Showers of Gold

Date: 12 Dec 2008 16:04:50
From: help bot
Subject: Showers of Gold

I remember seeing the famous game in which,
it has been claimed, the board was showered
with gold coins after Frank Marshall played his
amazing Q-KN6 move.

What struck me was that all other moves
seemed to lose, and had not the annotators of
this game presented it as though Mr. Marshall
had been winning all along? Why then, the
need for such a hard-to-find move, just to save
oneself from losing?

The key position, right before the Queen
sacrifice, is always diagrammed-- but how
did they get to that position? When I went to
replay the entire game, I noticed right away
that the opening was not played especially
well, by either side.

No matter-- this was a long time ago, and
we've come a long way since then. But
what about the middle game? One move
struck me as just plain bad-- when White
voluntarily offered up a free pawn at c3.

But this was nothing compared to what I
discovered a bit later on. According to my
computer (which can "see everything", no
matter how complex the position), Frank
Marshall's opponent threw it away with the
move Q-h5, which loses a piece by force.

Okay, so White clumsily misplaced his
pieces, and Black, or Frank Marshall, took
advantage and won. But here is where
things get really interesting.

In order for the key position to arise-- the
one where FM found the amazing ...Qg3
crusher, he first had to overlook and not
exploit a fairly obvious back rank mate
theme!

That's right-- according to the game score
as it is recorded at chessgames.com, Mr.
Marshall missed a simple tactic which
would have nixed his later opportunity-- the
one for which he is now most famous. He
is the more famous for having /missed/ a
back rank mate that I saw easily (and
which Rybka no doubt found in a hundreth
of a second).

The inimitable Dr. IMnes remarked that
Dr. Nunn had somehow decided that old
timers like these were, more-or-less, mere
duffers by today's standards. All I can say
is that I am astounded that all those
writers who went ga-ga over this game,
failed to note its overall low quality, despite
the fantastic finish.

-- help bot

Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:22:30
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 12, 7:04=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 I remember seeing the famous game in which,
> it has been claimed, the board was showered
> with gold coins after Frank Marshall played his
> amazing Q-KN6 move.
>
> =A0 What struck me was that all other moves
> seemed to lose, and had not the annotators of
> this game presented it as though Mr. Marshall
> had been winning all along? =A0 ...=A0 All I can say
> is that I am astounded that all those
> writers who went ga-ga over this game,
> failed to note its overall low quality, despite
> the fantastic finish.

Just out of curiosity, I looked through my library for any books
that might fit help-bot=92s description, that is, where the Levitzky-
Marshall game is annotated in a way that gives the impression that
=93Marshall was winning all along.=94 Books where supposedly "all those
writers went ga-ga over this game." Here=92s what I found (and I saved
the best for last, so read all the way to the end):

=93Paul Morphy and the Golden Age of Chess=94 by William Ewart Napier
(1934) =97 The full game is given on pages 151-152. There are no
annotations, just an introductory comment: =93Some of Marshall=92s most
sparkling moves look at first like typographical errors. See this
famous game!=94

=93The Golden Treasury of Chess=94 by Francis J. Wellmuth (1943) =97 The
full game is given on page 183. There are no annotations, just an
introductory comment: =93This contains the most beautiful move ever
played!=94

=93The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess=94 by Irving Chernev (1955) =97 The
full game is given on pages 499-500. There are no annotations until
the last move, where Chernev explains how White is lost no matter how
he may capture the black queen.

=93Wonders and Curiosities of Chess=94 by Irving Chernev (1974) =97 The
full game is given on pages 5-6. There are six brief notes. They do
not give the impression help-bot describes.

=93Chess for the Fun of It=94 by Brian Harley (1933) =97 A brief
biographical sketch of Marshall is given on page 158, followed by a
diagram and Black=92s 23rd move on page 159. A paragraph follows,
praising 23=85Qg3 and explaining how Black wins in all variations.

=93The Pleasures of Chess=94 by Assiac (1952): Only a diagram and
Black=92s 23rd move are shown, on page 11. The legend of the gold pieces
is repeated, with the additional comment =93Yet somehow it seems fitting
enough that this particular feat [i.e. Black=92s 23rd move] drew
glittering and merrily clinking gold rather than a few notes or a
cheque.=94

=93The World=92s Great Chess Games=94 by Reuben Fine (2nd edition, 1976) =
=97
In the chapter on Marshall, pages 87-95, only a diagram and the final
move are shown. No annotations, except the =93!!!=94 given to 23=85Qg3.

=93The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia=94 by Nathan Divinsky (1990) =97 Gives
the game in full as part of the entry on Marshall, pages 125-126.
Pointedly, it says =93Marshall=92s most famous _move_ occurred in Breslau
1912.=94 The word =93move=94 is italicized in the original, thus stressing
that it is the move that is famous, not the game as a whole.

=93The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century, Ranked=94 by GM Andrew
Soltis (2000) =97 In this case Levitzky-Marshall is conspicuous by its
absence. If it has actually been widely but mistakenly overrated, as
help-bot claims, one would expect to see it either as one of the top
100 games, or in the chapters =93The Most Overrated Games=94 or =93Near
Misses.=94 In fact, the game is not mentioned at all. This indicates
that (A) Soltis knows it is not an all-around great game, and (B)
Soltis, who is very widely read in chess literature, knows of no
general opinion that would justify calling the game overrated.

