Patterns

This position appeared in a book, The Art of the Checkmate (2015) by Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn. It appears as well in older versions of the text, but this one is in algebraic.

White to move

From Pillsbury -- Wolf, Monte Carlo 1903.

"Here Pillsbury missed the bus."

Renaud and Kahn point out that Pillsbury played a move that was winning, but he had two other moves that win much faster. The faster win was pointed out after the game by an amateur, James C. Boyce.

Calculate

Lesson of the Week

My young chess students were presented with exercises this week that are designed to develop their calculation skills. For the advanced students, I culled six problems from a workbook that I created for my chess camp two years ago and that I updated this week so that other chess coaches might find it useful.

Problem 2 is from a game that I lost to an alum of the chess club where I now coach. He is our current city champion. The game from which the position is extracted was played when he was in high school.

Problem 6 asks the young players to find the move that I considered, but did not play, against IM John Donaldson in a simul in 2003. I managed a draw (Donaldson scored 26-2-2 in the simul), but had winning chances had I played the move that I had been aiming at for several moves prior. Donaldson was moving around the boards quickly and I did not have enough time to resolve my doubts concerning the sacrifice.

White to move (1-3)

1.

2.

3.

Black to move (4-6)

4.

5.

6.

I introduced my beginning students to the knight's tour exercise to develop their abilities to handle that piece. The worksheet had a sample with the first ten moves entered and three blank chess boards for them to write on. The image below displays part of this worksheet.

The Workbook

My workbook is titled "Basic Training for Chess Success: Lessons from Camp" and was created for my 2014 summer chess camp. I have been creating new workbooks each year for my summer chess camp since 2008, often reusing materials that were particularly useful. "Basic Training" uses a section from my 2010 workbook, which was wholly focused on Adolf Anderssen (see "Learning from Errors: Adolf Anderssen"). This is followed by a section drawing lessons from Paul Morphy that I created for my 2012 workbook and then a short lesson that has appeared in several workbooks that applies Dan Heisman's Elements of Positions Evaluation to Pillsbury -- Lasker, Nuremberg 1896. There is a short endgame section culled from my work on Vasily Smyslov that formed the core of my 2011 workbook. Finally, the workbook contains a "glossary of tactics" and 124 exercises with solutions.

Navara -- Caruana, Tata Steel 2016

At the Tata Steel Masters Tournament in Wijk aan Zee, David Navara assisted Magnus Carlsen today. After an opening novelty, Navara maintained pressure against Fabiano Caruana throughout the game. Caruana had several opportunities to maintain equality, but his position proved difficult to play and Navara won a nice ending.

Vasily Smyslov has been credited with the assertion, "I will make 40 good moves and if you are able to do the same, the game will end in a draw." After winning the World Championship, Magnus Carlsen stated that his plan had been to make "40 to 50 good moves in every game" ("Magnus Carlsen: My goal was to play 40 to 50 good moves in every game").

Emanuel Lasker made a strong impression upon me with his annotations to his loss against Harry Nelson Pillsbury in Nuremburg, 1896. He was honest about his own mistakes. Also, in the critical middlegame position, he noted that he had presented a problem to Pillsbury.

Black wants to set White a task. The situation merits attention. Black has a pawn plus, an immediate danger is not apparent. If White does not threaten, Black fortifies his position.
Lasker's Manual of Chess (1947), 247.

Mulling over this statement, I developed the understanding that a chess player's job was to set problems for the opponent. If all of these problems are solved well, the game should be equal and the result may end in a draw. Navara managed to set problems for Caruana. The first problem resulted from an error, but Caruana missed his chance for an advantage. Then, Navara's pressure led to further inaccuracies and a difficult position. Even the, perhaps Caruana could have held until a critical error in a difficult position. Once he had a clear adantage, Navara demonstrated precise technique.

