< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Jan-12-08|| ||paladin at large: This is the only other game I have found so far featuring two rooks versus three minor pieces:|
Rashkovsky vs Petrosian, 1973
Rashkovsky initiates a fine combination with his 14th and 15th moves. The final scene seems far from resolved, but Rashkovsky, with two rooks and the queen still on the board would seem to have winning chances. In contrast to the Capa-AA game, there are fewer pawns left, and the king with the minor pieces is more exposed. The two contrasting games show how delicate the balance is, and how each case is unique.
|Jan-12-08|| ||capatal: <Alekhine's writings on, "Jewish and Aryan Chess".>|
|May-14-08|| ||Capatin17: the real sheriff of nottingham!!|
|Sep-01-08|| ||visayanbraindoctor: I have read some posts here that say that only Capablanca and Lasker instantaneously realized what was truly happening in the chessboard. Alekhine saw it too late. The other masters could not see it even after the game.|
We should not be too hard on AAA and the other 1930 masters whose names did not happen to be Capablanca or Lasker.
This is a famous game, and we have to assume that all GMs today are familiar with it. However, if this game never happened, and it occurred in a top super GM tournament today, I would not be surprised if many of our super GMs would walk right into it, and do exactly what Alekhine did. It takes excellent chess intuition to realize the 'win' of material for Black, with no White attack or tactical tricks in the horizon, actually results in a lost game for Black.
Thanks to Capablanca, no present-day master would now walk into this type of combo without long thought. Lasker in the 1880s and Capa in the 1910s were consistently playing stronger middlegames and endgames than most of our present-day super GMs, except the very best who are their equals. IMO it was really Lasker who ushered in the era of modern chess and Capablanca who firmly nailed it to its place in the chessworld.
|Nov-14-08|| ||paladin at large: This loss, in Round 2 of the great Nottingham tournament, was evidently devastating to Alekhine. Alekhine had won in Round 1 against Flohr, but did not win again until Round 9 against WC Euwe.|
|Jan-11-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Alekhine was drinking a-pawn beer, which is why the game was over after a4 (even though it wasn't played)|
|Jan-11-09|| ||Atking: <visayanbraindoctor> I learned a lot from this game when I was young and here I was not completely convinced of Capablanca superiority over Alekhine. The turning point is Alekhine's comment : <The simple continuation 24...Ba4; 25 Qd2, Ne4; 26 Qe1, g5! would have left Black with a quite obvious, perhaps decisive positional advantage.> Indeed Capablanca never compromised its pawn structure, Alekhine did it for bad and good. But this time I think he was right, more than bad, good points are there. After 26...g5 27.Ra3 b5 or 27.Bd4 c5 even 27.Nd4 f4! a subbtle point could be 27.b5 axb 28.cxb Bxb5 29.Rd5 Qd7 30.Nd4 (30.Rxc7 brings not enough) 30...BxN 31.RxB c5 32.BxNe4! fxB 33.Rd5 h6 34.Qd2 Re6 35.Rd1 Rf6 36.h4 gxh but then what? I fell to see how white could counter in the center before a stroming attack on the king side.|
|Apr-22-09|| ||paladin at large: <Atking> Another perspective is that Capablanca was not at all sharp in this game well into the middlegame (look at his own analysis), yet he still won. This game more than any other comes to mind when I think of the quote that is sometimes attributed to Alekhine about himself, and which may be apocryphal: "If you beat me in the opening, you have to beat me in the middlegame, and, if you beat me in the middlegame, you have to beat me in the endgame". Here, AA is on top out of the opening and into the middlegame, and suddenly there is not even an endgame! A very unusual game.|
|Apr-14-10|| ||sisyphus: The story that Calli tells about Capablanca and Lasker is probably not about this game. It's certainly not in "A Primer of Chess," which was published in 1935 – before the Nottingham tournament was held.|
In "Last Lectures," written in 1942, Capa said
<Even toward the end, during the great Nottingham tournament, his quick sight of the board was still notable. In this connection I am reminded of the following incident: I had just won a very important game and I was on the way back to the hotel. During the course of the game my opponent had built up a magnificent position. At a certain point he saw the opportunity to win the exchange, and did so. Yet he lost the game! Some of the world's greatest masters, who were present, began to study the game. All of them began their investigations from the point where my opponent had won the exchange, for they assumed that this had been the proper course, and that his error must have occurred later on. They spent a good deal of time on the game, and meanwhile Lasker came in. They told him how the game had ended, and played it over for him; but when they came to the point where my opponent won the exchange, he interrupted them and said, "Oh, no, that move can't be right." The aged master has realized at once what the others had failed to perceive: that the win of the exchange was an error which lost not only the advantage, but the game itself. Lasker saw that it was not my opponent who had made a combination, but I! Several hours later, he met me in the hotel and said, "You must have been relieved when your opponent swallowed the bait." Then he added, "These players are not so strong as most people think." And so Lasker had been the only one who had appraised the position properly and had been fully aware of the possibilities it contained.>
My guess is the game Capa refers to is W Winter vs Capablanca, 1936. In it 22.B×f8 is a blunder (according to Fritz); Capa regains the material advantage at move 32, and wins in 37.