=93Chess Explorations=94 by Edward Winter (1996) =97 The game is mentione=
d
on page 145. Winter being _very_ widely read, and being a writer who
often debunks myths, one would expect that he would be at pains to
debunk mistaken annotations of Levitzky-Marshall. However, he deals
only with a mistaken labeling of the game in the book =93100 Classics of
the Chessboard=94 by Dickins and Ebert, where the game is erroneously
labeled Janowsky-Marshall, Biarritz 1912.

=93Chess Lists=94 by Andy Soltis (2nd edition, 2002) =97 The game is
discussed on page 107, in the chapter =93Five Chess Myths.=94 The brief
entry is concerned mainly with debunking the =93showering=94 myth, saying
that some gold changed hands but coins not tossed on the board. The
only comment about the game itself is =93After a typically daring gamibt
as Black in a French Defense, Marshall built up a frenzy of tactics,
capped by 23=85Qg3!!.=94

So in these books we find nothing to corroborate help-bot=92s claim
that many writers have gone "ga-ga," about the game as a whole. And in
my last example, we find an annotator doing the exact opposite of
this:

=93The Development of Chess Style=94 by Max Euwe & John Nunn (1997) =97
Here finally we find the game annotated at some length, on pages
103-104. There are many notes, at moves 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15,
17, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. In them there is nothing, either express
or implied, that says =93Marshall was winning all along.=94 In fact,
Marshall is criticized as early as the 3rd move, and White is faulted
at moves 4 and 6 for not taking advantage of his unorthodox opening.
But the longest note concerns White=92s 20. Qh5. This is clearly
labeled a mistake (=93?=94), and it is made perfectly plain that it is the
losing move. It=92s worth showing the full note here. The position
before White=92s 20th move is:

W: Kg1, Qe2, Rd5, Rf1, Bh3, a1, c2, f2, g2, h2
B: Kg8, Qc3, Re8, Rf6, Nd4, a7, b7, e6, g7, h7

Here, after 20.Qh5?, former World Champion Euwe writes:

=93Missing the mark! 20.Qe5 would have been even worse because of 20=85
Nf3+! 21.gxf3 Rg6+ 22.Bg2 Qxf3.
=93White must therefore try 20.Qe4. Then follows 20=85Rf4! 21.Qe5 Qd2
(preventing 22.Rd7 because of the reply 22=85Ne2+) 22.Rc5 Ne2+ 23.Kh1
Rxf2! 24.Qa1, and White can still fight on as Black has no immediate
win.=94

=93Black has no immediate win =85=94 Nothing like help-bot=92s claim, eh?
Furthermore, in a footnote GM Nunn adds:

=93In this line White can turn the tables by the surprising 22.Bxe6+!
Kh8 23.Bh3! and as a result of his weak back rank Black finishes a
pawn down for very little, e.g. 23=85Rg8 24.f3 Ne2+ 25.Kh1 Rd4 26.Rxd4
Nxd4 27.Qd5 b6 28.f5.=94

Not just that Black has no immediate win, but that =93White can turn
the tables.=94 So much for Marshall =93winning all along.=94

So let=92s sum up. Here we have twelve books, of which eleven mention
the game, and the one that does not should have if help-bot=92s claims
were true. Of the eleven that mention the game, six give no more than
the final move, and therefore do not support help-bot=92s claim. Five
give the game in full; of these, three have no notes and therefore do
not support help-bot=92s claim. One has brief notes that are more or
less neutral, and therefore it does not support help-bot=92s claim. And
one has notes that *_directly contradict_* help-bot=92s claim.

Of course, it=92s still conceivable that there are some published
annotations of Levitzky-Marshall with the pro-Marshall slant help-bot
has claimed. But he has so far failed to present or even name even a
single one, and it is by now abundantly clear he probably never will.
Greg, the score so far is 12-0 against you, and you=92ve been doing
nothing but striking out, not even making contact. You=92re up to bat.
Let=92s see you whiff again!

Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:16:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 17, 9:54=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> =A0 There's no point in trying to reason with Greg, aka help-bot. He's
> like the black knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," raving
> about how he's going to slay you despite the fact that all his arms
> and legs have been hacked off. (seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DqxL11=
RIEb5Q

As I recall, it took a great King (or Knight) to
defeat that fellow in the movie-- not a mere hack,
like Mr. Kingston; so perhaps this was not such
a clever analogy... .

I find that many idiots here in rgc require my
constant attention now that Dr. Blair has retired,
leaving them to run amok. Would that I had
some help in this project! But you know how
hard it is to find good help these days.

-- help bot

Date: 17 Dec 2008 12:55:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 16, 8:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> In the first place, I am not Taylor Kingston. Your unwillingness to
> read books should not extend to a refusal to read Usenet post headers.

With two very similar imbeciles go at it in the
same thread at the same time, I think I am
entitled to get a tad confused for a moment, now
and then. I may even occasionally confound
the fake Sam Sloan for the real one, if Trollgar
does a really good impression.

> In the second place, you seem unwilling to grasp that Marshall was a
> much better player than you (or I)

Hmm. As I recall, Mr. Marshall routinely lost
7-0 to the likes of players I've fared better against
than he.
The inimitable Dr. IMnes has claimed that Mr.
Nunn has analysed the play of such players,
and found it wanting relative to the play of
modern folk. That was also my impression of
this particular game-- but not of the play of some
of the top players, like Mr. Morphy, Mr. Lasker,
and Mr. Capablanca.