Navara,David (2730) -- Caruana,Fabiano (2787) [E39]
Tata Steel Masters Wijk aan Zee (7), 24.01.2016

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0–0 5.Nf3 c5 6.dxc5 Na6 7.g3 Nxc5 8.Bg2 Nce4 9.0–0 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Be7 11.e4 d6 12.e5 dxe5 13.Nxe5 Qc7 14.Qe2 Nd7 15.Bf4 Nxe5 16.Bxe5 Bd6 17.Rfe1 Rb8 18.Rad1 Bxe5 19.Qxe5 Qxe5 20.Rxe5 b6 21.c5 f6 22.cxb6 axb6

White to move

23.Re2N

23.Re4 e5 24.Rb4 Be6 25.Rd6 Kf7 26.Ra4 Ke7 27.Rc6 Bd7 28.Ra7 Ra8 29.Rcc7 Rxa7 30.Rxa7 Kd6 31.Rb7 b5 32.Bf1 Rc8 33.Bxb5 Bxb5 34.Rxb5 Rxc3 35.Rb7 g5 36.Rb6+ Ke7 37.Ra6 f5 38.h4 ½–½ Ankit,R (2494) -- Khademalsharieh,S (2378), Doha QAT 2014.

23...Kf7 24.f4

"I miscalculated." Navara

I found Navara's postgame commentary interesting. It is available on Livestream for those who missed the broadcast. He describes his feelings during the game (annoyed with Caruana's inaccuracies), lines that he calculated for both players, and several fantasy positions that could be included in instructional collections for beginners. Yasser Seirawan conducted the interview.

24...e5 25.fxe5?

25.Bd5+ is still equal 25...Kg6 26.Be4+ f5 27.Bc6 e4 28.Rd6+ Kf7 (28...Kh5 29.Bb5).

25...Bg4 26.e6+ Kg6

26...Bxe6 27.Rde1 Rfe8?

Analysis diagram

After 27...Rfe8?

28.Rxe6 Rxe6 29.Bd5+- a line for the tactics books for beginners, according to Navara.

27.Be4+

Black to move

27...f5?!

"Maybe that was too ambitious?" Seirawan
"Yes." Navara

27...Kh6 28.Rde1 Bxe2 29.Rxe2 Rbc8 30.Bd5 Rc7 (30...Rxc3? is not possible (Navara) 31.e7 Re8 32.Bf7) 31.c4 and perhaps White has compensation for the exchange. Black at least would be the one pressing for advantage.

28.e7

28.Rd6? Rf6 Navara and Black is better.

28...Bxe2 29.Rd6+ Kg5

29...Rf6 30.Rd8 Bb5 31.Bd5 "Black is completely dominated." Navara

Stockfish 7 thinks the position is equal after 31...Rb7 32.Bxb7 Kf7 33.Rd5 Bc6 34.Bxc6 Rxc6 35.Rxf5+ Kxe7.

30.exf8R Rxf8 31.Bd5 Rf6 32.Rd7 Kh6 33.Kf2

This position should be equal

33...Bb5 34.Rc7

Black to move

34...Rd6

34...f4 "looked logical to me." Navara 35.g4 Bd3 (35...g5 36.Be4).

35.c4 Be8 36.Rc8 Bd7

36...Ba4 "still fine" Navara 37.Ke3 Kg5 38.Rc7 (38.Kd4 Rh6 "My pawns become weak." Navara) 38...Rd7 39.Rxd7 Bxd7 should be a draw. Black can exchange bishop for queenside pawns and f-pawn for White's g-pawn and White's bishop is on the wrong color squares.

37.Rd8

Navara had been happy to make a draw up until this point, but now felt that had some chances. Objectively, the position may be equal, but Black's position is unpleasant. Neither player's errors so far have been fatal

Black to move

37...Kg6 38.Ke3 Kf6 39.Kd4 

39.Rf8+ Ke5 40.Rf7 Be6= Navara.

39...Ke7

White's pieces seem a little more active

40.Rg8 Rg6 41.Ke5

"I hoped to put Black into zugzwang. It's not so easy for him to make a useful move."

Black to move

41...Rg5

Caruana played correctly, according to Navara.

41...h5 initiates another line that Navara offered for the beginner's books. 42.Rh8 Rg5 43.Bf3 Be8?? (43...f4+)

Analysis diagram

After 43...Be8??

44.Rxe8+ Kxe8 45.Kf4+-

42.Rb8

Navara considered 42.Rh8 Rh5 43.h4 Rh6 44.Rg8 Rg6 45.h5 Offering Black a chance to go wrong. Rg5 (45...Rxg3?? 46.h6 Re3+ 47.Kf4 Rh3 48.Rxg7+ Kd6 49.Rxh7+-).