|Apr-14-10|| ||TheFocus: <sisyphus> The W. Winter game was full of errors. The game was this one, as Edward Winter makes clear in his book on Capablanca, and the annotations by both Alekhine and Capablanca show that too. Perhaps you have not seen Capa's notes to this game.|
|Apr-23-10|| ||jaime gallegos: its nice to see how Capablanca's legacy has grown each year. He was a better chessplayer, a gentleman, a superb natural player. Alekhine was in my humble opinion one step behind him. Capablanca deserved a rematch, but Alekhine made it impossible, an unfair way to be a king ...|
|Jul-02-10|| ||asiduodiego: Nice game by Capablanca. The resignation of Alekhine in this case is not, by any means, premature: black is completly cramped, and white has very good perspectives for gaining advantage: for example, putting the knight on d5, and then dominating the a1-h8 diagonal, with special pressure in the g6 square. In these conditions, black doesn't have any good moves: one of his rooks will be stuck defending the b6 pawn, and, of course, the other will be unable of doing anything useful, and soon black will have to exchange one of his rooks, and then, it's a winning endgame for white.|
|May-30-11|| ||drnooo: rooks cant jump any better than white men
talk about being stranded behind your own lines once the calvary arrives and
starts breaking up things, jeepers probably had you asked capa in person he would have just smiled and said it was, all in all have a few mistakes on my part, actually quite easy.
|May-30-11|| ||drnooo: what is beyond me, truly truly, is during their famous match how come Capa just kept pulling the same dead QGD rabbit out of the same shopworn hat: he had a great record with dragon bishops of the feminine variety, look at his record with them his regina indians or something for chrissake except that moldy defense and notice ole Alex just let him go right on using the bloody thing sheer laziness on Capas part first very likely not preparing for anything before the match then getting stuck on stupid very strange match folks, for me the strangest of any ever played before or since|
|Sep-15-11|| ||perfidious: <WMD: According to Euwe, 'After he beat Lasker at Zurich he said something like "the Jew has had another lesson!"'>|
If this was indeed what Alekhine said, the meaning is obscure, as he'd never beaten Lasker before that game, unless it referred to Lasker's tiring after his strong start in Zurich.
<Gregor Samsa Mendel: ...Here are some of Alekhine's comments:
7. Qb3 This move has been blamed since. But neither with 7 Nbd2 (Saemisch) nor 7 Ne1 (Flohr) nor 7 Qc2 (Fine) has White obtained any appreciable positional advantage. As a matter of fact Black's position is already satisfactory because of the weakness of White's e4...>
At Toronto 1984, I played 7.d5 against Hans Jung, which was introduced in this game, so far as I know, and recommended by Robert Bellin in the 1970s: Reshevsky vs W Suesman, 1938.
|Sep-15-11|| ||Meister326: Alekhine was a great player, but I don't think I'd have wanted to know him outside of chess. I've seen a few things he was supposed to have written, and he could be nasty.|
I once read somewhere that he was going to play a match with Capablanca in 1940, but the war ended that. Does anybody know if this is true?
|Sep-15-11|| ||aliejin: Alekhine's life was a life exceptionally rich in episodes. Belonging to an aristocratic family
World War, prison, fighting on the front and be seriously injured, months of hospital,
losing all his money, jail again, about to be executed,
exile, poverty, the Great Depression, his fight against alcohol and its opponents,
World War II ..... and finally a mysterious death!
