This is a game I have been asked literally dozens of times to annotate it. I never got around to it - at least nothing more than what I refer to as a casual analysis. (To me, anything that takes more than a week - on one game - is a serious analysis.) I probably would have NEVER taken this project on, except I got caught up deeply looking at many of the games of Cambridge Springs, 1904. Of special interest is the game Pillsbury - Lasker, from that same event. (In fact, they are ALL great games!!)
The only problem is that - LIKE IT OR NOT, (And I didn't like it most of the time!) - these two games of Pillsbury's are inexorably linked. In this one, Pillsbury loses. In the CS1904 encounter, Pillsbury improves on his play from St. Petersburg and wins a tremendous brilliancy. So it would seem that you cannot truly annotate one without also doing the other. (If you are genuinely seeking the truth ... which I believe I am doing.) So without further ado, I present you one of the greatest victories of Lasker's chess career. ENJOY!!
 |
***********************************************************************************************************
Click HERE to see an explanation of the symbols that I use in annotating a chess game.
This is MOSTLY a text-based version of the game with just a few diagrams.
(You might need a chess board to follow
the game AND the variations.)
***********************************************************************************************************
One of the greatest games of chess
literature. MANY different authors,
(like Reinfeld and
also Chernev);
have said that this monumental fight
is of Lasker's best games.
An exciting struggle that features many sharp, daring and brilliant plays.
***
This game is also from probably the
FIRST true "Super-Tournament." Four
of the World's
"Top Five" players slug
it out to determine who the World's
best player really is.
The ratings are exact and are those
of Jeff Sonas.
(I would have rated
Lasker close to or OVER 2800 ... and Pillsbury
around 2730 - 2750.
This would more closely approximate their ratings in the year, 2003.)
***********************************************************************************************************
1.d4 d5;
2.c4 e6; 3.Nc3 Nf6; 4.Nf3!?, {Diagram?}
Pillsbury avoids his own variation.
The reason why? Probably he has
not figured out the way to meet
Lasker's own defense to this line.
(After Bg5, Black plays an early ...h6; followed by ...Ne4.)
[ The best move is: >/= 4.Bg5!,
{Diagram?} which theorists all over
the world
recognize today as ... "The Pillsbury Attack/Variation."
]
4...c5; 5.Bg5!?,
{Diagram?}
This is probably good enough for
a slight advantage for White.
(Theory today prefers cxd5 or even e3.)
[ Modern theory says it is better
to play the continuation:
5.e3!? Nc6;
6.a3!, "+/=" {Diagram?}
and White maintains
a fairly
solid edge ... no matter what
Black plays from here.
[See MCO-14; page # 432, column # 102.] ]
Black now finds a clever way to
clarify the center to his advantage.
5...cxd4!; 6.Qxd4!? Nc6; 7.Qh4!?,
{Diagram?}
From here ... White will find it hard to get much of an advantage at all.
(But I should point out that this move is the FIRST choice of most strong
chess programs!!)
---> Several books give this move a question mark.
This
move has been deeply criticized by some. ('?')
But since Lasker (later) wrote that
7.Bxf6?! led to a serious advantage for BLACK ... and seeing that nearly every other
square for the Queen (like d2) is blatantly INFERIOR ... I am not really sure where White
is
supposed to put his Queen.
In
the mid-1970's ... I showed this position to a strong IM/GM ... who was like the #
3 active
player in the U.S. at that time. (I told him this was a postal game of mine, and
that I was
playing Black. Apparently he did not recognize the game.) I asked him what the
correct
move was for White. He looked at it for several minutes and said: "I would
play 7.Qh4,
here, this would give a small advantage to White." (He also went on to
comment that
we both had not played the opening very well!)
[ In his last major tournament, the
great Pillsbury played instead:
>/= 7.Bxf6!, "+/="
TN {Diagram?}
and won one of his greatest
victories.
Harry N. Pillsbury - Emanuel Lasker;
Super-Master Invitational Tourney
Cambridge Springs, PA; (USA)
1904. ]
Pillsbury now typically plays the
most aggressive line.
---> (He was later
criticized for this decision, but had
he won {brilliantly},
I am sure they would have heaped praise on him
instead!)
7...Be7;
8.0-0-0!? Qa5!; {Diagram?}
The most aggressive line, says the
one and only Irving Chernev.
