|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Apr-05-07 |
| gauer: If the OMGP position is correct, it could be wondrous if the sequence to reach the position as the end of part of a combination. Possibly the Queen-file Knight recently captured something at d5, as part of an Exchange sacrifice combination? Based on material inequality in the variations, however, is the most likely guess of the captured piece to be a Pawn or Knight or Bishop? In the ending of K+2N+P vs K+P+(N|B|P)+N+R, which is the most easiest to draw? Also, in K+2N+P+Any(of the five types) vs K+P+(N|B|P|R|Q)+N+R, are there still any other imbalances here which would force white to only at most draw in this way? Fine's rule seems to suggest that a material of ~3 or more can at times be required to "guarantee" a draw (4 connected Pawns vs B+B probably at least draw, but 3 may not necessarily), as opposed to just having a material preferential advantage might seem to approximately apply here. Of course, an exchange sac combo can often go more than a few plies deep, especially adding in "zwischenzugs" into the material part of the combo. Too bad there aren't many retogade analysis problems based on this type of theme. |
 |
Aug-18-07
 |
| Karpova: <Lasker, for his part, continued to argue in favour of copyright protection. For example, page 88 of the April 1910 American Chess Bulletin reported his comments at a Manhattan Chess Club dinner on 19 March: ‘Dr Lasker took the opportunity to broach the subject of copyright in respect of the scores of games played by the masters, which under existing conditions are accessible to the world at large, without compensation to the experts whose joint efforts produce them.’ He made regular attempts to copyright his games, and even proposed that he alone should be paid. In the The Evening Post (New York) of 22 November 1911 he announced the conditions under which he would accept Capablanca’s challenge for a title match. The fourth one read: ‘The games of the match are the property of Dr Lasker, who is at liberty to charge for the viewing of them and for their publication in any form he may deem to his advantage.’ Capablanca categorically rejected the demand:
‘A chess game, from its very nature and the manner of its production, must be the joint property of the two persons producing it ... You can charge what you like for the publication of the games in any form you may deem to your advantage. But, unfortunately, that is a common privilege, of which anyone may take advantage.’ In the meantime Lasker explained his reasoning:
‘Dr Lasker’s activity in chess extends over more than 20 years. Hence it is his personality that gives the games their principal interest, and it is only fair that he should have the benefit of his own work. Again, the challenger risks nothing in the way of reputation, whereas he has enormously to gain. Clause 4 is intended to be an offset for the advantage which the challenger reaps in this respect.’ Capablanca’s laconic comment:
‘So Dr Lasker thinks it is his personality that gives the games their principal interest.’ Source: American Chess Bulletin, February 1912, pages 27-31.
laskercapablanca
The Lasker-Capablanca negotiations foundered, and the following year (26 August 1913) Lasker concluded an agreement with Rubinstein for a world championship match (American Chess Bulletin, September 1913, pages 220-221). Although the Bulletin described the conditions as ‘rather more reasonable than those required of José R. Capablanca’, clause 10 stipulated: ‘The right of publishing the games, as well as all rights deriving from the authorship of the players in the games of the match, shall belong solely to Dr Lasker.’ Even when the Lasker v Capablanca match was eventually played in Havana in 1921, the question of copyright still loomed. For example, the Cuban newspaper Diario de la Marina (14 April 1921, page 1) reported that the 11th match game was ‘the property of Lasker and Capablanca and cannot be reproduced’. It is one thing to make such a declaration, but quite another to enforce it. Even for the Capablanca v Marshall match of 1909 the players jointly published an agreement stipulating that ‘ownership of the scores of the games shall be vested equally in the two principals’ (American Chess Bulletin, April 1909, page 83). There is no evidence that anybody paid attention.>
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
Mar-22-08
 |
| percyblakeney: Between Steinitz-Zukertort and the beginning of the 1950's there sure weren't many title matches between the two clearly strongest players in the world, at least not if one compares with the situation between for example 1978 and 1990. This match is maybe the only obvious exception in these 65 years. If some chess experts were asked in 1921 about the two strongest players, all of them would say Capablanca and Lasker. It's less certain that Bogoljubow or Euwe would be mentioned (ahead of Capablanca) at the time of their matches, or Gunsberg, Schlechter, Janowski, Marshall, and so on. There is of course also Capablanca-Alekhine, even if it's uncertain if most people considered Lasker weaker than these two by then. In New York 1924 he scored +12 (Capablanca had +9 and Alekhine +4), and he finished ahead of Capablanca in Moscow the next year. In 1926 Alekhine played well, but did finish behind players like Nimzowitsch and Spielmann in the top tournaments. He improved quickly though, and in 1927 I would place him ahead of Lasker. Steinitz played all the strongest opponents available, but still Tarrasch must have been top two in the 1890's even if he never played a title match until it was too late. One could even question Zukertort in 1886, he was by then already a much worse player than at his latest tournament, played three years earlier. And before that there was this American player that didn't want to play Steinitz, so the number of matches between the top two weren't all that many between the 1850's and 1950's. |
|
| Mar-22-08 |