42...Rg6

42...h5? 43.Bf3 Be8 44.Rxe8+ Kxe8 45.Kf4 Rg4+ (45...Rg6 46.Bxh5) 46.Bxg4 fxg4 47.Kg5+-.

43.Rh8 Rh6 44.h4 Be6 45.Ra8 Bd7 46.Rh8 Be6 47.a4

Black to move

47...Bd7

47...Bxd5 48.cxd5 Rh5 49.Kf4 Rh6 50.Kxf5 and White has a promising rook ending.

48.Ra8 Rg6 49.Ra7

Black to move

49...Rxg3?

Finally, Caruana makes a significant error.

49...Kd8 50.h5 Rh6 51.Bf3 g5 seems equal.

50.a5!

50.Bc6 Rd3 "should be fine for Black." Navara.

50...bxa5 51.c5 Kd8

51...Rg6 52.c6 Rd6 53.cxd7 Rxd7 54.Rxa5+- (54.Rxd7+= wrong bishop).

52.h5

Preventing the rook's return to g6.

52...f4 53.Kd6 Bc8 

53...Rd3 54.Rxd7++-

54.c6

Black to move

54...Rg5

54...Rd3 55.Rxg7 (55.c7+ Ke8 56.Ra8 Rxd5+ 57.Kxd5 Kd7) 55...Rxd5+ 56.Kxd5+-.

55.Bf7 1–0

Checkmate is coming.

Chess is a game. Even a top player forced to play for several hours in an unpleasant position may eventually crack and give the game to the other player.

Redeployment

Going through the games of Rezső Charousek (1873-1900), I found this uncommon position that emerged from the Barnes variation of the Spanish Opening (3...g6).* Charousek had Black against Geza Maroczy and played a move that would be played again in Teichmann -- Pillsbury at Hastings later the same year (1895). Nearly a century later (1991), Vasily Smyslov would play the same move in this position. All three of these games were fairly quick wins by Black.

The games began: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 O-O 8.f3

Black to move

In the three games mentioned above and at least twenty others, Black played 8...Ne7.

Samuel Tinsley annotated the Teichmann -- Pillsbury game, and here noted:

Preventing an inopportune exchange by White, who might possibly have taken the Piece earlier without much harm. Black is also now ready to assail the weak central position by d5 etc.
According to Chessgames.com

Smyslov commented "with the idea of d7-d5" (Chess Informant 53/318).

Maroczy -- Charousek continued 9.Qd2, which has been White's most frequent response. Teichmann played 9.O-O and Dueckstein, Smyslov's opponent, played 9.Nde2.

Charousek quickly seized the initiative.

9...d5 10.e5 Nd7 11.Bxd7 Bxd7 12.Bh6

Black to move

12...Bxh6

In Kuzin -- Romanov, Tula 2006, Black opted to sacrifice the exchange with 12...Bxe5 and lost in the endgame. Black also had the initiative through much of that game, but White defended successfully.

13.Qxh6 c5 14.Nde2 Nf5 15.Qd2 d4 16.Nd1 Qh4+

White to move

17.g3 Qe7 18.f4 Bc6 19.O-O Qe6 20.Kf2

After castling, the White king feels unsafe. White has made a series of small inaccuracies in a position that seemed to worsen rapidly through the late stages of the opening into the middle game.

20...f6 21.exf6 Rae8

White to move

22.Ng1 Ne3 23.Re1 Ng4+ 0-1

Charousek's games are characterized by deep tactical complications. Here, however, he seems to play more simply with small threats that lead to inaccurate responses and a rapid collapse. This game was the first in a short match between Charousek and Maroczy in April 1895, which Charousek won. Later in the year, they played a longer match that Maroczy won decisively.

*I have faced the Barnes variation once over the board, and it struck me at the time as an unusual approach. In contrast to the games above, I played 4.c3. Both 4.d4 and 4.c3 are presented as main lines in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. That game transposed into another obscure variation of the Spanish and left established theory with my opponent's ninth move. I was pleased with my play in that game because I was playing on general principles beginning at move four, and because I went on to win a nice endgame (see "Pawn Wars" February 2012).