> Marshall was one of the five original "Grandmasters," named by the
> Tsar after St. Petersburg 1914.

Everyone knows that. But it was not Mr.
Kingston who made the comment. Perhaps
a remedial course in writing is in order?

> If you want to argue that this wasn't
> the same as a "real" GM title, fine.

Having a go at some strawman, are we?
Good luck with that in this weather. As for
me, I will wait for Spring before mounting up
to go a-hunting for windmills.

> But if you are so ignorant of chess history

My ignorant friend, this is not a question
which can be resolved by poking one's head
into the yellowed paged of any book; it is
simply a question of your having erroneously
claimed that /Mr. Kingston/ attributed the title
of grandmaster to Mr. Marshall; he did not.

> Finally, a minor point: If Marshall saw 21. Rc5 Rxf2 -- which he must
> have, since it was the point that refuted White's combination

Non sequitur.

> -- does
> it make the slightest sense to suggest that he did not notice 21. Re5
> Rxf2?

It is obvious that with best play, White must
sacrifice his hanging Bishop for a pawn (on e6);
this, in my opinion, refutes the nonsense about
asthetic beauty that was presented here earlier.

What we are comparing is the win of a pawn--
neatly exploiting a back-rank mate theme, as
compared to the loss of a pawn (on e6), and in
no way can one /reasonably/ argue that playing
an inferior move somehow improves the game's
asthetics (apart from our 20/20 hindsight which
revealed a subsequent error in defense).

Were this a composed problem, the failure to
see the superior move Rxf2 would be published
as a /cook/, by that guy with the bizarre beard,
in the back pages of Chess Life magazine. I
think he may also be the Postmaster general... .

-- help bot

Date: 17 Dec 2008 06:54:21
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 16, 8:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 11:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Is any of this new or interesting? What is the suggested alternative
> > > to 17. Qe2? After 17. a3 Bxc3 18. Qxc3 Qxc3 19. bxc3, White has a
> > > lousy ending, though of course he's not lost yet. (Marshall: " Feelin=
g
> > > very uncomfortable because of the puin, White steers for what seems a
> > > clever exchanging combination.") Marshal also pointed out that 22. Qh=
5
> > > was a loser.
>
> > =A0 My comments in no way referred to any move
> > annotations by Mr. Marshall, as I have't seen
> > them. =A0 In fact, I saw some article on the issue
> > of gold coins purportedly being showered onto
> > the chess board, and then searched for the
> > game score, to see how this famous position
> > came about.
>
> > =A0 It reminded me of the position in which Larry
> > Evans miraculously saved a dead lost game
> > against Mr. Reshevsky in that the key position
> > right before the brilliant move is presented,
> > but not the entire game score. =A0[Why?]
>
> > > He mentions 22. Qe5 Nf3+, but it's true 22. Qe4 is not so
> > > clear. Black may still be a little better after 22. ... Rf4 23. Qe5 h=
6
> > > 24. f3, but now we're getting pretty far from the game. Of course
> > > Marshall saw 21. ... Rxf2 -- his note to 21. Re5 reads "White must
> > > have relied on 21. ... Rc5, overlooking 21. ... Rxf2!" Since 21. Re5
> > > didn't force this, Marshall looked for a more aesthetic finish.
>
> > =A0 The logic of that argument falls flat.
>
> > =A0 Best play would lead to a very unpleasing
> > finish in which White, seeing that he must
> > lose a piece, snatches what he can in
> > exchange -- the e6 pawn-- then retreats his
> > Queen; yuck. =A0 =A0 Of course, when I talk of
> > what a player "saw", I refer not to what he
> > put in his annotations after the game, but
> > what he saw during the game, as revealed
> > by his moves.
>
> > > Finally, so what? As Taylor Kingston already pointed out, the game as
> > > a whole is nothing special, just an example of a top GM
>
> > =A0 Mr. Kingston did not claim that Mr. Marshall
> > held the title of grandmaster, let alone top GM;
> > you just made that up, didn't you?
>
> > > It's notable for the spectacular final position.
>
> > =A0 We are in perfect agreement here.
>
> > =A0 What strikes me is that in order get to the
> > position which is "solved" by the amazing
> > ...Qg3, one must first navigate poorly
> > through a maze of much easier tactical
> > problems. =A0 For instance, the back rank
> > mate trick is easily within the ability of
> > mere mortals of Expert strength.
>
> > > anything, Help Bot's mechanical carping makes this even more
> > > impressive, since Marshall *could* have won fairly routinely but chos=
e
> > > to do something better.
>
> > =A0 Whenever I am attacked like this, I know
> > that I have really pissed off one of the many
> > irrelevant ad hoministas of rgc. =A0 I get a
> > warm, fuzzy feeling all over, though I realize
> > that were there any other /intelligent/ posters
> > here, some of my comments might meet
> > with rational criticism of some sort. =A0As it is,
> > I have nothing to worry about... . LOL
>
> > =A0 -- help bot
>
> In the first place, I am not Taylor Kingston. Your unwillingness to
> read books should not extend to a refusal to read Usenet post headers.
> In the second place, you seem unwilling to grasp that Marshall was a
> much better player than you (or I), and his comments on his own game
> carry a lot more credibility than anything you have to say. Third,
> you've already been met with rational criticism, but you seem unable
> to grasp it.
>
> Marshall was one of the five original "Grandmasters," named by the
> Tsar after St. Petersburg 1914. If you want to argue that this wasn't
> the same as a "real" GM title, fine. But if you are so ignorant of
> chess history as not to be aware of this (you apparently have not even
> read Marshall's book), you have no business discussing the subject. In
> any case, Marshall in 1912 was clearly one of the top half-dozen
> players in the world. Once again, if you don't know enough about
> history to realize this, you have no business talking about it.
>
> Finally, a minor point: If Marshall saw 21. Rc5 Rxf2 -- which he must
> have, since it was the point that refuted White's combination -- does
> it make the slightest sense to suggest that he did not notice 21. Re5
> Rxf2? The fact that Greg finds this difficult to understand speaks
> volumes.