| MichAdams: <After that, Alekhine broke the London Contract by agreeing to play for the championship with Bogo and Euwe for much less.> He broke the London Rules for the Bogo matches with regard to match length (Rule 1 stipulated first to 6 wins, draws not to count), but not to the prize fund. Euwe was not a signatory to the London Rules. |
|
| Mar-22-08 |
| beatgiant: <He broke the London Rules for the Bogo matches> The London rules only set forth conditions under which a challenger could demand a match. It didn't prevent a champion from accepting challenges under other conditions too. I don't think Alekhine broke any contracts. |
|
| Dec-06-08 |
| GrahamClayton: Does the National Museum of Sports in Havana, Cuba still have on display the table, board, pieces and chairs used during the 1921 World Championship match between Capablanca and Lasker? |
|
Jan-03-09
 |
| kevin86: The problem-as stated by Plato,has a major variation-not stated: 1  xc7  xb8 2 xd5 and a win will follow with white a knight ahead. |
|
| Mar-06-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: The 1921 Lasker vs Capablanca WC Match I think takes the cake as the best World Chess Championship match ever; both sides were playing with very few errors. We in the present have for the most part forgotten just how good they were. Comparing the games of this match with the recent WC matches and Candidates matches could be a pretty good exercise to remind us of the incredibly high level of chess these past titans had attained. |
|
Mar-06-09
 |
| chancho: <It was the one and only time that he (Lasker) ever disappointed his public; for only fourteen games, less than the stipulated number of thirty had been played. Even so, at that stage of the match the challenger's lead of four points was so convincing that to equal it would have been almost a physical impossibility for a Lasker at the top of his form; and he was far from that. In point of fact Lasker returned to Europe, a sick man. He had to go to hospital for several months, and after that he had to take the cure at Karlsbad before fully restoring his health.> Emanuel Lasker The Life of a Chessmater pg 197. |
|
| Mar-06-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: I appreciate both visayanbraindoctor's and chancho's comments. Even a weakened Lasker played with more precision than some of the contests we've seen lately. |
|
| Mar-10-09 |
| thegoodanarchist: <<Gypsy> ...Alekhine broke the London Contract by agreeing to play for the championship with Bogo and Euwe for much less. So Alekhine singling out Capablanca for the strictest adherence to original ammount does not seem to have much of a legal basis. Nor can it be realy seen as a principled stance. It was exactly what it was, a fig leaf against the ignominy of backing out of the dangerous rematch commitment.> Or was it vindictiveness? Was AA just giving payback for being required to raise $10k in gold? Either way, AA is seen in a negative light.
|
|
| Mar-10-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: He played a chimp for half of what he was looking for from Capablanca. |
|
| Jun-30-09 |
| James Demery: I`ve always been curious how Capa could play so well against Lasker. Capablancas style has been described as being a simple, straightforward style of exchanging down toward an endgame, whereas Lasker had a complicated style and didn`t always exchange pieces so easily. Can someone explain how Capas simple style defeated Laskers complicated style? Later on Alekhine employed his complex style and the great Capa didn`t fare so well. |
|
Jun-30-09
 |
| nimh: Capa played better. |
|
| Jun-30-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Lasker was on his way out, Capa moving onwards and upwards, in 1921. Before this, there was no reason to believe that Capa was stronger than Lasker. |
|
| Jun-30-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <AnalyzeThis: Lasker was on his way out, Capa moving onwards and upwards, in 1921. Before this, there was no reason to believe that Capa was stronger than Lasker.> Lasker probably would still have had good chances of beating Capa before WW1. Capablanca may arguably have been the ultimate natural chess talent ever produced by humanity, but it must be remembered that before WW1, coming from Latin America, he was a relative newbie to international chess. In fact, the commonplace teen-age GMs nowadays have had more international experience than Capa did before WW1. <James Demery: Capablancas style has been described as being a simple, straightforward style of exchanging down toward an endgame> The more I play over Capablanca's games, the more I realize that his style was not that simple. It seems that in general whenever Capablanca entered a simplifying line, he did so because he had already seen everything until the endgame; and had seen that the resulting endgame was good for him. By everything, this includes all practical tactical shots that his opponents could throw at him; he had seen those too and calculated that the wild melee would also be good for him. So if his opponent chose to mix it up - there are numerous examples here in CG.com where Capablanca minces and dices the tactics of his opponents. |
|
| Jun-30-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <Lasker had a complicated style and didn`t always exchange pieces so easily> Lasker was the first master to play like a super-GM. He knew exactly when it would be beneficial to trade static advantages for dynamic play, increased piece activity, and the initiative. This was seen as sorcery by some, but in fact Lasker was playing at a higher level than the previous masters of his time. Shortly after Lasker had upgraded the level of chess in the 1890s, other players who played like super GMs started showing up; notably Pillsbury, Maroczy, Schlecter, and Rubinstein. And they must have studied Lasker for he was after all the World Champion, and must have comprehended that Lasker was playing a notch higher than the masters of the 1880s. |
|
Jun-30-09
|
| chancho: <James Demery: Later on Alekhine employed his complex style and the great Capa didn`t fare so well.> Actually, Alekhine avoided playing in his style and played positionally like Capa in order to win that match.
