allow this variation. 
(White's last outing with this line, as far as Lasker is concerned - was a bad loss to the very same opponent.)  

     [  If  6...Be7!?;  then  7.cxd5!, "+/="  {Diagram?}  
        with probably a small advantage for White. ]  

 

7.Bxf6!!,  TN  {Diagram?}  
The big improvement ...  which Pillsbury had patiently saved for Lasker for almost eight years. 

Not only is this a surprise for Lasker, it even refutes what the World Champion had thought - and written - about this position. 

This had to be VERY carefully worked out by Pillsbury, as the loss of his dark-squared Bishop is potentially EXTREMELY dangerous for White. 
(As the variation with ...gxf6; Qd2?, followed by  ...d4! clearly proves.) 

   '!' - GM Garry Kasparov. 

"In the game between the same opponents at St. Petersburg 1895, Pillsbury had continued with Q-R4 and 0-0-0, soon obtaining an inferior game. Legend has it that he saved the text for ten years, to avenge the sparkling defeat Lasker inflicted upon him at that time!" -  Fred Reinfeld. (From the book on the tournament.)   

      '!' - Fred Reinfeld.    

****************************************

     [ The very famous encounter went:  7.Qh4!? Be78.0-0-0!?,  {Diagram?}  
        To me, this is much too risky. I think White had to at least try to castle on 
        the King-side. 

          (Maybe better was: 8.e3)    

       8...Qa5!9.e3 Bd7!10.Kb1 h6!; "="  {Diagram?}  
       Black has already equalized ... and went on to win one of his 
       very best and most brilliant (& famous) games. 

       Harry N. Pillsbury - Emanuel Lasker;  (Super) Master Quadrangular Tourney
       St. Petersburg, RUS;  1895/96.    (Click  here  to see this famous contest!!)    

       --->  *** The above game has been reprinted an almost endless number of 
       times - and in dozens of books and game anthologies. ***  

       {Lasker often said this was his favorite and very best game.}  ]   

****************************************

 

7...gxf6;  
This could be forced.  

The funny part of this story - and a facet that is not very well known - is that Lasker said, in his chess magazine, that this position probably "clearly favored Black." 

****************************************

     [  Variation # 7B1.)  
        The following line looks to be much better for Black, but upon deeper 
         inspection - it turns out to be a lot better for White: 
         </=  7...Nxd4?!;  {Diagram?}  
         This looks like it wins material ... but eventually White will trap the Black Knight 
          in the corner. 

         8.Bxd8 Nc2+9.Kd2 Nxa110.Bh4! Bb4!?;   {Diagram?}  
         Black tries to use the pin to extricate the Knight. 

            ( Maybe Black should play:  10...f6!?;  {Diagram?}       
              instead ... but this will not change the fate of the stranded cavalry     
              on the a1-square. )       

        11.e3 Bd712.Be2 dxc413.Bxc4 Rc814.Bd3 Nb3+; 
        15.axb3 f616.Nd4! 0-017.Nc2, ''  {Diagram?}   
         and White is probably (close to) winning, as he has two clear minor 
         pieces for the Rook he lost. (At least "+/" ...maybe "+/-".) 

***************

        Variation # 7B2.)   
        </=  7...Qxf6?;  
         Black sets a trap, but it is weak and easy to refute. 

        8.Qxf6 gxf69.cxd5 Nb4;    
        This looks nearly forced.  

             ( If  </= 9...Ne7?;  simply  10.e4, '' )   

        10.0-0-0, "+/="  (Maybe - '') 
         White is up a pawn and will retain it. I feel sure Black has 
         inadequate compensation here. ]  

****************************************

 

8.Qh4,   
The best square for the Queen.
(Some have given this move an exclam, but it looks like the only good move for White at this point.)  

Pillsbury has foreseen this position, he played his first 10-15 moves very quickly.  

**************

     [ Just terrible is:  </=  8.Qf4? d4!;  "+/="  {Diagram?}  
        and Black is already better.  

***

        Even worse is: </=  8.Qd2?? d4;  ("-/+")   {Diagram?}  
        Black wins a piece, for if White moves his Knight, ...Bb4 
        will win the White Queen. ]  

**************

 

8...dxc4!?,    
It looks ugly to open the game in this fashion, but Black may not have any choice at this point.  

*******

     [  Even worse was: </=  8...d4?!9.0-0-0! e510.e3, ''  {Diagram?}  
        and White will win at least a pawn ... and maybe more.  

***

           ( The following variation clearly demonstrates Black's problems:  
              10.e3 Bf5;  {Diagram?}  This could be nearly forced.  

                ( Sergeant and Watts give ...Bc5;  in this position. But this      
                   move also fails to solve Black's problems. 

                  For example:  </=  10...Bc5?!; 11.exd4 Nxd4!?; {Diagram?}       
                  Taking with the Bishop or the Pawn is answered by the same move.     

                  12.Nd5!,  ''   {Diagram?}  and White has a clear advantage.      
                  Most programs - like  Fritz 8.0  - consider White to be winning      
                  ("+/-")  in this position. )         

              11.exd4 h512.Bd3 Bg413.Nd5! Bg714.Rhe1, ''  {Diagram?}  
               and White is nearly winning.  (Maybe  "+/-") ]   

*******

 

Lasker was famous for being able to avoid the worst ... ('damage control') ... but here it does not help him. (Pillsbury has analyzed this position very deeply.) 

The next few moves (9-12) are all the very best and or forced ... for both parties. (Kasparov seems to agree, citing a game where White played 
Qxc4 on his 9th move ... and Black had no problems.) 

 

9.Rd1! Bd7;  10.e3 Ne5!;   
Best ... according to the principle that the player who is being attacked, (or is under pressure); should seek to relieve problems by exchanges. 