There's no point in trying to reason with Greg, aka help-bot. He's
like the black knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," raving
about how he's going to slay you despite the fact that all his arms
and legs have been hacked off. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DqxL11R=
IEb5Q
)
You can then do one of two things: either just ignore him from that
point and continue on your way, like King Arthur did in the film, or
you can stay and enjoy inflicting further injuries on him. I've done
it both ways, depending on what mood I'm in.

Date: 16 Dec 2008 17:29:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 16, 6:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> > =A0 Once again, we are treated to the "amazing"
> > research skills of the imbecile, Mr. Kingston.

> =A0 Greg, when it comes to chess history, I can out-research ten of you.

And yet... when I discussed Mr. Petrosian's very
peculiar complaint regarding being approached by
a seedy fellow who suggested he take money, Mr.
Kingston was utterly certain that no such incident
ever took place; research "expert" Kingston then
proclaimed that I had simply invented the incident.
A random chap from who-knows-where then
showed up, claiming he found the text to which I
referred /in just seconds/. Draw your own
conclusions.

> And that's easy, because you do _no_ research. Once again, it is
> _your_ responsibility to present evidence for _your_ claims. I say you
> don't have any, and that you're too chicken to admit it.

Mr. Kingston seems to suffer grave difficulties
with reading. Were I write "seems", he twists
this to mean "perfect analysis proves"; and
where I discuss my own commentary, he feels
the need to invent a scenario in which I am
somehow commenting on analysis by someone
else entirely. My suggestion would be a
remedial course in reading-comprehension, and
it may be wise to double-up and go ahead and
remedy his grave problems with elementary
logic at the same time.

As for his other issue-- being unable to man
up and say something like "Q-h5 loses", I have
no easy solution; in fact, since Mr. Kingston
has Fritz right there beside him to back him up,
I don't quite see how such a problem could
even come to exist. This, I leave for trained
psychologists... .

-- help bot

Date: 16 Dec 2008 17:12:47
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

help bot wrote:
> On Dec 14, 11:05=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Is any of this new or interesting? What is the suggested alternative
> > to 17. Qe2? After 17. a3 Bxc3 18. Qxc3 Qxc3 19. bxc3, White has a
> > lousy ending, though of course he's not lost yet. (Marshall: " Feeling
> > very uncomfortable because of the puin, White steers for what seems a
> > clever exchanging combination.") Marshal also pointed out that 22. Qh5
> > was a loser.
>
>
> My comments in no way referred to any move
> annotations by Mr. Marshall, as I have't seen
> them. In fact, I saw some article on the issue
> of gold coins purportedly being showered onto
> the chess board, and then searched for the
> game score, to see how this famous position
> came about.
>
> It reminded me of the position in which Larry
> Evans miraculously saved a dead lost game
> against Mr. Reshevsky in that the key position
> right before the brilliant move is presented,
> but not the entire game score. [Why?]
>
>
> > He mentions 22. Qe5 Nf3+, but it's true 22. Qe4 is not so
> > clear. Black may still be a little better after 22. ... Rf4 23. Qe5 h6
> > 24. f3, but now we're getting pretty far from the game. Of course
> > Marshall saw 21. ... Rxf2 -- his note to 21. Re5 reads "White must
> > have relied on 21. ... Rc5, overlooking 21. ... Rxf2!" Since 21. Re5
> > didn't force this, Marshall looked for a more aesthetic finish.
>
>
> The logic of that argument falls flat.
>
> Best play would lead to a very unpleasing
> finish in which White, seeing that he must
> lose a piece, snatches what he can in
> exchange -- the e6 pawn-- then retreats his
> Queen; yuck. Of course, when I talk of
> what a player "saw", I refer not to what he
> put in his annotations after the game, but
> what he saw during the game, as revealed
> by his moves.
>
>
> > Finally, so what? As Taylor Kingston already pointed out, the game as
> > a whole is nothing special, just an example of a top GM
>
>
> Mr. Kingston did not claim that Mr. Marshall
> held the title of grandmaster, let alone top GM;
> you just made that up, didn't you?
>
>
> > It's notable for the spectacular final position.
>
>
> We are in perfect agreement here.
>
> What strikes me is that in order get to the
> position which is "solved" by the amazing
> ...Qg3, one must first navigate poorly
> through a maze of much easier tactical
> problems. For instance, the back rank
> mate trick is easily within the ability of
> mere mortals of Expert strength.
>
>
> > anything, Help Bot's mechanical carping makes this even more
> > impressive, since Marshall *could* have won fairly routinely but chose
> > to do something better.
>
>
> Whenever I am attacked like this, I know
> that I have really pissed off one of the many
> irrelevant ad hoministas of rgc. I get a
> warm, fuzzy feeling all over, though I realize
> that were there any other /intelligent/ posters
> here, some of my comments might meet
> with rational criticism of some sort. As it is,
> I have nothing to worry about... . LOL
>
>
> -- help bot

In the first place, I am not Taylor Kingston. Your unwillingness to
read books should not extend to a refusal to read Usenet post headers.
In the second place, you seem unwilling to grasp that Marshall was a
much better player than you (or I), and his comments on his own game
carry a lot more credibility than anything you have to say. Third,
you've already been met with rational criticism, but you seem unable
to grasp it.

