Multi-gamers in history

[chipschap]

Game 1229 above (newspaper column) is one of many interesting examples I've found of superficial analysis in some of the old checker columns. The comment about Black blowing the win from Note C through Note D is all wrong ... every move preserves the Black win. It's only two plies after Note D that Black blunders with 6-10 (analysis with KingsRow 1.18f) instead of winning with 28-32.

Extreme rhetoric often conceals a host of sins!

[jimloy]

M. Pomeroy - H. Pillsbury, 1898 Austalasian
11-15 22-18 15-22 25-18 12-16 29-25 9-13 18-14 10-17 21-14 16-20 23-18 6-10 25-21 10-17 21-14 1-6 26-23 13-17 31-26 17-21 18-15 8-11 15-8 4-11 26-22 6-9 22-17 9-18 23-14 11-15 14-10 7-14 17-10 3-8 30-26 21-25 26-23 25-30 23-19 30-26 10-6 2-9 19-10 26-31 10-7 8-11 7-2 11-15 2-6 9-13 6-10 15-18 10-15 18-22 24-19 31-24 19-16 24-19 15-24 20-27 32-23 draw

M. Pomeroy - H. Pillsbury, 1898 Austalasian
11-15 22-18 15-22 25-18 8-11 29-25 4-8 25-22 12-16 24-20 8-12 27-24 10-15 24-19 15-24 28-19 7-10 31-27 10-15 19-10 6-15 27-24 2-7 32-28 16-19 23-16 12-19 26-23 19-26 30-23 9-13 24-19 15-24 28-19 5-9 21-17 7-10 19-16 3-7 23-19 1-5 16-12 9-14 18-9 5-21 22-18 21-25 12-8 25-30 8-3 30-26 19-16 13-17 3-8 26-22 8-6 22-15 6-2 15-11 2-6 11-8 6-2 8-12 2-11 12-19 11-7 19-15 7-2 15-10 20-16 draw

Although Pillsbury's blindfold feats are impressive, the true measure of his ability is the games that he played, one on one, against strong competition, like M. Pomeroy, A. Schaefer, J. Denvir, C. Hefter, and S. Grover. So far, there are no games against A. Heffner, A. Jordan, R. Jordan, J. Wyllie, R. Stewart, or J. Ferrie. And his games against H. Freedman seem to have been played in simultaneous exhibitions. Regardless, I am now of the opinion that Pillsbury was a strong Master, probably not as strong as R. Jordan, J. Ferrie, H. Freedman, or R. Stewart. By the way, Pillsbury was an alternate on the American team in the 1905 International match. Because the British team had not brought any alternates with them, they rejected the use of alternates. Also, at least one newspaper called Pillsbury the World Chess Champion; while he was a challenger, he was never World Champ. He was American Champion, much stronger than Showalter, who was the earlier Champ.

[Bill Salot]

Jim,
I believe Pillsbury played a lot of games against George Slocum. Were the results one-sided?

[DrCaesar]

My first-ever post. Here is a cool picture of Viktor Korchnoi playing draughts against Harm Wiersma in 1978:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 9-6382.jpg

[DrCaesar]

My first-ever post. Here is a cool picture of Viktor Korchnoi playing draughts against Harm Wiersma in 1978:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 9-6382.jpg

[Richard Pask]

In response to an article by chess writer Andy Soltis, Richard Fortman adjudged Pillsbury to be a checkers master, as opposed to a grandmaster at chess, and in the USA top 20. Therefore , to be named as an alternate on the 1905 USA team was about right. (Also, Pillsbury played freestyle almost exclusively, so the 2-move restriction would have been a hard call, as it was for many of the Americans.) I believe he was very ill at the time of the 1905 match -syphilis? - so the suggestion, which has been made, that he was left out of the team because of an anti-chess bias doesn't hold up.

In short:

Pillsbury: chess grandmaster, checkers master
Banks: checkers grandmaster; chess master

I very much look forward to a book by Jim on Pillsbury's games - and congratulations again on all the research!