'!' - Irving Chernev.
"Lasker starts an attack ..." (- Irving Chernev.)
[ Possible was: 8...0-0!?; {Diagram?} but I doubt if Black is better. ]
9.e3 Bd7;
10.Kb1 h6!; {Diagram?}
Black immediately questions the
Bishop. The Pawn on h6 is either
a weakness, or
allows Black to win
the dark-squared Bishop. Everyone
from Marco to Chernev to
Kasparov
praises this move and also awards it
an exclamation point.
[ Black could try: 10...a6!?; or even 10...0-0; "=" ]
11.cxd5 exd5;
12.Nd4!? 0-0; 13.Bxf6, {Box?} {Diagram?}
Now White felt this was completely
forced, as the sacrifice on h6 is unsound ...
and retreating to f4 walks
into a pawn fork.
[ 13.Bxh6? gxh6; 14.Qxh6 Ne4!; "/+" ]
13...Bxf6;
14.Qh5, {Diagram?}
This is practically the only good
move for White in this position.
[ </= 14.Qg3?! Nxd4; 15.exd4 Rac8; "=/+" ]
Now Black unexpectedly exchanges
and seemingly helps White out.
But
the most subtle difference is Black's
Bishop on f6 is very strong
and the
c-file has been opened for both of
Lasker's Rooks.
14...Nxd4!; 15.exd4 Be6!;
{Diagram?}
The best move according to: '!' - GM Garry Kasparov.
16.f4!?,
{Diagram?}
What is the point of this move?
Chernev informs us that Pillsbury
plans on a pawn avalanche ...
(f5, g2-g4, h2-h4, and g4-g5);
like he used to defeat the great
Tarrasch
at Hastings, 1895.
(This tournament was Pillsbury's
greatest triumph.)
[ 16.Bc4!? Rfd8; 17.Rhe1 Rac8; "=/+" ]
16...Rac8;
('!') {See the diagram - just below.}
The heavy pieces very naturally
occupies the open line.
*************************
|
|
*************************
(2r2rk1/pp3pp1/4bb1p/q2p3Q/3P1P2/2N5/PP4PP/1K1R1B1R
w - - 0 17)
This position looks nearly equal ...
but sometimes appearances can be
very deceptive!
[ Also good was: 16...Rfc8!?; "=/+" ]
17.f5,
{Diagram?}
This appears to gain a move
for White.
[ </= 17.Be2!? Rxc3!!; "/+" ]
Now comes one of the most
surprising moves of high-class
chess.
17...Rxc3!!; {Diagram?}
This had to have been a shock
for Pillsbury ... who predicts a
seemingly random
bolt of lightning
like this???
Amos Burn - considered by many to
be one of the best chess analysts of
all time -
later said: "This begins the
finest combination ever played on a
chess board!"
'!!' - GM Garry Kasparov.
[ Also good for Black was: 17...Bd7!?;
18.Be2!? Rxc3; "/+" {Diag?}
with a vicious attack. ]
18.fxe6!?,
(Probably - '!') {Diagram?}
Pillsbury tries to be tricky.
'!' - GM John Emms.
[ After the continuation: 18.bxc3 Qxc3;
19.fxe6, {Diagram?}
White might as well.
(19.Qf3!? Qxf3!; 20.gxf3 Bxf5+; 21.Bd3 Be6; "/+")
19...Qb4+; 20.Ka1, {Diagram?}
This looks to be forced.
(Even worse was: </= 20.Kc2? Rc8+; 21.Kd3 Qxd4+;
22.Ke2 Rc2+; ("-/+") {Diagram?} and White will probably
be
mated - in very short order.)
20...Rc8!!, ("-/+") {Diagram?}
and Black should win. (exf7+, Kf8!) ]
Pillsbury may have thought he
was holding ... ... ...
if so, Lasker's
next move abused him of that notion.
18...Ra3!!; (Maybe - '!!!')
{Diagram?}
A truly stunning move ... and one
that must have caused Pillsbury's
stomach to roll over a few times!!
"One of the greatest single moves ever played." - GM R. Fine.
The point of this move? Lasker is obviously going to attack White's King!
'!!!' - GM Reuben Fine. '!!' - GM Garry Kasparov.