If I find Alekhine , ( never knows ! ) , i need a whole year
|Oct-15-11|| ||Whitehat1963: Gregor Samsa Mendel's comment is interesting. What's best play after Capa's 23. Nf3? Can someone run a Rybka 4 analysis?|
|Jul-21-12|| ||marljivi: I have analysed the position(although without computer) after the possible 24...Ba4 25.Qd2Ne4 26.Qe1g5(Alekhine suggestion).Alekhine judged this position to be "perhaps decesive positional advantage for black".I see that Atking had already analysed the moves 27.Ra3,27.Bd4,27.Nd4 and 27.b5.But what if whites position is still healthy enough,but too passive for any active moves,and needs retreat/exchanges,in particular the exchange of knights? Therefore I suggest the move 27.Nd2 instead.For example: a) 27...f4?! 28.Ne4fe3 29.Re3Bd4 30.Rf3 and white is a clear pawn up.|
b) 27...Nc3?? 28.Rcc3Bc3 29.Rc3f4 30.gf4gf4 31.Bd5!Kg7 32.Bd4 .
c) 27...Bc6 28.Ne4Be4 29.Be4Qe4 30.f3Qe6 31.Rc2 and white seems to be ok (lets say,dinamic balance).
d) 27...Nd2! (Best in my opinion.) 28.Rd2...(28.Qd2?f4! 29.gf4gf4 30.Bf4Qe2 with a clear edge for black.) 28...Be5 (With the idea of f4,gf4gf4,Bd4Bd4,Rd4Qe2 ) 29.Bf3!...(Protecting e2 square.) 29...c5!? (Again threatening f4.If 29...f4,then 30.Bd4Bd7 31.Be5de5 32.c5! with sharp play,and if 29...g4,then 30.Bd5Kh8 31.Qf1 or 31.b5!?ab5 32.Bc6 with unclear play.) 30.Rd3...(Probably the only move.) 30...f4 31.Bd2 and again I don't think white is worse.
Of course,in all those variations white queen stands very passive on e1,but that can quickly be repaired,whereas black pawn structure (g5,f5) is more or less permanently exposed/weakened.
|Jul-21-12|| ||KingV93: I think AA played too passively here and made the mistake of getting into a closed endgame against Capablanca. The two rooks are powerles.|
|Jul-21-12|| ||RookFile: I think this game is way over our heads.|
|Jan-04-13|| ||tjipa: I agree to the previous RookFile's remark. I fed the final position to my Fritz (after 37...Kg6), it gave +2.68 for white, and still in the line it supports the white do NOT get through, they are obviously better (hence the +), yet the position remains closed, therefore a draw.|
|Jan-15-13|| ||copablanco: Amusing, considering that Alekhine was the world champion taking the title from Capablanca in 1927.
The "final" position which black resigned shows that he had no proper response. Black had the "open" king file but couldn't use it. Doubling up rooks on the king file, even if he could, was useless. White on the other hand looks more flexible, and fluid. Incidentally having the bishop pair, and the knight in this particular endgame for Capablanca is lethal. Furthermore black can't defend H5 nor the long diagonal that is open for white's queen bishop.|
|Mar-07-13|| ||Arturo2nd: Alekhine remarked immediately after winning the title, "Somehow the rematch will never take place." He had pretended to be Capablanca's friend beforehand and was only able to play the match because Capablanca had persuaded wealthy Argentine friends to sponsor the match. Capablanca was rewarded by not only being refused a rematch, but by being trashed repeatedly in print and barred from appearing in any tournament in which Alekhine would appear. Effectively, this kept Capablanca from participating in almost all the major events with big purses and earning appearance fees. This was their first game against each other since the title match. It must have been a particularly sweet day in the Capablanca household.|
|Mar-07-13|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Alekhine remarked immediately after winning the title, "Somehow the rematch will never take place.">|
What is your source for this?
<Capablanca had persuaded wealthy Argentine friends to sponsor the match>.
What is your source for this?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·