Kasparov says this is not the best and instead gives the move ...f5 as being superior in this position. (But I do not find his analysis to be convincing.) 
{Reinfeld also criticizes ...Ne5 here, and calls it time-wasting, but his analysis inspires ZERO confidence.}  

*************************

     [  Variation # 10B1.)   
        Some have suggested ...f5 here as being much better:  
        10...f5!?; ('?!')  11.Qxc4!,  {Diagram?}   
         Easily the most natural move, and therefore also the best.  

*******

            ( After the moves: </=  11.Qg3?! Qb6!; "="  {Diagram?}      
              my (deep) analysis of this position indicates that Black      
              is already equal ... and may even be better.     

***

              Interesting was:  11.Qh5!?, "~"  {Diagram?}      
               with a rather vague position.       

***

              After the moves:  11.Qxd8+!? Rxd8;  12.Bxc4, "="  {Diagram?}       
               it is hard to believe either side has much of an advantage. )     

*******

        11...Bg7;  {Diagram?}  
         The only move given by GK.   

            ( ...Rc8 looked more natural. )        

        12.Qb3 Bxc3+?!13.Qxc3 Qa5!?;  {Diagram?}  
         This does not look safe to me.  ('?!')  

            ( Maybe just  13...f6!?;  instead? )       

        14.Qxa5 Nxa515.Ne5 Ba416.Rd4?,  {Diagram?}  
         A terrible move ... passed on without any comment by Garry. 
         (A check with any analysis engine will probably reveal that both 
          b3 and the move Rc1 are MUCH better!)  

*******

            ( Why not the simple:  >/=  16.b3 Bc6!?17.b4 f618.Nd3 Nc4; 
              19.Nc5 Bd520.Bxc4 Bxc421.Nxb7 Bxa222.0-0 Bd5;  
              23.Nd6+ Kf8;  {Diagram?}  
              This is virtually forced.  

                  ( Not  </=  23...Ke7?;  24.Nxf5+!,  {Diagram?}       
                    which simply drops a Pawn. )       

              24.f3, "+/="  {Diagram?}   
              A simple check with any strong chess engine will reveal White is 
              clearly better. (If now  ...Rd8?; then simply 25.Nxf5!, exf5; and now 
              e4 wins back the material with a very distinct edge for White.) 
              Several computer tests of this position clearly show that White   
              prevailed the majority of the time.   

              (The second player has multiple weaknesses in his pawn structure.);   )      

*******

        16...Nc617.Rxa4 Nxe518.Bb5+?! Ke7!;  "~"   {Diagram?}   
          ... "with equal chances,"  ("=")  according to GM Garry Kasparov.   

        Duz-Khotimirsky - Znosko-Borovski;  St. Petersburg, Russia;  1905.  

        [ See the book:  "My Great (chess) Predecessors," by (former) World Champion & GM, Garry K. Kasparov.  
          Chapter Three (Number # 3), 'Emanuel The Second.'  Page # 136, column # 1.]   

**************

        Variation # 10B2.)   
        The continuation of:  10...Be7; ('!?')  {Diagram?}   
        (This move was originally suggested by Reinfeld 
          and later heralded by M. Euwe.)  

        11.Bxc4 Qb6!?; ('?!')   
         Maybe  ...Rc8;  instead?   

***

            ( Instead Kasparov gives the following continuation:     
              </= 11...Qa5?!; 12.0-0 f5?!; ('?') 13.Qf4!? 0-0-0!?; "cp"  {Diag?}      
              claiming that  ... "Black has clear counterplay."  - G.K.       
              Fuster - CuellarHavana, 1966.      

              But now simply  Nb5, "+/="  gives White a very healthy edge      
              in this position.  {A.J.G.} )      

***

        12.Rd2!? 0-0-0!?13.0-0, "+/="  {Diagram?}   
         as recommended by Reinfeld leaves White with a very decent 
         and solid advantage. (Maybe - '')   

         I conducted literally DOZENS of "computer-vs.-computer"  tests 
         from this position  ...  White won the overwhelming majority of these 
         experiments. ]   

*************************

 

11.Nxe5! fxe5;  12.Qxc4!,   
There is no escape for Lasker ... who would like to exchange Queens, if only he could.

      [ Or  12.Qxd8+ Rxd813.Bxc4, "="  ("~")  {Diag?} 
         and the position looks very balanced. ]  

 

12...Qb6!?,   {See the diagram just below.}   
Lasker probes White's Queen-side, and also puts out some 'feelers' in this position. 
('Do you want a draw?' 'Do you really want to sacrifice a pawn?'  ... ... ...  and ...  'How do you feel today?') 

*************************

   Black just played ...Qb6!? (Looking to eat a poisoned pawn?) What is the best move for White?  (pills-lask-cs04_pos2.jpg, 20 KB)

*************************

  (r3kb1r/pp1b1p1p/1q2p3/4p3/2Q5/2N1P3/PP3PPP/3RKB1R w)  

 

While this move was harshly criticized by some writers as "a premature excursion of the Black Queen,"  my deep computer analysis might suggest that this was the only move which could yield Black any winning chances at all.  (Lasker thought for a long time before playing this move.)    

If you have studied Lasker's games, you will know that he rarely was satisfied with a purely passive defense, with no chance of a victory.  

 

     [ I have an entire notebook filled with my thoughts and analysis concerning this game. 

       I shall spare you the long version,  but after a simple continuation like:  
       12...Be7!?13.Qg4! a614.Be2 Rc815.0-0 Kf8!?16.Rd2!,  ''  {Diag?}  
       you don't have to be a GM to see that White is clearly better - and that Black 
       has been prevented from castling. ]  

 

13.Be2!,  (Probably - '!!')   
A really fine move by Pillsbury. 

 Just how much courage it took to play this can readily be seen ... in some lines White has to sacrifice BOTH of his Queen-side Pawns!       