Marshall was one of the five original "Grandmasters," named by the
Tsar after St. Petersburg 1914. If you want to argue that this wasn't
the same as a "real" GM title, fine. But if you are so ignorant of
chess history as not to be aware of this (you apparently have not even
read Marshall's book), you have no business discussing the subject. In
any case, Marshall in 1912 was clearly one of the top half-dozen
players in the world. Once again, if you don't know enough about
history to realize this, you have no business talking about it.

Finally, a minor point: If Marshall saw 21. Rc5 Rxf2 -- which he must
have, since it was the point that refuted White's combination -- does
it make the slightest sense to suggest that he did not notice 21. Re5
Rxf2? The fact that Greg finds this difficult to understand speaks
volumes.

Date: 16 Dec 2008 15:12:19
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 16, 5:57=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 10:36=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 My comments in no way referred to any move
> > > annotations by Mr. Marshall, as I have't seen
> > > them. =A0
>
> > =A0 Nor do your comments refer to any annotations by anyone, as far as
> > we've seen here. All these annotators who supposedly lavished praise
> > on the game as a whole, rather than just its last move, seem to be
> > nothing but a figment of help-not's imagination.
>
> =A0 Once again, we are treated to the "amazing"
> research skills of the imbecile, Mr. Kingston.

Greg, when it comes to chess history, I can out-research ten of you.
And that's easy, because you do _no_ research. Once again, it is
_your_ responsibility to present evidence for _your_ claims. I say you
don't have any, and that you're too chicken to admit it.

Date: 16 Dec 2008 14:57:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 16, 10:36=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> > =A0 My comments in no way referred to any move
> > annotations by Mr. Marshall, as I have't seen
> > them. =A0
>
> =A0 Nor do your comments refer to any annotations by anyone, as far as
> we've seen here. All these annotators who supposedly lavished praise
> on the game as a whole, rather than just its last move, seem to be
> nothing but a figment of help-not's imagination.

Once again, we are treated to the "amazing"
research skills of the imbecile, Mr. Kingston.
Now, about that job... .

-- help bot

Date: 16 Dec 2008 07:36:42
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 15, 10:36=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 11:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Is any of this new or interesting? What is the suggested alternative
> > to 17. Qe2? After 17. a3 Bxc3 18. Qxc3 Qxc3 19. bxc3, White has a
> > lousy ending, though of course he's not lost yet. (Marshall: " Feeling
> > very uncomfortable because of the puin, White steers for what seems a
> > clever exchanging combination.") Marshal also pointed out that 22. Qh5
> > was a loser.
>
> =A0 My comments in no way referred to any move
> annotations by Mr. Marshall, as I have't seen
> them. =A0

Nor do your comments refer to any annotations by anyone, as far as
we've seen here. All these annotators who supposedly lavished praise
on the game as a whole, rather than just its last move, seem to be
nothing but a figment of help-not's imagination.

> =A0 Whenever I am attacked like this, I know
> that I have really pissed off one of the many
> irrelevant ad hoministas of rgc.

No, Greg, you have simply made one of your many unsubstantiated
claims, and those of us here who prefer factual accuracy are simply
challenging you to prove what you claim. The fact that, despite
repeated queries, you have failed to present even one annotation that
fits your description, shows that you don't know what you're talking
about.

Date: 15 Dec 2008 19:36:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 14, 11:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> Is any of this new or interesting? What is the suggested alternative
> to 17. Qe2? After 17. a3 Bxc3 18. Qxc3 Qxc3 19. bxc3, White has a
> lousy ending, though of course he's not lost yet. (Marshall: " Feeling
> very uncomfortable because of the puin, White steers for what seems a
> clever exchanging combination.") Marshal also pointed out that 22. Qh5
> was a loser.

My comments in no way referred to any move
annotations by Mr. Marshall, as I have't seen
them. In fact, I saw some article on the issue
of gold coins purportedly being showered onto
the chess board, and then searched for the
game score, to see how this famous position
came about.

It reminded me of the position in which Larry
Evans miraculously saved a dead lost game
against Mr. Reshevsky in that the key position
right before the brilliant move is presented,
but not the entire game score. [Why?]

> He mentions 22. Qe5 Nf3+, but it's true 22. Qe4 is not so
> clear. Black may still be a little better after 22. ... Rf4 23. Qe5 h6
> 24. f3, but now we're getting pretty far from the game. Of course
> Marshall saw 21. ... Rxf2 -- his note to 21. Re5 reads "White must
> have relied on 21. ... Rc5, overlooking 21. ... Rxf2!" Since 21. Re5
> didn't force this, Marshall looked for a more aesthetic finish.

The logic of that argument falls flat.