Pillsbury -- Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895

Following Harry Nelson Pillsbury's debut at Hastings 1895, winning his first master tournament, he joined three other top players for a six week event in St. Petersburg, Russia. Pillsbury, World Champion Emanuel Lasker, recently deposed World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz, and Mikhail Chigorin each played six games against each of the others. Pillsbury started well, smashing Lasker the first day from the Black side of a Russian Defense.

At the half-way point Pillsbury led Lasker by one-half point. Steinitz was another point behind. Then, in the fourth round, Lasker busted Pillsbury's Queen's Gambit and sent the youth into a slump, losing five of the next eight games. Lasker went on to win the tournament, and Steinitz passed Pillsbury for second place. Pillsbury finished the event with a plus score against Lasker 3 1/2 - 2 1/2, and the same score against Chigorin, but a terrible 1 - 5 against Steinitz.

While going through the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings C67 classification, I grew interested in the second cycle game Pillsbury -- Lasker. It is the main reference game for line 5 of C67.

Opening study provoked my interest in this game, but the endgame sustained it.

The opening line in ECO ends with equality, but Pillsbury outplayed Lasker in the endgame. Lasker had a bishop for Pillsbury's knight, and there were pawns on both sides of the board. Lasker's bishop was rendered impotent through Pillsbury's precise play and a few errors by Lasker. The ChessBase Monograph CD World Champion Emanuel Lasker (2002) has this game annotated (in German) by Karsten Müller.

As near as I can tell, Steve Meyer, Bishop Versus Knight: The Verdict (1997) lacks analysis of this game. Nor can I locate a reference to it in Karsten Müller, and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001). Nonetheless, it is an important and instructive ending.

Pillsbury,Harry Nelson -- Lasker,Emanuel [C67]
St Petersburg 1895-1896, St Petersburg (2.3), 25.12.1895

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0–0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2 Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 9.b3 0–0 10.Bb2 d5 11.exd6 cxd6 12.Nbd2 Bf6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Rfe1 Nc5 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 Bd7 17.c4 Rfe8

White to move

From this point, ECO continues to move 20 in the notes, giving equality for the diagram, and for the end of the quoted line. No other game in ChessBase online continues with 12...Bf6, and only two continue with 12...Re8. Müller notes that 6.Qe2 is played only sporadically in our era, although it was popular in the late nineteenth century. The ChessBase database reveals that 9.b3 is a rare move, even though that move is commonly found in lines of the Berlin Defense that contain 5...Be7.

18.Qd4 Rxe1+ 19.Rxe1 Qxd4 20.Nxd4 Kf8

According to Müller, "the resulting endgame should be balanced."

21.Kf1

Black to move

21...a5

Andrew Soltis, and Ken Smith, Pillsbury the Extraordinary (1990) offer brief comments on this game, which the authors note, is "not published often due to four slight mistakes by Lasker" (27). Soltis, Why Lasker Matters (2005) does not mention this game, but offers Lasker's critical win over Pillsbury at the start of the fourth cycle. Soltis and Smith opine that 21...a5 was Lasker's second mistake, noting "this pawn will become weak" (27). They do not offer an alternative.

Should Black have tried 21...a6, placing the isolated pawn on a square where it can be protected by the bishop? Perhaps the immediate 21...Re8 is better.

Black's bishop has no targets, and there is no way for him to fix a chain of White pawns on light squares. Is Black already worse in this ending?

Lasker's move threatened a5-a4, when he might be able to swap off his weakest pawn. Pillsbury quickly put an end to this plan.

22.a4 Re8 23.Rxe8+ Kxe8

White to move

Now the rooks are gone.

24.Ke2 Kd8 25.Kd2 Kc7 26.Kc3 Kb6 27.f4

Müller notes that 27.b4 would have been a blunder.

27...h5 28.h3 Kc5

White to move

While Soltis and Smith find fault with Lasker's 27...h5, Müller begins his serious analysis with move 29.

29.f5 g6

Müller, "Vermutlich unterschätzte er die Wendigkeit des weißen Springers." Lasker probably underestimated the maneuverability of the white knight. Müller marks White's 29.f5 as dubious, but offers no alternative. 29...g6 is an error. After 29...d5! Black can play for a win, according to Müller.