   '!' - GM Garry Kasparov.   '!' - Fred Reinfeld.   

     [ Or  13.Rd2!? Bc6;  "~"  {Diagram?}  but Black seems OK here. ]    

 

13...Qxb2!?;  (Maybe - '?!')    
As a mathematician, Lasker might have thought:  "Having stated 'A,' I must logically follow with 'B' in this position." 

This has been heavily condemned by some writers ... but is it so bad? Is it wrong to possibly take a risk  ...  if ALL of the other variations ... 
very clearly favor White?  

   '?' - Dr. S. Petrovic.   '?' - Fred Reinfeld.   

 Strangely - Kasparov allows this particular move to pass without any mark at all ...  
 or any comment as well. (Odd - this is a VERY critical move/moment of this game.)   

"Underestimating the attack which now follows."  - J.N. Pope 
  (Possibly quoting Reinfeld?) 

Having now spent close to six months on this game, I can safely say that this was definitely the critical move. Lasker probably should not have taken this pawn. (But you should also understand that this was often the Lasker method, he would choose to mix it up and make things difficult and more complex most of the time. Going quietly was NOT Lasker's way to handle a defence. Anyone who has carefully studied the games of this great player should be able to verify this.)  

*************************

     [  Variation # 13B1.)   
         After the relatively simple line:  13...Be7!?14.0-0! 
         It is best to simply castle here.  
         (Forget the b-pawn, and the half-open g-file in this position!)  

            ( Interesting was:  14.Rd2!? )    

         14...Rd815.Qe4!, "+/="  ('')  {Diagram?}  
          White is very clearly better here - in this position.  

**************

        Variation # 13B2.)  
         Black should not play ...Qb4; here, as the 2nd player comes out on the 
         short end of the stick.  E.g., </=  13...Qb4?!14.Qc7! Bc615.Bb5!,     
         15...Bxb516.Qxb7! Rd817.Qxb5+ Qxb518.Nxb5,  '' 

         White is clearly better here. ("+/")  

         In fact I sent this position to an on-line chess teaching service. 
         {The first game is free.}  The comment was that, 
         "Black probably cannot hold this ending."   

**************

        Variation # 13B3.)   
         The best continuation for Black is probably:  
         >/=  13...Bc6!14.Bf3!? Bxf315.gxf3 Be7!?;  
         Black tries to develop.  

*******

             Or Black can try: 
             a).  Maybe just  15...a6!?;  "~"  
                   and Black is probably OK.  

*****

             b).  But NOT:  15...Qxb2?
                    This is a bad mistake.

                    16.Rb1! Qa317.Qb5+ Ke7;  
                     This is probably forced.  

***

                            ( Obviously much worse was: 
                               </=  17...Kd8??18.Rd1+ Ke7;  
                               This is now forced.  

                                  (</= 18...Kc7?; 19.Rd7+ Kc8; 20.Qxb7#)      

                              19.Ne4 Rd8!?;  
                               Otherwise Black loses a whole Rook after Qxb7+. 
                               (White also threatened Qd7 mate as well.)  

                              20.Qxb7+ Ke821.Nf6#. )   

***

                  18.Qxe5; ("+/-")    
                   and Black cannot successfully meet all the threats. 
                   (Rxb7+, Nd5+, and even QxR/h8.)  

*******

         (Returning to the main analysis line here.)  
         16.Qa4+ Kf8!?17.Rd2, "+/="  {Diagram?}  
          and although White has a very slight advantage, I think Black 
          should be able to draw. {eventually} 

         This would have been a definite improvement over the game. But I also am willing 
          to confess that this line is not perfect - an improvement might be found to strengthen 
          the first player's play. ]  

*************************

 

14.0-0!,   
This is clearly the best move for White. Pillsbury was still moving fairly quickly, so we can safely assume that this was all part of the great American player's preparation.  

I was the first to award this move an exclam - in an article I did for a state chess magazine over 15 years ago.   (*** also  ...  '!' - GM Garry Kasparov.)  

     [ Very interesting was:  14.Qc7!? Bc615.Qxe5 Rg816.Bh5!"--->"  
        (Possibly unclear?)  {Diagram?}  
        when White has a strong initiative. But whether or not it is 100% clear  
        that White will come out on top ...  with best play for both parties ...   
        I cannot really say for certain.  

        Note:  One of the things that will affect the LONG-TERM evaluation  
        of this position ... where will White place his King? ]    

 

14...Rc8;   
This is probably the best move for Black - the other alternatives are clearly and demonstrably worse.  

*************************

     [  Variation # 14B1.)  
         After the continuation:  
         </=  14...Bb4?!; ('?')  15.Nb5! Rc816.Nc7+! Ke717.Rb1 Qc3;  
        18.Qh4+ f619.Rfc1! Qd2!?20.Qxb4+ Qxb421.Rxb4, "+/-"  {Diag?}   
         Black has only managed to achieve a lost position. 

*******

        Variation # 14B2.)   
         Black also gets a very bad game after the continuation of:  
         14...Bc6?
         A natural move, Black seeks to move the Bishop off the (always dangerous) 
         d-file and possibly exploit his own half-open g-file.  

         But the idea has a tactical flaw.  

         15.Bh5! Be716.Qxe6 0-017.Qxe5''  
          White is clearly MUCH better here, (possibly  "+/-"); 
          Black is a Pawn down ... and has a rotten position.   

*******

        Variation # 14B3.)  
         Also not to be recommended for Black was:   
          </=  14...Rg8!?;  ('?!')   
          One article in a newspaper column of that period (Philadelphia) actually 
          claimed that  ...  "this was a great improvement over the game." 
          (Black has more than one threat! The idea was attributed to the American, J. Barry.) 