Best play would lead to a very unpleasing
finish in which White, seeing that he must
lose a piece, snatches what he can in
exchange -- the e6 pawn-- then retreats his
Queen; yuck. Of course, when I talk of
what a player "saw", I refer not to what he
put in his annotations after the game, but
what he saw during the game, as revealed
by his moves.

> Finally, so what? As Taylor Kingston already pointed out, the game as
> a whole is nothing special, just an example of a top GM

Mr. Kingston did not claim that Mr. Marshall
held the title of grandmaster, let alone top GM;
you just made that up, didn't you?

> It's notable for the spectacular final position.

We are in perfect agreement here.

What strikes me is that in order get to the
position which is "solved" by the amazing
...Qg3, one must first navigate poorly
through a maze of much easier tactical
problems. For instance, the back rank
mate trick is easily within the ability of
mere mortals of Expert strength.

> anything, Help Bot's mechanical carping makes this even more
> impressive, since Marshall *could* have won fairly routinely but chose
> to do something better.

Whenever I am attacked like this, I know
that I have really pissed off one of the many
irrelevant ad hoministas of rgc. I get a
warm, fuzzy feeling all over, though I realize
that were there any other /intelligent/ posters
here, some of my comments might meet
with rational criticism of some sort. As it is,
I have nothing to worry about... . LOL

-- help bot

Date: 15 Dec 2008 07:07:18
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

Date: 14 Dec 2008 20:05:54
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

Is any of this new or interesting? What is the suggested alternative
to 17. Qe2? After 17. a3 Bxc3 18. Qxc3 Qxc3 19. bxc3, White has a
lousy ending, though of course he's not lost yet. (Marshall: " Feeling
very uncomfortable because of the puin, White steers for what seems a
clever exchanging combination.") Marshal also pointed out that 22. Qh5
was a loser. He mentions 22. Qe5 Nf3+, but it's true 22. Qe4 is not so
clear. Black may still be a little better after 22. ... Rf4 23. Qe5 h6
24. f3, but now we're getting pretty far from the game. Of course
Marshall saw 21. ... Rxf2 -- his note to 21. Re5 reads "White must
have relied on 21. ... Rc5, overlooking 21. ... Rxf2!" Since 21. Re5
didn't force this, Marshall looked for a more aesthetic finish.

Finally, so what? As Taylor Kingston already pointed out, the game as
a whole is nothing special, just an example of a top GM beating a
weaker opponent. It's notable for the spectacular final position. If
anything, Help Bot's mechanical carping makes this even more
impressive, since Marshall *could* have won fairly routinely but chose
to do something better.

Date: 14 Dec 2008 07:23:52
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 13, 10:25=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:32=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 8:11=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > =A0 What struck me was that all other moves
> > > > seemed to lose,
>
> > > =A0 You mean that only 23...Qg3 wins, and all other moves lose? Doesn=
't
> > > look that way. Please supply analytical specifics.
>
> > =A0 If Mr. Kingston is unable to analyze this game
> > for himself, I will be happy to assist him--
>
> =A0 Yes, please assist. Present comprehensive analysis of the position
> after 23.Rc5 showing that any black move besides 23...Qg3 loses. That
> is the only way you can prove *_your_* claim that "all other moves
> seemed to lose."
> =A0 If you don't, it will be obvious to everyone reading this that your
> claim was just more of your usual careless cranky carping. And after
> you present your analysis, I wil present analysis showing that
> Marshall had several other winning moves besides 23....Qg3!!, although
> 23...Qg3 was in fact not only aesthetically impressive but also
> objectively best.
>
> > > > and had not the annotators of
> > > > this game presented it as though Mr. Marshall
> > > > had been winning all along?
> > > =A0 Please supply the names of these annotators, with specific books =
and/
> > > or articles and specific page numbers.
>
> > =A0 Sorry. =A0 Mr. Kingston needs to learn to do
> > his own work.
>
> =A0 This is a refrain we hear often from our lazy Greg. It makes no
> sense at all, and shows the bankruptcy of his style of argument. He
> claims that several annotators of this game" have "presented it as
> though Mr. Marshall
> had been winning all along." When challenged to name these annotators
> and the books/articles where they did this, he gives the bizarre reply
> "Do your own work."
> =A0 But you see, Greg, the responsibility to do this work is yours,
> entirely yours, because you are the one making the claim. That's how
> it works in debate, or even just in simple bragging. You have to
> provide the evidence for what you claim. Let us imagine some comparabe
> conversations:
>
> =A0 Help-bot: I can eat 50 eggs in one hour.
> =A0 TK: OK, here are 50 eggs. Go to it.
> =A0 Help-bot: Eat 'em yourself.
>
> =A0 Help-bot: I can jump 50 feet straight up.
> =A0 TK: Really? Show us then. You can jump right here.
> =A0 Help-bot: Do your own work.
>
> =A0 Help-bot: Taylor Kingston wrote a review in which he trashed all of
> Edward Lasker's books.
> =A0 TK: Really? I never wrote any such thing. Your evidence?
> =A0 Help-bot: Do your own work.
>
> =A0 Help-bot: I have just been elected President of the United States.
> =A0 TK: Really? Why then do all other reports say it was Barack Obama?
> =A0 Help-bot: Do your own work.
>
> > =A0 I would be willing to quote a reliable source
> > which affirms this fact, if Mr. Kingston is
> > willing to assert that the annotators have
> > been fully objective--
>
> =A0 Absurd. Since you have not been not willing to tell us what
> annotators you refer to, and in what publications these alleged
> annotations appeared, and what was actually said in these alleged
> annotations, I cannot possibly assess their objectivity.
>
> > =A0simply taking a
> > position opposite to mine, and supporting it.
>
> =A0 The point at issue right now is *_your_* claim that several
> annotators of Levitsky-Marshall have "presented it as though Mr.
> Marshall had been winning all along." That claim must be considered
> unproven until you present evidence for it.
>
> > =A0 Otherwise, he can do his own work. =A0 As
> > for my going to work for Mr. Kingston, I
> > haven't yet given the matter any thought.
>
> =A0 You wouldn't be working for me, Greg =97 you'd be trying to prove
> *_your own point._* Otherwise, you merely, and hardly for the first
> time, make a laughingstock of yourself, deriving your "facts" by
> rectal extraction and throwing up childish fallacies when challenged.