30.f6 d5 31.cxd5 Kxd5

Müller suggest 31...exd5, offering a line in which both Black's a-pawn and White's f-pawn are destined to promote on the same move. He evaluates the line as equal.

32.Nf3 Ke6 33.Nd2 Kxf6 34.Nc4

Black to move

34...h4

Müller marks this move as dubious, suggesting 34...Kg5 as more accurate. Playing out his suggestion against Stockfish 3, I was able to find 35.Nb6 Bf5 36.b4 axb4+ 37.Kxb4 c5+ (an essential clearance sacrifice) 38.Kxc5 Be4 (a critical fork) 39.g3 h4 40.gxh4+ Kxh4 41.Nd5 (as in the game, attempting to obstruct the bishop's efforts) 41...f5 (if White's pawn cannot be stopped, Black's, too, will promote) 42.a5 Bxd5 43.Kxd5 f4 44.a6 f3 45.a7 f2 =.

35.Nxa5 Ke5?

This error allows White's knight to gain a tempo attacking the king. In pawn races, tempo can be everything (as everyone knows who reads Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual).

After 35...Kg5, Müller gives 36.Kd4 Kf4 37.Nc4 Kg3 38.Nb6 Bg4 39.a5 Be2.

36.Nc4+

White has a decisive advantage.

Black to move

36...Kf4 37.Nb6

The knight harasses the bishop, gaining time.

Bf5 38.Kd4 Be4 39.a5 c5+ 40.Kxc5 Bxg2

White to move

The bishop appears helpless to stop White's a-pawn, while Black's pawns have too far to go.

41.a6 g5 42.Nd5+ Ke5 43.Ne3 Bf3 44.b4

Black to move

44...Ke6

44...f5 seems like the best try. However, after 45.b5 g4 46.Nxg4+! fxg4 47.b6 g3 48.b7, and Black's king must step out of the coming check, which gives White time to cover g1.

45.b5 Be2 46.Nd5 1–0

In Lasker's Manual of Chess, the World Champion wrote about his loss of time in the opening (a French Defense) in another instructive loss to Pillsbury: Pillsbury -- Lasker, Nuremburg 1896. That game is frequently annotated. This less well-known game, however, is an excellent illustration of time in an ending of bishop versus knight. The bishop's ability to waste time is often an advantage, but here Lasker's errors in the placement of his king rendered his cleric impotent.

Problem of the Week

School is back in session, and the scholastic chess season begins soon. One of my schools has its first chess club meeting this afternoon. Others begin soon. Each week, I create a small number of chess problems to begin each club's meeting.

This position occurred in Porges -- Pillsbury, Nuremberg 1896.

Black to move

 The pawn on e6 must be captured, but whether with the f-pawn or by the sacrifice of a bishop requires deeper consideration.

Objectively Drawn?

Harry Nelson Pillsbury had Black and move in the position below in Halpern--Pillsbury, Manhattan 1893.



Pillsbury went on to win this game, but it seems that Halpern should have been able to hold a draw.

Pillsbury’s Mate

Errors abound. An error made and published will reproduce itself. While assembling my "Checklist of Checkmates," a still unpublished booklet, I presented this position from Laschet-Schaffer, 1997 as an example of Pillsbury's Mate.



I asserted, "Harry Nelson Pillsbury won several games this way in the nineteenth century." Now, I cannot find any games that support that assertion. I must dispute the accuracy of my claim (and revise it before publication).

It is possible that I was thinking of the game Pillsbury-Lee, London 1899 as given in Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (New York: Dover, 1962 [1953]).

Pillsbury, H - Lee, F [D53]
International Chess Congress London, 1899
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 b6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bb5 Bb7 9.Ne5 0-0 10.Bc6 Rb8 11.Bxb7 Rxb7 12.Nc6 Qe8 13.Nxe7+ Qxe7 14.Nxd5 Qe4 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bh6 Qxg2 17.Qf3 [17.Qf3 Qxf3 18.Rg1+ Kh8 19.Bg7+ Kg8 20.Bxf6+ Qg4 21.Rxg4#] 1-0

Renaud and Kahn state, "Black resigned on his seventeenth move, since a refusal of the sacrifice would have cost him a rook" (131).