          But White gets there first!  
          15.Rxd7!! Kxd716.Rb1! Qxb1+;  
          This is forced.  

              ( Not: 16...Qa3??; 17.Rxb7+,  {Diagram?}        
                and White mates in two or three moves. ("+/-") )       

          17.Nxb1 Rc818.Qb5+ Kd819.Qxb7("+/-")  
           and now the win is only a matter of technique here. ]   

*************************

 

Now the next two or three ply looks to be forced.  
15.Qd3 Rc7;  '[]'  {Diagram?}  
Black definitely had to play this. (It also looks to be the most flexible.)  

*************************

     [  Var. # 15B1.)  
        Of course not:  </=  15...Rxc3??
        If this move were to be played, it would be a terrible blunder. 
        (Taking with the Queen has the same consequences.) 

        16.Qxd7#. 

*******

        Var. # 15B2.)  
         Another disaster for Black is:   
           15...Bc6!?16.Bf3 Bxf3??;    
         This is obviously a mistake. 

             ( G. Marco says Black must play the move: >/= 16...Be7!?;  instead. )   

           17.Qd7#.     (Ouch!);  

*******

        Var. # 15B3.)   
         Maybe playable was:  15...Rd8!?16.Bf3!? Qb6;  
         17.Qe4 Qc718.Rc1,  "/\"   {Diagram?}  
         White has tremendous piece activity, but what the outcome of 
         this particular position should be ...  is not really clear.  ]   

*************************

 

16.Ne4,   
The correct move.
(And almost worthy of an exclam in this position.) 

     [ Many of my students ask the question, "Why not Nb5 here?"  But the move, 
       which at first glance looks promising, is met rather simply:  
       </=  16.Nb5!? Qxb5!17.Qxb5 Bxb518.Bxb5+ Ke7!;  "~"  
       Black is a Pawn up in a position where there are opposite-colored Bishops. 
       (Black is probably OK.) ]  

 

16...Be7;   
This looks forced. 

*******

     [  Not  16...f5??;  because  17.Nf6+, ("+/-")  and White will win.  

***

        Kasparov points out that:  16...Qc2!?17.Nd6+?! Bxd6; 
        18.Qxd6 Qc5; "~"  may be an adequate defense.  ]    

*********

 

17.Nd6+,   
This is probably the best way for White to proceed from this point. 

     [ Kasparov says that the position reached after the continuation of:  
       17.Rd2!? Qb618.Rb1 Qc619.Bf3!? Qa6!20.Qxa6 bxa6; "~"  {D?}  
        might be  "a tenable endgame" for Black, but I would have an uneasy 
        position about this position if I were the second player here. ]  

 

17...Kf8;  ('!')   
This looks to be Lasker's best bet.  

 

     [ Obviously worse was:  </=  17...Bxd6?!18.Qxd6, "+/="  {D?} 
       18...Qxe2??;  
        A mistake but played to illustrate a point here. 

           ( Or  18...Qb6; 19.Qxe5, ''  {Diagram?}          
              and White has the clearly superior position.        
               - GM Garry Kasparov.       
             (His analysis continues on for many more moves, but a check with      
              any analysis engine will surely confirm White is much better here.)       

             Or  </=  18...Qc3?; 19.Bb5!, "+/-"  {Diagram?}      
               -  Jacques N. Pope. )      

       19.Qxc7,  "+/-"  and White will win. (easily)  ]   

 

18.Nc4, ('!')    
The correct move ... Kasparov, (and many others); give this move without any comment or mark of any kind. (This is strange as Rd2, Bh5, and f4 all looked promising.) 

     [ Interesting was: 18.Bh5!? (Is White better here?) ]  

 

18...Qb5;    {See the diagram given just below.}   
The correct move here. (Black had to protect the Pawn on the e5-square.) 

***

Editors note:  
Dozens of sources give conflicting game scores for this epic contest.
 MOST databases - at least when I first started on this game - gave the wrong score! 
No less than E. Winter covered this matter in his "Chess Notes." Also Tim Harding covered this matter - deeply! - in an article on this game on the "Chess Cafe" web site
This note added: Sunday;  May 09th, 2004.  (Go here for more information.)    

 

 ************************* 

   Black just played ...Qb5!? What should White play here?  (pills-lask-cs04_pos3.jpg, 20 KB)

 ************************* 

  (5k1r/pprbbp1p/4p3/1q2p3/2N5/3QP3/P3BPPP/3R1RK1 w)  

 

At this point, I would be very curious to know how Lasker assessed his position ... equal, or worse? 

     [ Simply inferior was:  </= 18...Qb4?!19.Nxe5!, "+/="  
       and White is clearly a little better.  
       (The book on Lasker by Ken Whyld incorrectly gives the move ...Qb4 here.);  

***

       The position that is reached after the moves:  18...Qxa2!?19.Nxe5, "+/="  
        looks very dangerous for Black. 
        --->  But months of analysis ... failed to reveal any forced win for White. ]  

 

White to move ... what move would you make if you were playing this game? 

19.f4!!,  (thematic?)  {Diagram?}  
A truly brilliant move ... considering there might have been at least one other continuation that was VERY promising for Pillsbury here. 

   '!' - GM Garry Kasparov.   '!' - Fred Reinfeld.    

In a way, this move is also the most logical ... White wishes to open the f-file against the Black King. 

*******

     [ Interesting was: 19.Rb1!?,  with great play for White.  

***

       I have a very deep analysis that indicates the move  19.Qe4!, "+/="  
       will give White good play against Black's very weak pawn structure. 