PS:

Irving Chernev: checkers expert; entertaining and largely admirable book;
Edward Lasker: no evidence, to my knowledge, of any serious games (which accounts for the most disappointing comments in his book);
Fred Reinfeld: no evidence of ever playing seriously, but a typical, commendable, workmanlike beginner's book.

[jimloy]

M. E. Pomeroy - H. N. Pillsbury, 1899 Press (New Zealand)
11-15 23-19 8-11 22-17 9-14 25-22 11-16 24-20 16-23 27-11 7-16 20-11 3-7 28-24 7-16 24-20 16-19 29-25 2-7 22-18 14-23 25-22 6-9 31-27 7-11 27-18 9-14 18-9 5-14 17-13 19-24 13-9 10-15 22-17 14-18 9-5 12-16 17-13 4-8 21-17 8-12 13-9 15-19 9-6 1-10 5-1 10-15 17-13 18-23 32-28 15-18 1-6 18-22 26-17 23-26 30-23 19-26 28-19 16-23 6-10 26-31 17-14 31-27 14-9 27-24 9-6 23-27 6-2 27-32 13-9 32-28 draw

H. Pillsbury - T. Cleary, 1903, Melbourne Weekly Times (11 Apr 1903)
9-14 22-18 5-9 24-19 11-15 18-11 8-24 28-19 4-8 25-22 8-11 22-18 11-16 26-22 7-11 22-17 9-13 18-9 13-22 30-25 6-13 25-18 2-6 18-15 11-18 23-7 3-10 29-25 16-23 27-18 6-9 32-27 1-5 27-24 9-14 18-9 5-14 24-19 14-18 31-26 18-23 26-22 23-26 22-18 26-31 18-14 10-17 21-14 31-27 19-15 27-23 15-11 {White played 14-9? and Pillsbury let him take it back} 23-18 14-9 13-17 25-21 draw

H. Pillsbury - anonymous, blindfold 1903, Maitland Mercury (Australia 6 Jun 1903)
11-15 23-18 8-11 27-23 4-8 23-19 9-14 18-9 5-14 22-17 6-9 17-13 11-16 13-6 16-23 26-19 2-9 25-22 9-13 30-26 8-11 26-23 14-18 23-14 10-26 31-22 7-10 24-20 15-24 28-19 10-14 29-25 3-7 19-15 11-18 22-15 7-10 15-6 1-10 32-27 14-18 RW

H. Pillsbury - T. Radcliffe, 1904 Brooklyn, Adelaide Chronicle
9-14 22-18 5-9 24-20 11-16 20-11 8-22 25-18 4-8 28-24 8-11 29-25 10-15 25-22 6-10 24-20 15-19 23-16 14-23 26-19 2-6 30-26 9-13 32-28 6-9 22-17 13-22 26-17 9-13 17-14 10-17 21-14 13-17 14-10 7-14 16-7 3-10 19-15 10-19 27-23 19-26 31-13 draw

T. Radcliffe - H. Pillsbury, 1904 Brooklyn, Adelaide Chronicle
11-15 21-17 9-13 25-21 8-11 17-14 10-17 21-14 6-10 22-17 13-22 26-17 4-8 29-25 1-6 23-19 6-9 31-26 9-18 26-22 18-23 27-18 10-14 17-10 7-23 19-10 12-16 24-20 16-19 22-18 8-12 25-21 2-7 10-6 7-10 6-2 10-15 20-16 11-20 18-11 12-16 2-6 23-26 30-23 19-26 11-7 3-10 6-15 26-30 15-18 30-25 21-17 25-21 17-13 21-17 18-15 17-22 32-27 22-17 15-10 17-21 10-14 21-25 13-9 25-30 9-6 30-26 14-10 5-9 6-2 26-22 10-15 9-14 2-7 22-26 7-11 14-17 11-8 17-21 8-12 16-19 15-24 26-31 12-16 21-25 16-19 25-30 19-15 30-26 15-18 26-30 draw

[jimloy]

I've found nine Pillsbury - Slocum games, and Slocum's score was (if I didn't count wrong) 3 - 2 - 4 draws.