To add some historical information, here's a brief piece on whether
any gold coins were actually involved in this game, showered on the
board or otherwise exchanged:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/marshall.html

Date: 13 Dec 2008 07:25:06
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 12, 9:32=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 12, 8:11=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 What struck me was that all other moves
> > > seemed to lose,
>
> > =A0 You mean that only 23...Qg3 wins, and all other moves lose? Doesn't
> > look that way. Please supply analytical specifics.
>
> =A0 If Mr. Kingston is unable to analyze this game
> for himself, I will be happy to assist him--

Yes, please assist. Present comprehensive analysis of the position
after 23.Rc5 showing that any black move besides 23...Qg3 loses. That
is the only way you can prove *_your_* claim that "all other moves
seemed to lose."
If you don't, it will be obvious to everyone reading this that your
claim was just more of your usual careless cranky carping. And after
you present your analysis, I wil present analysis showing that
Marshall had several other winning moves besides 23....Qg3!!, although
23...Qg3 was in fact not only aesthetically impressive but also
objectively best.

> > > and had not the annotators of
> > > this game presented it as though Mr. Marshall
> > > had been winning all along?
> > =A0 Please supply the names of these annotators, with specific books an=
d/
> > or articles and specific page numbers.
>
> =A0 Sorry. =A0 Mr. Kingston needs to learn to do
> his own work.

This is a refrain we hear often from our lazy Greg. It makes no
sense at all, and shows the bankruptcy of his style of argument. He
claims that several annotators of this game" have "presented it as
though Mr. Marshall
had been winning all along." When challenged to name these annotators
and the books/articles where they did this, he gives the bizarre reply
"Do your own work."
But you see, Greg, the responsibility to do this work is yours,
entirely yours, because you are the one making the claim. That's how
it works in debate, or even just in simple bragging. You have to
provide the evidence for what you claim. Let us imagine some comparabe
conversations:

Help-bot: I can eat 50 eggs in one hour.
TK: OK, here are 50 eggs. Go to it.
Help-bot: Eat 'em yourself.

Help-bot: I can jump 50 feet straight up.
TK: Really? Show us then. You can jump right here.
Help-bot: Do your own work.

Help-bot: Taylor Kingston wrote a review in which he trashed all of
Edward Lasker's books.
TK: Really? I never wrote any such thing. Your evidence?
Help-bot: Do your own work.

Help-bot: I have just been elected President of the United States.
TK: Really? Why then do all other reports say it was Barack Obama?
Help-bot: Do your own work.

> =A0 I would be willing to quote a reliable source
> which affirms this fact, if Mr. Kingston is
> willing to assert that the annotators have
> been fully objective--

Absurd. Since you have not been not willing to tell us what
annotators you refer to, and in what publications these alleged
annotations appeared, and what was actually said in these alleged
annotations, I cannot possibly assess their objectivity.

> simply taking a
> position opposite to mine, and supporting it.

The point at issue right now is *_your_* claim that several
annotators of Levitsky-Marshall have "presented it as though Mr.
Marshall had been winning all along." That claim must be considered
unproven until you present evidence for it.

> =A0 Otherwise, he can do his own work. =A0 As
> for my going to work for Mr. Kingston, I
> haven't yet given the matter any thought.

You wouldn't be working for me, Greg =97 you'd be trying to prove
*_your own point._* Otherwise, you merely, and hardly for the first
time, make a laughingstock of yourself, deriving your "facts" by
rectal extraction and throwing up childish fallacies when challenged.

Date: 12 Dec 2008 18:32:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold

On Dec 12, 8:11=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> > =A0 What struck me was that all other moves
> > seemed to lose,
>
> =A0 You mean that only 23...Qg3 wins, and all other moves lose? Doesn't
> look that way. Please supply analytical specifics.

If Mr. Kingston is unable to analyze this game
for himself, I will be happy to assist him-- just
as I have in the past when, for instance, he has
repeatedly presented his analysis of wrong
positions.

Personally, I think that Mr. Kingston may
have Fritz-- a program which easily allows the
numerous candidate moves to be listed and
ranked and scored.

> > and had not the annotators of
> > this game presented it as though Mr. Marshall
> > had been winning all along?

> =A0 Please supply the names of these annotators, with specific books and/
> or articles and specific page numbers.

Sorry. Mr. Kingston needs to learn to do
his own work.

I would be willing to quote a reliable source
which affirms this fact, if Mr. Kingston is
willing to assert that the annotators have
been fully objective-- simply taking a
position opposite to mine, and supporting it.
Otherwise, he can do his own work. As
for my going to work for Mr. Kingston, I
haven't yet given the matter any thought.