       (My line here is close to 30 moves long. It is VERY complicated ... and has 
        MANY branches! In the final proof of this game, I decided not to reproduce 
        it here.)  {A.J.G.}  

        NOTE:   I first saw 19.Qe4! and analyzed it out to a win as a teenager. 
        (I even wrote several chess magazines about my discovery.)  
        But before I publish any analysis I should insure that it is basically  "air-tight." ]  

*******

 

19...exf4!?;  (Maybe dubious?)  
I don't think it is a good idea for Black to open the file here ...  (Reinfeld echoes this opinion); yet it is difficult to come up with anything that is clearly and/or demonstrably better. 

(Kasparov questions this, but the line he gave as superior leaves White with  a very solid advantage ... and Black with little counterplay.)  

*************************

     [  Var. # 19B1.)  
       
Black can avoid the opening of the f-file by playing: 
        19...e4!?20.Qd4 Kg821.Rd2 Qc522.Qxe4, "+/="  
        but it costs him a pawn to do so. 

**********

        Var. # 19B2.)   
        Another continuation is:  
        19...Qc5!?20.Nxe5 Be8!?
        Probably the safest move. 

        21.Qe4! h6!?
        Black prepares to occupy the half-open g-file. 

            ( Or  21...Rg8;  22.Rf2!, "+/=" )     

        22.f5 Bg523.fxe6 Qxe3+24.Qxe3 Bxe3+25.Kh1 Kg7;  
        26.h4! fxe6!?;  
        Black decides to rid himself of the pesky e-pawn.  

            ( If  26...Rc2!?;  then  27.Bb5!!,  "+/="    
              (If Black captures on b5, he is mated in three moves.) )     

        27.Rd3!,  ''  
        & White has a very strong attack. 
        (If ...Bb6; then Rg3+ may win on the spot for White.);   

**********

        Var. # 19B3.)  
        Black could also try:  
        19...Bc6!?20.fxe5 Qd521.Qxd5 Bxd522.Nd6, "+/="  
        and any strong program will show that White has a fairly substantial edge 
        in this position. (This is the line that Kasparov claimed to be much better 
        than the game.) ]  

*************************

 

20.Qd4!,   
With virtually the precision of a computer ...  Pillsbury once again shows the correct path. 

   '!' - GM Garry Kasparov.   '!' - Fred Reinfeld.  

     [ It is entirely possible that the line, beginning with the move:  20.Rxf4!?, "+/="   
       leads to a position where White also has a fairly solid edge. ]  

 

20...f6; {Box?}  {Diagram?}  
As a teen-ager, I questioned this move, (believing ...Kg8 to be better); but now I see that this play is <basically> forced for Black. 

     [ </=  20...Rg8??21.Qxf4, "+/-"  (White is winning.)

       </=   20...fxe3??21.Qxh8#.    (Its mate.)

       </=  20...Kg8?; ('??')  21.Qxf4! Be8; 22.Qxc7, ("+/-")  and White wins.  

       </=  20...e5?21.Nxe5! Qxe2[]22.Nxd7+ Kg823.Qxf4 Qh5;  
              24.Qxc7, "+/-"  {Diagram?}  (White has a won game.)  ]  

 

21.Qxf4!,   
The most natural move ... and definitely the best. 

   '!' - Drazen Marovic.  

     [ With the move:  21.Rxf4!?, "+/="  White prepares to double Rooks on the f-file, and retains a solid edge. ]   

 

White has all kinds of nasty threats, but Ne5, with a big discovery, is definitely the biggest threat Lasker has to consider here.  

Lasker's solution is both simple and elegant ... he ignores his development, guards d6 a second time, and also avoids the possible attack by B/on-e2. 

21...Qc5!;   {See the diagram given just below.}   
The crafty fox - Lasker - seemed to always find the best defense in almost every position. 
(Several disasters awaited Lasker here, but he avoids stepping on any of Pillsbury's land-mines.)  

 

  *************************  

   Black just played the rather sneaky ...Qc5; how should White respond?  (pills-lask-cs04_pos4.jpg, 19 KB)

*************************

  (5k1r/pprbb2p/4pp2/2q5/2N2Q2/4P3/P3B1PP/3R1RK1 w)  

 

It is entirely possible that Lasker really thought he was OK in this position. (Black only needs one or two moves to establish his counterplay.)  

 

  **************************************************************************  

 

     [ The most natural-looking move was  ...Rc8;  but that move meets 
        a truly spectacular refutation:  
        21...Rc8!?22.Ne5!!,  
        A brilliant riposte. And one that wins decisively. 

***************

           a).   Kasparov only gives the following  - grossly inferior - line ... 
                   in this position:  22.Qd4?! Bc6?; ('??')  
                   Horrible, the move ...Qd5 was practically forced here. 
                   (This one move changes the position's evaluation by five-to-TEN points!!    
                     This is simply ridiculous.)    

*******

                      ( If Black refused to resign, he had to play the continuation:       
                        a1.)  22...Rxc4; 23.Bxc4 e5!?;         
                        and lose his Queen here.      

***

                        Most programs say that the move:      
                        a2.)  22...Qd5[];  is forced in this position. )    

*******

                 23.Rxf6+!,  ("+/-")  
                 and of course White wins. 

**********

           b). The continuation of:  22.Qh6+! Kg8[]23.Rf4!!; ("+/-")  
                 is also much better than the move given by Kasparov.  

***************

        Now the following line is very close to being forced for both sides here:   
        22...Qxe223.Nxd7+ Kg724.Nxf6 Qxd125.Qg5+! Kf726.Rxd1 Rc5;   
        27.Qh6 Bxf628.Rd7+ Be729.Rxe7+! Kxe730.Qg7+, ("+/-")  
        and White wins the Rook on h8 and should win rather handily.  

*************************

       Of course not: </=  21...Rg8??22.Qxc7,  "+/-"  with a winning material edge. ]   

**************************************************************************

 

Given enough time ... Lasker's two Bishops and half-open g-file might mean something ... but Pillsbury reacts very rapidly with a series of sharp moves that does not allow Black the time (that) he requires. 