[ Also good for Lasker was: 18...Rc6;
19.exf7+ Rxf7; "=/+" {Diag?}
and Black is slightly better. ]
19.exf7+!?,
{Diagram?}
Pillsbury throws in a check ... probably thinking it does not really
change the
situation a great deal.
(But years later analysis determined
that this move is
probably inaccurate.)
Pillsbury later wrote he expected to win
rather easily - mainly because he felt
he was better and his opponent was
critically short of time here.
*******
[ Believe it or not, White has to
play the very dangerous looking
continuation of: >/=
19.bxa3! Qb6+; 20.Kc2!!, "~"
{Diagram?}
which also leads to enormous
complications from here.
(- GM J. Nunn, GM J. Emms, and
also FM Graham Burgess.)
I must emphasize that most of this
analysis was probably done with a
computer. And exposing your King -
as White does in this line - is
VERY UN-natural and runs
counter to a
player's normal instincts!!
***
The players - in the postmortem -
came up with the following line:
</=
19.e7?! Re8; 20.bxa3 Qb6+; 21.Kc2,
{Diagram?}
This is totally forced. (But most of
my students bitterly complain that
White should be winning here - -
the threats don't look that imposing
and White is ... A WHOLE ROOK AHEAD!!!)
( Or White could play: 21.Ka1 Bxd4+; 22.Rxd4 Qxd4+; 23.Kb1 Rxe7;
"=/+"
(Maybe - "/+") but Black is definitely better. )
21...Rc8+; 22.Kd2 Bxd4!; 23.e8Q+!? Rxe8;
24.Bd3 Qa5+;
25.Kc1 Rc8+;
26.Bc2 Rxc2+!; ("-/+") {Diagram?}
and White is quickly mated. ]
*******
19...Rxf7; 20.bxa3!?,
{See the diagram - just below.}
This could be forced. (now)
*************************
|
|
*************************
(6k1/pp3rp1/5b1p/q2p3Q/3P4/P7/P5PP/1K1R1B1R
b - - 0 20)
Now the only question is:
"How does Black proceed from here?"
His attack appears stalled.
[ </= 20.Bd3? Rxa2; "/+" ]
Black has many different ways here
to proceed with his attack.
20...Qb6+; ('!')
{Diagram?}
This is the correct way to continue
the assault against the White King.
[ The most natural move here
is to capture the Pawn on a3
with the Queen ... but after: </=
20...Qxa3?; 21.Qxd5,
"+/-" {Diag?}
White should win.
***
Another attacking idea that has
been suggested by many of my
students here is: 20...Rc7!?;
{Diagram?}
but I think this idea too falls short. ]
21.Bb5!,
{Diagram?}
An ingenious defense ... that is
nearly forced upon the great
Pillsbury.
'!' - GM Emanuel Lasker. '!' - GM Garry Kasparov.
[ After the moves: </=
21.Ka1 Bxd4+; 22.Rxd4 Qxd4+; 23.Kb1 Qe4+!;
24.Kc1!? Rf2;
"-/+" {Diagram?} White is lost. -
Irving Chernev.
***
Also bad for White is: </= 21.Kc2!? Rc7+;
22.Kd2 Qxd4+; 23.Bd3 Rc2+!!;
24.Kxc2 Qb2#.
{Diagram?} - Irving
Chernev. ]
21...Qxb5+; 22.Ka1,
{Diagram?}
This is definitely forced.
[ Going the other way - in this
particular position - gets smashed;
and very quickly so: </=
22.Kc1?? Bg5+; 23.Kc2?? Rc7#.
***
Or even: </= 22.Kc1?? Rc7+;
23.Kd2 Qb2+!;
24.Ke1 Qxg2; ("-/+")
{Diagram?}
and White probably cannot
avoid mate. ]
22...Rc7!?;
{Diagram?}
A nice-looking move and certainly
one which apparently gives Black a
strong attack.
(The threat is the very
simple ...Rc2; followed by mate. And
even more venomous is
the threat
of ...Rc1+!! followed by ..Bxd4+; and
a quick mate.)
---> Yet Black had an even better move in this position!
"Fifteen moves an hour was the
prescribed time limit, and I already
had consumed
nearly two whole
hours. Thus - I had to make these
moves in a hurry,"
says (World Champion) Emanuel Lasker.
(Anyone who has been in time
pressure knows it is easy to miss
a winning line.)