> > =A0 The key position, right before the Queen
> > sacrifice, is always diagrammed-- but how
> > did they get to that position? =A0 When I went to
> > replay the entire game, I noticed right away
> > that the opening was not played especially
> > well, by either side.

> =A0 Help-bot, with the benefit of nearly a century's worth of opening
> theory, puts that patzer Marshall in his place. There!

Actually, I am not familiar with the theory
of this line; all I know is that while some of
the moves seem reasonable, others look
like the handiwork of relative patzers. It's
basically an understanding of tactics and
the Reinfeldian principles of development;
to wit: get your pieces out, don't move the
same piece over and over again, castle
early-- that sort of thing.
In my recent games, I've found that even
1300 players are well up on this stuff. And
it was all "programmed in" to chess
computers, going back as far as 1980 or
so.

> > =A0 No matter-- this was a long time ago, and
> > we've come a long way since then. =A0 But
> > what about the middle game? =A0 One move
> > struck me as just plain bad-- when White
> > voluntarily offered up a free pawn at c3.

> =A0 I would agreee that 17.Qd2-e2 is probably not best

Probability? That's a riot. If anyone
has the world's strongest chess engine,
DeepRybka3, they can simply let her
rip and report the results here. We
don't need no stinkin' probability for the
likes of this fairly simple matter.

Where probability could enter, is in any
attempt to estimate "winning chances".
I will be happy to school Mr. Kingston
further on such matters, but I must
confess that math is not my specialty.

> but actually
> after 17...Bxc3 bxc3 the c3-pawn is immune. If 18...Qxc3 19.Rxd5 with
> some advantage for White.

I see. You want to eat immediately;
you're very hungry, as in, right now.

> > =A0 But this was nothing compared to what I
> > discovered a bit later on. =A0 According to my
> > computer (which can "see everything", no
> > matter how complex the position), Frank
> > Marshall's opponent threw it away with the
> > move Q-h5, which loses a piece by force.

> =A0 Yes, 20...Qh5 was probably the critical mistake. So what? No one has
> ever said this was a perfect game. You don't get moves like 20...Qg3!!
> in a perfect game.

Probability again. What is it with Mr.
Kingston and his unwillingness to take
any stance like a man?

According to my analysis, Qh5 was
definitely the critical error which put the
win in Black's hands. Before that
blunder, Rybka is happy to take over
and play the inferior side, against all
human comers (sorry, Fritz).

> > =A0 In order for the key position to arise-- the
> > one where FM found the amazing ...Qg3
> > crusher, he first had to overlook and not
> > exploit a fairly obvious back rank mate
> > theme!

> =A0 You are preferring, one presumes, to the possibility of 21...Rxf2
> rather than the text move 21...Rh6. Hardly worth mentioning (like most
> of help-bot's points). Either move wins handily.

I was referring to the fact that this back-
rank mate tactic was uber-obvious, even
to me. The same thing happened in Mr.
Wlod's blitz game against Baby level at
GetClub, and he also missed the obvious,
choosing to rescue an irrelevant pawn.

Perhaps Fritz could inform Mr. Kingston
that snatching a free pawn (on f2) is
superior to hanging one (on e6)? In fact,
perhaps Fritz should get the job offered
to me; he is far stronger, if a tad obsessed
with chess; a sort of idiot savant, not unlike
Bobby Fischer.

Now, when famous players of old -- who
are so famous that we still read about
their brilliancies a century later -- make
such elementary oversights, it seems to
me that instead of just pretending not to
notice, it ought to be pointed out in an
objective manner, you know, to keep us
in tune with /reality/. Or maybe you
don't know... .

> 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. exd5 exd5 6. Be2 Nf6 7. O-O
> Be7 8. Bg5 O-O 9. dxc5 Be6 10. Nd4 Bxc5 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Bg4

This last move, along with such moves as
10. Nd4, looks really stupid to my modern eyes.

> Qd6 13. Bh3 Rae8 14. Qd2 Bb4 15. Bxf6 Rxf6 16. Rad1 Qc5 17. Qe2

And this move, along with the crazy idea of
attacking a mobile pawn (e6) with the Bishop
(a monochromous piece) reminds me of my
recent OTB experiences, patzer against
patzer.

> Bxc3 18. bxc3 Qxc3 19. Rxd5 Nd4 20. Qh5

This was clearly /the/ losing move.

> Ref8 21. Re5 Rh6

This move overlooked an uber-obvious
back rank mate trick.

> 22. Qg5 Rxh3 23. Rc5 Qg3

The bettors won their loot here.

Back in the old days they had a thing
they called a brilliancy prize, and perhaps
this had a significant impact on the style
of play. Boldness, even to the point of
utter recklessness, was sometimes
rewarded financially, as well as in the
press.

By and large, I am far more impressed
with the play of the real titans of chess
of the earlier era. Instead of a single
tactical shot which shatters the
opponent, a well-executed plan which
firmly wrestles him to the ground is
even more pleasing, because the idea
of "luck" is removed entirely.

What I really wanted here was
confirmation that the moves given at
chessgames.com were indeed correct.
I had my doubts, after reviewing the
game's progress, and especially after
seeing the various, elementary tactical
errors by FM (his opponent, I know
nothing about).

-- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 17:11:24
From:
Subject: Re: Showers of Gold