22.Ne5!,   
The best move - either Lasker had overlooked this shot, or simply he had underestimated its impact. 

     '!' - G. Marco. (Schach Zeitung)  

(Kasparov gives this move without any mark or comment.) 

The move Rf3!? ... preparing Rxd7, Rxd7; and then Qb8+ is also interesting.

     [ The move:  22.Nd6!?, "+/="  
        led to very interesting positions that all seem to favor White. 
        (If ...Kg8; then simply Rf3!);  

        White could also play:  22.Rf3!?, "~"  
        which a long analysis indicates may work out to a small advantage 
        for White from this position.  

    ********************************************************************************************   

        White could also try:  22.Qh6+!?,  here.  
        (Many people have suggested this move to me over the years.)   

        22...Kg8;  {Box?}  Now this looks forced.   

             ( </=  22...Ke8?;  23.Nd6+ Bxd6;  24.Bh5+ Qxh5[];   
               Otherwise - Black is mated. 25.Qxh5+ Ke7;  26.Qg4, "+/-" )   

        23.Bh5!(now)  "Black seems lost." - R.H.   
        (The main threat is Nd6, {...BxN/d6} followed by RxP/f6, winning.)   

             (Or 23.Rxf6!? Bxf6; 24.Qxf6, "+/-")   

        23...Bb5;  (Probably best.)   {Diagram?}   
        This looks like Black's best (only?) try here.   

             ( </=  23...Qxc4?;  24.Rxf6! Bxf6;  25.Qxf6 e5[];  26.Rf1, ("+/-")  )      

        and now the move:  24.h4!!,  "+/-"   {Diagram?}   
        wins easily for White. [The main point is to keep the Black Queen off   
        of the g5-square; only a genius, (or a computer); would ever even 
        consider such a move.]   

        The computer shows that, in order to avoid an almost certain mate,   
         the second party must give up his Queen here - with 24...QxB/h5.   

             (Another option was: (</=)  24.Nd6!? Bxd6;  25.Rxf6 Qe5;  26.Rxd6 Qxd6;     
               27.Qg5+ Rg7;  28.Bf7+ Kf8;  29.Bxe6+ Ke8;  30.Qxg7 Qd1+;  31.Kf2 Qd2+;     
               32.Kg3 Qxe3+;  33.Kh4! Kd8!?;  34.Qxh8+,  and White wins. ("+/-") )   ]   

 

22...Be8;  {Diagram?}   
I think I can say this was forced with almost a 100% certainty.  

     [ Much inferior for Black was: </=  22...Ba4?!23.Rd4! Bb5?;  
       It looks natural to save the piece, but now watch what happens ...  

          ( If  >/=  23...Rg8;  then simply  24.Rxa4,  ("+/-")  {Diagram}      
            and White should win. (Rc4 may also win as well.) )      

       24.Qh6+ Ke825.Bh5# ]   

 

23.Ng4!,  very good!  (Maybe - '!!')  {Diagram?}  
There is no doubt in my mind that this move deserves an exclam ...  
especially seeing that White had (at least!)  TWO (2) other possibilities which also yielded a sizeable advantage to the first player.  
 (See the lines below.) 

 

*******

     [ After the moves:  23.Qh6+!? Kg824.Ng4, "+/=" 
       White has a fairly sizeable edge. 
       (This differs from the game as Black has ...Qg5! in this position.);  

***

       Also - the (former) World Champion gives the following line:  
       23.Rd4!? Rg8;  {Diagram?}  
       There seems to be little else {positive} that Black can play in this position. 

           ( Probably even worse was:  </=  23...Kg7?!;  24.Ng4 e5;  25.Qh6+ Kg8;      
             26.Bc4+, "+/-"  {Diagram?}  "and (White) wins." - GM Garry Kasparov. )    

       24.Rc4 Qd525.Bf3 Qxe526.Qxe5 Rxc427.Qxe6,  ''  
       ("+/"  ... Maybe even  "+/-")  and White is clearly better here.  
       Analysis line by - GM G. Kasparov. ]   

*******

 

23...f5;   
This looks absolutely forced to me, and is the first choice of many strong chess programs here.  

********

     [ Instead, a brand-new book gives the following line as 
       an improvement for the second player: 

       </= 23...Bg6!?; ('?!')  
       Kasparov gives this move an exclamation mark ... 
       but it looks like it was based on faulty analysis. 

       24.Nxf6,  
       This looks to be the best.  

           ( Interesting was: 24.Rd4!?, "+/=" )     

       24...Kg725.Nd7 Qc3; ('!?')  
       It is possible that  ...Qa5;  is a better defense in this position. 

           (Maybe  25...Qa5!?; {Diagram?} is worth a try?)     

       26.Rd4, ''  ("+/")  
       White is clearly much, much, much better here - most chess programs 
       give this position as completely winning ("+/-") for White. 

           ( Instead Kasparov gives the move: </= 26.Bg4?, "+/="  (Maybe - '')  {D?}      
              which is better for White, but is HUGELY inferior to Rd4. )   ]   

*******

 

24.Qh6+ Kf7;   
Apparently this is forced.  

     [ Instead, Black could also play the move ...King-to-Knight-One ... 
       (...Kg8); but this try is dispatched with relative ease:  
       </=  24...Kg8?25.Qxe6+ Kg7;  
       This looks to be forced.  