[ After:
>/= 22...Qc4!;
"/+" {Diagram?}
Black probably has a decisive
attack. - GM Emanuel Lasker.
(White is forced to protect his
d-pawn with something like Qg4.
Then Black simply plays ...Re7;
followed by ...Re2; winning.) ]
The players both miss some tactical opportunities over the next few moves.
23.Rd2!? Rc4;
24.Rhd1!? Rc3!; {Diagram?}
Another nice attacking move ... but many years later someone
discovered
another way to win
for Black here.
"The concluding moves were played
under fearful time pressure."
- Dr. J. Hannak.
[ Even better was: >/=
24...Qc6!!; 25.Kb1 Bg5!; 26.Qe2[],
{Diag?}
No choice here for White.
( Not </= 26.Re2?? Rc1+; and Black gives mate. )
26...Bxd2; 27.Qxd2 Qd6!;
"-/+" {Diagram?}
and Black should win. ]
25.Qf5,
('!?') {Diagram?}
Logically, White tries to re-centralize
his Queen. (His most powerful piece.)
[ White is worse off after: 25.Qe2!? Rc1+!!;
26.Rxc1 Bxd4+;
27.Rxd4
Qxe2; "=/+" {Diagram?}
- Irving Chernev.
***
The best move is probably >/=
25.Re1!, "~" {Diagram?}
with good chances to defend.
(- GM John Nunn & GM J. Emms.) ]
25...Qc4; 26.Kb2,
{See the diagram - just below.}
Pillsbury is trying to use "The
aggressive King approach,"
a la' Steinitz ...
but it does not
work here. (Lasker says this
was a mistake {'?'} and says that
Kb1 was definitely indicated.)
*************************
|
|
*************************
(6k1/pp4p1/5b1p/3p1Q2/2qP4/P1r5/PK1R2PP/3R4
b - - 0 26)
I
must say White appears - at a first
and somewhat superficial glance -
to be quite secure here.
[ Black's threats are clearly seen
in the following variation:
</= 26.g4? Rc1+;
27.Rxc1 Qxc1+; 28.Qb1 Qxd2; "-/+" {Diag?}
and Black should win handily.
*******
The best line was "King-to-Knight-One" says Lasker:
26.Kb1 Rxa3;
('!?') 27.Qc2, (!?) {Diagram?}
While this looks good, Rc1 might be even
better.
27...Rc3; 28.Qb2 b5; "=/+" {Diagram?}
but Black is probably better
in this position.
- Analysis by: Emanuel Lasker. ]
26...Rxa3!!;
(Maybe - '!!!/!!!!')
{Diagram?}
Who says lightning never strikes
twice in the same place?
This thunderous shot, coming as it
did with both players short of time,
must have floored poor Pillsbury.
'!!' - GM Garry Kasparov.
"This is some kind of {chessic} mysticism: the second rook is also
sacrificed on the very same square!" - GM G. Kasparov.
[ Did he expect a move like: 26...b6!?; "~" instead? ]
27.Qe6+ Kh7!?; (Maybe
- '!') {Diagram?}
Putting the King in the corner
was much more accurate, but
it must have been very
difficult
to thoroughly understand this
with both players in extreme
time pressure.
'!' - GM John Emms. (Sorry John.)
*************************
: Maybe Lasker was correct - as he
maintained over a number of years.
(He had always maintained that ...Kh7! was the best move, although
many analysts had disagreed with him.) A construction manager, who
lives in St. Petersburg, (Sergey Sorokhtin);
may have found several
substantial IMPROVEMENTS over Kasparov's analysis of this game.
(Added: Saturday; January 31st, 2004.)
*************************
[ Better was: 27...Kh8!; ("-/+")
{Diagram?}
which probably should win
for Black. ]
28.Kxa3?!,
(Really - '?' here.)
{Diagram?}
With his flag now hanging, Pillsbury
(sadly) commits a severe mistake.
Many a GM probably views this
position as a very easy win. But
most of my
students - some who
are well over 1600 - do not find the
correct method for
Black to mate
from here.
'??' - GM Garry Kasparov.
(I think this is terribly harsh and
an obvious case of "over-kill.")
[ Better was ...Qf5+! (Kasparov?)
After the following moves:
28.Qf5+! Kh8!;
{Diagram?}
This might be good, but maybe the
more natural ...Kg8; is much better!
(See Sergey Sorokhtin's analysis
on the ChessBase web site.)