He had at least 15 years to study and learn Capa's strengths and weaknesses. After Alekhine's early losses, the Russian realized that many adjustments were needed if he hoped to wrest the title from the Cuban.
Not many people could have pulled that off. I mean adopting another player's style in order to beat that player. |
|
| Jun-30-09 |
| Petrosianic: That's true. Alekhine won the match by playing more like Capa than Capa. His natural enterprising style had failed miserably against Capa in previous encounters. Yes, this was one of the rare times that someone altered their playing style (as opposed to just their opening repertoire) for a match. Which is funny, because Kalme in 1975 was trying to argue that the unlimited match system would force players to adapt their styles to be more daring. Usually it had no effect at all, or, in this case, had the opposite effect. In the case of Karpov-Korchnoi, the results were negligible. Their 1974 match, though incredibly hard fought, had 19 draws out of 24. When they met again in 1978, under an unlimited system, they had "only" 18 draws in the first 24 games. |
|
| Jun-30-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <chancho: Alekhine avoided playing in his style and played positionally like Capa in order to win that match. Petrosianic: That's true. Alekhine won the match by playing more like Capa than Capa. His natural enterprising style had failed miserably against Capa in previous encounters.> Alekhine indeed tried to mix it up with Capablanca repeatedly in tactical games before their match. The result was a massacre. Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1913
Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1913
Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1914
Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1914
Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927
The overconfident Capablanca probably thought that Alekhine would play in exactly the same manner, and get slaughtered again. When Alekhine started playing very solidly and positionally in most of the 1927 match games, it must have shocked Capa. |
|
| Jun-30-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: If one goes over the 1909 Capablanca vs Marshall match, and also his 1913 and 1914 tour of Europe games; it's clear that the proven chess masters of that time tried to knock out the untested and inexperienced Capablanca with complex tactical play. They all got decimated. While it is true that Capablanca's natural penchant was for solid positional play, at which he was so brilliant that he often managed to steer his games into won endgames while his opponents were unaware of what was really happening before it was too late, Capablanca contrary to popular opinion was the strongest tactical player in his era. His games show him consistently knocking out such strong tacticians as Alekhine and Marshall in complex middlegame melees. This has been often overshadowed by his fundamentally sound positional style, so that most chess pundits have the idea that Capablanca was a solidly boring player. Regarding endgames, Capablanca often steered his middlegames into won endgames without his opponents realizing it. That's really brilliant. However, to win these won endgames as a matter of technique, it also often took perfect technique. In brief, Capablanca was also a genuinely incredibly strong endgame player. He first had to have superb endgame judgment in order to determine that he would have an advantage in the endgames that he was aiming for; and once there, he had to have the almost perfect technique to win the actual endgame. |
|
Jul-01-09
|
| chancho: Alekhine tried playing in his normal aggressive style in this game (apparently forgetting how he won in 1927) and it came back to bite him in the ass: Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1936 |
|
| Jul-01-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: These guys are excellent in all phases of the game. It's an oversimplifcation to say that a guy like Karpov can't sit down and outcalculate Kasparov in any given game. They just have certain preferred weapons by which they win games. It would be like say that if you gave Rambo an uzi instead of a machine gun, he wouldn't know what to do. Of course he would. |
|
Jul-01-09
 |
| boz: From an interview with Capa in a December 1927 edition of the Havana newspaper "El Mundo" quoted in Edward Winter's "Capablanca": <A curious phenomenon occurs when I play against Lasker. His qualities as a fighter and his eagerness to play for a win in positions which, strategically speaking, do not entitle any more than a draw to be hoped for, irritate me from the chess point of view, and this increases my efficiency at the board. In such circumstances the fighting spirit is roused in me, and since I am superior to the German in some respects, I manage to beat him at his own game.> No psychological points scored for Dr.L. this time. |
|
| Jul-01-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: interesting quote. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
|
Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)