           ( Instead Reinfeld gives the following line ... but it is clearly inferior:       
             </= 25...Bf7?!; 26.Nh6+ Kg7; 27.Qxf7+! Kxh6; 28.Rxf5 Qxe3+?; {D?}    
             Black had to give up the Queen here to avoid being mated.      
             29.Kh1 Qxe2; 30.Rd6+! Bxd6; 31.Qf6#.  {Diagram?}     
             A cute mate by Reinfeld.  {Pope attributes this to Chernev?} )      

       26.Rd5 Qb627.Qe5+ Kg828.Rxf5 Bf7!?29.Rxf7! Kxf7;  
       30.Qxh8,  ("+/-")  A check with any strong analysis engine will   
       confirm this is a totally winning position for White. (A "plus-ten" ... or more points.) ]   

 

25.Bc4!!,   
An ultra-brilliant move ... and even praised by Garry Kasparov as ...  the  "right way"  to proceed.  

   '!!' - GM Garry Kasparov.   '!' - Fred Reinfeld.   '!!' - Jacques N. Pope.  

*******

     [ Also very good for White was: 
       25.Rc1! Qxc126.Ne5+ Kg827.Rxc1 Rxc1+28.Kf2 Bg6;  
       Trying to cut off the White Queen from e6.  

           ( </= 28...Rc2??;  29.Qxe6+, "+/-" )     

       29.Nxg6 hxg630.Qxg6+ Kf831.Qxe6, ''  (Maybe  "+/-")  
       and White is clearly much better.  

***

       Kasparov points out the line: 
       </=  25.Rxf5+!? Qxf5;  
       This appears to be forced. 

           ( </= 25...exf5?; 26.Bc4+! Qxc4[];   
              The only move that does not allow White to mate Black.     
              27.Ne5+,  ("+/-")       
              followed by NxQ/c4, and White should be winning here. )     

       26.Rf1 Rc5!; "="  is "unclear" according to Kasparov. ]  

*******

 

25...Rc6;   
This too - is apparently forced.  

     [ Of course not:  </=  25...Qxc4??26.Ne5+,  ("+/-")   
        and Black gets forked. ]   

 

26.Rxf5+!!,   
A very brilliant move, and not at all obvious. 
(White had several other moves to consider, at least two of which give White a clear advantage.) 

White gives up  TWO  Rooks for the Queen ... if things go sour, White could find himself with a lost game. (!)  

My very deep analysis indicates that this is  ... ... ... BOTH BEST AND THE QUICKEST METHOD ...  to force Black to capitulate.

   '!' - GM Garry Kasparov.   '!' - Fred Reinfeld.   '!' - Jacques N. Pope.  

 

     [ Playable was:  26.Qh5+!?, "+/=" (White is a little better.) ]  

 

26...Qxf5;   
Of course this is forced.  

     [ </= 26...Kg8??27.Bxe6+ Rxe628.Qxe6+ Kg729.Rxc5, "+/-" ]  

 

27.Rf1,   
"Because of the exposed position of the Black King, the two Rooks are no 
compensation for the Q." (Q = queen.)  - Fred Reinfeld. 

27...Qxf1+;   
Once again ... Black is left without any really better choice of moves. 

     [ Even worse was: </= 27...Rxc4?!28.Rxf5+ exf529.Ne5+,  ("+/-")   
        After the forced ...Kg8;  then simply Qe6+! wins massive amounts of material. ]  

 

28.Kxf1!,   
This is much better than the near-cowardly Bxf1.  

     [ Possible was:  28.Bxf1!?, "+/=" ]  

 

28...Bd7!?,   
Black struggles to free his trapped Rook. Black MUST hurry, his King is in very dire straights here. 

     [ </=  28...Rxc4?; 29.Ne5+ Kg8; 30.Qxe6+ Kf8; 31.Qxc4, "+/-"  

       Or  </=  28...Rg8; ('????')  29.Ne5# ]   

 

Now it only takes a finishing touch by the great Pillsbury. 
29.Qh5+!,   
Once again the best move in a position where Pillsbury had at least one other (possibly) winning line ... and more than one way to go wrong. 

"Stronger than Kt-to-K5, (Ne5+) check"   '!' - Fred Reinfeld. 

     [ Also winning for White was:  29.Ne5+!? Ke830.Nxc6 Rf8+31.Ke2,  
        31...Bxc632.Qxh7,  ("+/-")  
        but Pillsbury's method has to be a whole lot better. ]  

 

29...Kg8;   
This looks forced to me.  

     [ Even worse for Black is:  </= 29...Kg7?30.Qe5+ Kg8; ('?')  
       The only move given by one author in this line. (Reinfeld.) 

          ( Or  30...Kg6!?; 31.Bd3+, ("+/-")   etc.      
            (But White is winning very easily here ... in this position.) )     

       31.Nh6+ Kf832.Qxh8#.  (and)  Black has been mated. ]     

 

30.Ne5,  ("+/-") 
Black Resigns ... his game is completely hopeless. 
(The computer says that this position is simply mate in five-to-seven moves.) 

*******

     [ In the following continuation:  30.Ne5 Kg7;  
       This appears to be forced. 

          (If 30...Be8?;  then  31.Qxe8+,  and Black can resign.)   

       31.Qf7+!,   
       White goes for the jugular.  

          (White can win material with: 31.Qg4+ Kf8;  32.Nxd7+ Ke8;     
           33.Ne5, "+/-"   with a won game.)  

       31...Kh632.Ng4+ Kg533.Qg7+! Kh5;  
       This is forced.  

          ( </= 33...Kf5?!; ('?') 34.Bd3# )     

       34.Nf6+! Bxf635.Be2+ Kh436.Qh6#and Black is check-mated. 
       (White had like three different "mates-in-one" on the last move!) ]  

*******

 

To say this is an extremely brilliant game is a vast under-statement ... and fails to do this contest any real justice.  
(The more I study this game, the more I like it. And every time I look at it, I see something new that I had not seen before.) 

  Is this Pillsbury's best game?????   
(Lasker - the reigning World Champ, - is beaten in an incredible contest.) 
While I do not feel I am competent to say so with complete authority, I certainly feel you would be hard-pressed to find a game that was superior to this magnificent gem. 