(Maybe better was (>/=) 28...Kg8!!; {and} Black wins by force?)
29.Kb1!! Rxa2!!; 30.Rxa2!? Qb3+; 31.Kc1 Bg5+;
32.Rad2!? Qc3+;
33.Qc2 Qa1+; 34.Qb1 Qc3+; 35.Qc2 Qa1+;
36.Qb1 Qc3+;
("=") {Diagram?}
Black has a draw by perpetual
check/repetition of the position ...
but isn't it a bit much to ask these
players to find such a deeply hidden
resource - especially when both
parties were in such desperate time
trouble? ]
The end is now mercifully swift.
(Some say Lasker may even now
have announced a mate in five.)
28...Qc3+!; 29.Ka4 b5+!!;
30.Kxb5 Qc4+!; 31.Ka5 Bd8+!; OUCH!! {Diagram?}
... and since White's only legal
move is to throw his Queen in
to block the check -
and then
promptly get mated ...
(If 32.Qb6, then simply 32...BxQ#) -
WHITE RESIGNS!!! (0-1)
Many years later ... the great Lasker
himself was asked to choose one game
that was his favorite and/or very best.
Understandably he chose this game.
**************************************************
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I have seen this game an almost
countless number of times in
print over the years.
Other than
photo-copies of very old books
and magazines, I mainly used the
following
sources - given in the
order that I consulted them!! - to
(try and) annotate this great
game.
# 1.) Masters of Chess, {series}
No. Six.
"The Collected
Games of:
EMANUEL LASKER," by Ken Whyld.
Copyright (c) 1998.
Published by 'The Chess Player.'
ISBN: # 1-901034-02-X
# 2.) "Emanuel Lasker,
The Life of A Chess Master." By Dr. J. Hannak.
Copyright (c) 1952 and 1959. (1991)
Published by Simon & Schuster of
New York, NY. (USA) [1959]
Reprinted by Dover Books in 1991.
ISBN: # 0-486-26706-7 (paper)
# 3.) << THE
GOLDEN DOZEN >>
"The Twelve
Greatest Chess Players
of All Time." (Plus annotated games.)
By the incomparable
(late, great) Irving Chernev.
Copyright (c)
1976, by the author.
Published by the Oxford
University
Press, New York, NY. (USA)
ISBN: # 0-19-217536-X (hard-back)
# 4.)
"Lasker's Manual Of
Chess," by GM Emanuel Lasker.
Copyright (c) 1947; D. McKay.
(Published in New York.)
# 5.) "The
World's Great Chess Games,"
edited by GM Reuben Fine.
Copyright (c) 1951 and 1976.
Dover re-print 1983.
ISBN: # 0-486-24512-8 (paper)
# 6.) "Lasker's
Greatest Chess Games, (1889-1914)"
by Fred
Reinfeld, and GM Reuben Fine.
Copyright (c) 1935 and (c) 1963.
Dover reprint, 1965.
ISBN: 0-486-21450-8
(I also have an
original edition {hard-back} of this book.)
# 7.) "The Match-Tournament At
St. Petersburg, 1895-1896." By John C.
Owen.
Copyright (c) 1989.
Published by Caissa Editions.
(A division of
Dale A. Brandeth books.) ISBN: # 0-939433-10-9
(hard-back)
# 8.) [The Mammoth Book Of:]
"The World's Greatest Chess
Games,"
by GM John
Nunn, GM John Emms, and
FM Graham Burgess.
Copyright (c) 1998, by the authors.
Published by Carroll & Graf Books,
London, (ENG); and New York. (USA)
ISBN: # 0-7867-0587-6
(paperback)
# 9.)
Garry Kasparov On:
"My Great Predecessors," (Part
I).
By GM G.
Kasparov and D. Plisetsky. Copyright (c) 2003, by the
author(s).
Published by EVERYMAN Chess.
ISBN: # 1-85744-330-6 (hard-back)
#
10.) "Harry
Nelson Pillsbury - American Chess Champion,"
by Jaques N. Pope. Copyright (c) 1996, by the author and
publisher.
Published by 'Pawn Island Press,' distributed by Lindsay Chess supplies.
# 11.) A deep ChessBase analysis of this game. (Various contributors.)
***********************************************************************************************************
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003,
& 2004.
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2004. All rights
reserved.