Position after White's 17.Qf3



The diagram position and conclusion certainly accord with my assertion that Pillsbury won at least one game with Pillsbury's Mate. Unfortunately, the game score differs in The Book of the London International Chess Congress 1899 (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1900), the official tournament book. There are some differences in move order, an absence of the move 10...Rb8, and 15...Rfd8 instead of 16...Qxg2. After that point the games are completely different.

Pillsbury, H - Lee, F [D51]
International Chess Congress London, 1899
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.Nf3 Be7 6.e3 b6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Bb5 0-0 10.Bc6 Bxc6 11.Nxc6 Qe8 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.Nxd5 Qe4 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Bh6 Rfd8 16.0-0 Kh8 17.Qh5 Rg8 18.f3 Qe6 19.d5 Qe7 20.Bf4 Rac8 21.Rac1 Nc5 22.Rfd1 Qd7 23.b4 Nb7 24.Rc6 Rg6 25.Rxf6 Rcg8 26.Be5 1-0

The game score in Renaud and Kahn must be inaccurate, unless the tournament book put forth egregious errors.


A Similar Game

The position below with black to move appeared in Barassi-Ferrari, Trieste 1923. Aside from the position of Black's queen rook, it is identical to that presented by Renaud and Kahn as the final position in Pillsbury-Lee. It bears an even stronger resemblance to Pillsbury-Lee as presented in the tournament book until move 15.



That game did not conclude with Pillsbury's Mate, although it easily could have. Here's the game score as I found it in the ChessBase database.

Barassi, A - Ferrari, R [D53]
Trieste-chB+ Trieste, 1923
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 b6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Bb5 0-0 10.Bc6 Bxc6 11.Nxc6 Qe8 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.Nxd5 Qe4 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Bh6 Qxg2 16.Qf3 {diagram position} 16...Qg6 17.Bxf8 Rxf8 18.0-0-0 Kh8 19.Rhg1 Qh6 20.Rg3 Rd8 21.Rdg1 f5 22.Qxf5 Qc6+ 23.Kb1 Nf6 24.Rg7 Rf8 25.f3 Qe6 26.Qg5 Qd6 27.Qh6 c5 28.Rxh7+ 1-0

Could it be that Renaud and Kahn mixed up game scores from two games to create one that never existed?


Copying the Error

In How to Beat Your Dad at Chess (1998), Murray Chandler cites Pillsbury's "16-move win over Lee in London 1899" as "the most amazing" example of Pillsbury's Mate (50). On the next page, the diagrams given and alleged to be from Pillsbury's win, show a black rook on a8 as in the Barassi-Ferrari game. Stating that the game lasted sixteen moves, rather than seventeen, also suggests closer correspondence with the later game.

Eric Schiller's presentation of the game in Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom (2003 [1998]) almost matches that in Renaud and Kahn. But Schiller moves the game backward a decade to 1889.

On his Chess History Center website, Edward Winter includes Schiller's error in a catalogue of faults appended to an article that originally appeared in Inside Chess.

Nonsensical game-score: Pages 321-322 have a game 'Pillsbury v Lee, London 1889'. The two did not even meet that year. Ten years later they played a game which opened similarly, but the continuation given by Schiller was in fact what occurred, up to a point, in a different game, Pillsbury v Newman, Philadelphia, 1900. In short, yet another shambles.
Winter, "A Sorry Case,"

Schiller's limited annotations to the game offer the same alternative for Black at move 10 that appears in Renaud and Kahn. Perhaps, it is not entirely a case of plagiarism. Schiller offers an insight at move 16 that is not in The Art of the Checkmate. "It is unlikely that a modern player would be foolish enough to capture at g2, opening up the dangerous g-file, even if the combination itself was not anticipated" (Schiller, Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom, 3rd edition, 323).

The Pillsbury-Newman game cited by Winter deviates on move 17, where Pillsbury played 17.Kd2 instead of Qf3. At least that's how the game score appears in Rhoda A. Bowles, "Mr. H. N. Pillsbury's Chess Career" British Chess Magazine (August 1902), 343.