"This game was played throughout by Pillsbury in a very grand manner."  - Fred Reinfeld.

**********************************************************************************************************

BIBLIOGRAPHY:  
I have about 5-10 books on Pillsbury, many of them are not in English. I also have seen this game in print more times than I care to count. 

I consulted the following books ...  in the order given ... to annotate this truly wonderful and incredible game.  
(I also want to thank various students who photo-copied documents, old magazines, newspaper articles, etc; from various libraries and archives.) 

# 1.)  "The Collected Games of (the great) EMANUEL LASKER,  by (the late)  Ken Whyld.  
            Copyright (c) 1998, by the author. Published by the Chess Player. 
            ISBN:  # 1-901034-02-X 
            (This book incorrectly gives the move,  18...Qb4;  for this game.) 

# 2.)  "Velicki majstori saha,"  'The great H.N. Pillsbury.' 
            (This is book number four {# 4} in this particular series.)  
            By  Dr. S. Petrovic.  Series edited by  Drazen Marovic.  
            Copyright (c) 1971 by the author. 
            Published by Sahovska Naklada.  (Zagreb, Yugoslavia.) 

# 3.)  "The Games of the great American Master, Harry Nelson Pillsbury." 
            (Informant style book. It seems dozens of Yugoslav Masters may have contributed to this book.)  

# 4.)  A book on Pillsbury in German
          (Your guess is as good as mine who the author is, I can barely follow the moves - much less the notes.)  
          (I also have a book on Pillsbury that was sent to me - written in Russian!) 

# 5.)  "The Chess Career of Harry Nelson Pillsbury," by  P.W. Sergeant  and  W.H. Watts
           (Many say this is the finest Pillsbury book out there.)  

# 6.)  The Book of the Tournament. 
          "Cambridge Springs International (chess) Tournament, (USA)  1904." By  Fred Reinfeld.  Copyright (c) 1935. 
            Published by Black Knight Press, NY.  
            (Thanks to {at least} one person - who sent me a complete photo-copy of the entire book!)  

# 7.)  "Harry Nelson Pillsbury,"  ('American Chess Champion') by  Jacques N. Pope.  Copyright (c) 1996. 
           Published by 'Pawn Island' Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (USA) 
           (Printed by the Russett Co. Inc. OH  Distributed by Lindsay.)  

# 8.)  Game # 42page # 136.  The book:  "My Great Predecessors,"  (Part I)  by (former) World Champion & GMGarry K. Kasparov.  
          Copyright (c) 2003 by both the author and the translator. (KN)  Published by EVERYMAN Chess.  ISBN: # 1-85744-330-6  

# 9.)  I also must thank several {former} students who dug up a lot of old stuff out of newspapers and chess magazines of the period.

         (I also checked the following book: "Pillsbury, The Extraordinary,"  by GM Andrew Soltis and FM Ken Smith. 
           Copyright (c) 1990, Published by Chess Digest of Dallas, Texas. 
           ISBN: # 0-87568-187-5.  This game is not in there, but I checked it for the sake of being complete and thorough.) 

# 10.)  The CB website examines this game.  

 

  Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I.  
  Copyright (c) A. Goldsby, 1973-2003.  Copyright (c) A.J.G;  2004.  

***

 

  (Code Initially)  Generated with  ChessBase 8.0   

 

  1 - 0  


 Want to see more of the great Pillsbury's games? {annotated} Then click  HERE  or  HERE!   


  Click here to go/return to my domain.  There is no site map, but you can click  here.  

 Click  here  to go to - or return to - my page of:
ANNOTATED GAMES,  (Angel-Fire 2)  Page #3

Click  here  to go to my (main)  "Recent GM Games"  page. 

***

 Click  here  to go to, (or return to) my 
 "Best Games Page"  on my Geo-cities web site

 *** 

  Click here to go to Steve Etzel's excellent site on CS1904. 

(Or use the "back" button on your web browser.)

(To contact me concerning this analysis, click here.)


This is a page I started on many times. I even had a short (annotated) version posted on another server, but that site was closed because that company stopped offering free web pages. I finally finished this page in connection with my research of the player Pillsbury, and my endless fascination with the chess tournament, Cambridge Springs, 1904. A truly great game! And perhaps even Pillsbury's best. Incredible. 

I have worked on and analyzed this game for years. This game has been an active project of mine for at least 5-7 years, although I have started on it ... and then laid it aside many times. I have been actively working on this game ... on a fairly regular basis ... for over a year now. 


This page was first posted, (here): in September, 2003. 
 Final/finished posting:  Thursday; October 16th, 2003. 
(I was working on finishing many other projects during the interim.)
  This page was last updated on 08/20/10 . Last edit/save on Friday, August 20, 2010 03:00 AM .  

***

Please be sure to drop me a short e-mail and tell me what you think!


  One sample e-mail - from hundreds that I have had that concerns this game.  

 

To: LifeMasterAJ@yahoo.com 
From: "Rik" ....   (deleted, to protect this person's privacy)  
Subject: 22. Qh6+!? 
Date: Wed, 01 March, 2006 / 00:39:10 +0100 
******************************************************************************************************************************* 
Dear Mr. Goldsby,

Great job you did on analyzing Pillsbury-Lasker. Truly a work of love and devotion, worth a brilliancy price in itself!

Playing over the moves on SigmaChess/Hiarcs (a free or almost free program for Mac OS) the machine suggests  
22. Qh6+ (instead of the famous 22.Ne5)  

(He goes on to provide some fair analysis, although I found several significant improvements.)  

Best regards,  Rik  (Amsterdam, NED)  


 Copyright  (c)  A.J. Goldsby I 

  Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 1979 - 2009.   

Copyright () A.J. Goldsby, 2010.  All rights reserved. 

Counter