(All HTML code - initially) Generated with ChessBase 8.0
I
personally tried (very hard) to be objective here ... but I did not "grade"
these moves
nearly as harshly as I might have. For example, in one book, White's
first 15 moves gets
something like 5 question marks. To me this is just plain
silly ...
and borders on purely retarded behavior.
In
Kasparov's new book - see item # 9 in the bibliography above - he gives the
following
moves a question mark: White's 19th move; Black's 22nd move; White's
24th move;
Black's 24th move, White's 26th move, and Black's 27th move.
Additionally he gave
White's 28th move a DOUBLE-QUESTION Mark ...
I felt this
was extremely and overly harsh!!
***************
I (strongly) feel the following factors ... should be taken into serious consideration:
This game is VERY old ... played over 100 years ago!!!
The TREMENDOUS progress opening theory has made - much of this since
"The Post-Fischer Era."
The amount of time that has transpired has allowed so MANY different
parties
time to deeply look at this contest. (Analyze it in every
detail.) Most of the
major discoveries and flaws in this game took at least 50 years to
find.
The MANY advances of
technology: COMPUTERS, The INTERNET,
Communications, CHESS PROGRAMS, Databases, etc.
(How many of these ideas would have remained undiscovered
...
except for the use of powerful chess programs and
computers?)
I simply cannot stomach the "super-modern" school of chess
annotating.
This group of knee-jerk, half-wits state that if a player missed an
exclam
move ... that a full question mark should be awarded. (Forget
the fact
that this improvement may have been discovered by an analyst
sitting
in the comfort of his easy chair, hundreds of miles removed
from the
tension and pressures of competition. Forget also that this
move may
not have been discovered until 10-50 years later, perhaps when
both
of the original participants are already dead. They also would
like you
to forget the fact that these improvements were studied for
DAYS ...
or even weeks - when the players actually involved in the game
may
have had only a few seconds or a few minutes at most to work
out their
moves! Is this really a fair way to judge these games?)
The possibility that Pillsbury was already ill at this tournament.
The very well-documented fact that both players were in extreme time
pressure. (Even Kasparov makes errors when he is very
short of time on
the clock. I once saw a blitz game where he missed a
mate and then lost
his Queen - all because he only had a few seconds on
the remaining on
his chess clock.)
Arpad ELO
once said players of one era could NOT be (fairly)
compared to
players of another era. I think - to a certain degree - this is also
true of the games
that these players played. As far as that goes, this game is
virtually unique. The
sacrifice on c3 was a fairly new idea. I know of NO other game where
a player
sacked a Rook THREE times ... once on c3, and TWICE on a3!!!
When
one considers all of these mitigating factors, I feel that my job of annotation
is much
closer to being objective than Gary Kasparov's hatchet job of this
contest will ever be! I
also do NOT consider this the definitive analysis of this game.
Probably the best job is in
the "Mammoth Book," (# 8, above); and the second best is in the
Kasparov book.
Saturday;
January 31st, 2004:
Apparently Kasparov's analysis of this game
contains MORE THAN ONE fundamental error.
(See the ChessBase web site
for details.)
---> If
you go to the link given above, you can download a nice analysis of this game by
GM Garry Kasparov. Lots of detail and even some new ideas! Check
it out!!
Page first
posted (here) in March, 2002. (But I did little with it for a long
time.)
This page was last updated on 03/19/06
.
***
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my Home Page for this site.
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my End-Game School on this site.
Click HERE to go to (or return to) my page on Emanuel Lasker.
***
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my page on Paul Morphy.
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my web page on Mikhail TAL.
***
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my Geo-Cities page on the Best Chess Players who ever lived.
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my page on the Best Chess games of all time.
***
(Or click the 'Back" button on your web browser.)
***
I basically worked on
this game over TWO months ... (on-and-off)
annotating it. (Several times!)
Then it took at least a week, (more like 2); to get the HTML page ready
for publication.
(I only worked on it a few minutes ... 20-to-30 ... every day. As usual, several other PAYING
projects
got moved ahead of this one.)
I will gladly mail you
a copy of this game if you contact
me. (For a very modest fee.)
[I have to charge a fee to cover my costs ... printing, paper, and postage fees.
That sort of thing.]
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby; 2003 - 2005.
Copyright © A.J. Goldsby, 2006. All rights reserved.
