|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Oct-03-05
 |
| Calli: <Helios727> The winning method is in the thread |
 |
Nov-07-05
 |
| LIFE Master AJ: An interesting chess game. (I played over it years ago in a book of the tournament ... I am not sure how I view it now ... to be honest, I do not clearly recall the annotations.) |
|
| Apr-11-06 |
| crazy monk: In this game, B=R, N>R |
|
| Jul-20-06 |
| paladin at large: <LIFE Master AJ><I do not clearly recall the annotations.>Capablanca was critical of his play in the opening and into the middlegame, here are some of his comments from the annotations: 7. Qb3 (A dubious move. It would have been better to play 7. Qc2.) 11. Qc2 (d5 was probably the most correct move in this position.) 12. d5 (Here 12. Be3 should possibly have been played.) 17. Nxd4 Bf6 (From the opening Black has certainly obtained the better game.) 18. Nb5 (A poor move. White should have played 18. Be3, threatening Nb5.) 20. Nd4 (It is now clear that White has wasted a move.) A remarkable transformation ensues. Capa continues:
23. Nf3 Nc3? (Black goes in for an incorrect combination. He thinks to win the exchange, after which, however, he ends up with a poor, and perhaps totally lost game.)
26. Qd2!
27. exd3! c5? (Despair. Only now did Black realize his mistake and he tries to save the position by artificial moves, which, of course, do not achieve their aim. He should have continued 27…..Na4, but then White would have had the extremely strong move 28. Ng5! Besides, 28. d4 would also have been good, since for a long time the black knight would have remained out of play.) 30……gxf6 (It is true that White’s pawn is doubled, but in such positions a doubled pawn is worth as much as a normal one.) 31. Nd2! f5 (The pawn could not be retaken because of 32. Ne4!) 32. b5! (A strong move which deprives Black of his last drawing chances. Of course, he cannot play 32…..axb5 33. cxb5, after which the white knight goes to c4, attacking the black pawns.) |
|
| Oct-25-06 |
| paladin at large: Capablanca's exchange sacrifice with 24. Rd3 was so modern -ha-ha - that only he and Lasker understood it. Alekhine should get a little consolation, though, because he understood it too late, but knew why he was resigning. None of the other masters kibitzing in the hotel after the game could find Alekhine's error - they all assumed it occurred after Alekhine won the exchange. In fairness to Botvinnik, I assume his Soviet watchdogs did not allow him to associate with the other players, and that he was not among the kibitzers. It would be interesting to know what Botvinnik wrote about this game, and his experience at Nottingham, if anything. |
|
| Oct-25-06 |
| setebos: I believe Alekhine wrote that he miscalculated in what he described as a "mistake of a somewhat peculiar nature". He apparently thought he would win an exchange and ended up with two rooks vs three pieces in a lost position. |
|
| Oct-26-06 |
| RookFile: The funny thing is, we had a guy here on the Capablanca page, who said, multiple times, that there was no exchange sac to speak of, in this game. Ignorance is bliss, I guess, of things like 27....Na4. |
|
Feb-14-07
 |
| Jonathan Sarfati: <Calli> describes just how Capa would have thought. "Pickup the white pieces and put them on these squares: Pawn on h5, B at h3, K at f3, Bc3 and knight at d5. You will see white wins easily and there is nothing Black can do thet will prevent this from happening." Kotov in "Think Like a Grandmaster" describes just this process, when some masters were analysing a difficult endgame, and Capa walked in, said "Sí, sí," and just shuffled the pieces to their right squares, and then it became crystal clear. Kotov also gives Capablanca vs Ragozin, 1936 after B32, where Capa just knew that he had to place Pb4, Nd4 and Rc3, then bring the K in. <Benjamin Lau> Indeed, in the early 1930s, Capa had lost his spark, but by this Capa had regained it. He had something to live for, a new bride, as well as a chance to regain the title since Euwe was fairer minded than Alekhine and would have given him a shot if he had won the return match. Capa had also just won the very strong Moscow 1936 tourney, beating Botvinnik and Lasker. |
|
Feb-14-07
 |
| Gregor Samsa Mendel: It interesting to compare Capablanca's notes to this game with Alekhine's, which I have courtesy of his book of the tournament. 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. 10. Nb5
White would do better (for 10 d5 was not good because of Na5) by retreating the Q to c2, thus admitting his move was not effective; the Knight expedition does not lead to anything. 12. d5
...quieter tactics, starting for instance with a3 and eventually b4, were preferable. 16. Nfd4
Exchanging pieces without any benefit. The developing move Be3 was preferable. 18. Nb5?
This second trip is by no means more successful than the first. 18 Be3 was still indicated. 23. Nf3?
An obvious mistake after which White's game should get into great difficulties. In spite of the previous inexact play the game after 23 Qb3 would be about even. 24. ... f4
A miscalculation of a somewhat peculiar kind. I thought to win both Exchanges and lost instead three minor pieces for two Rooks. The simple continuation 24...Ba4; 25 Qd2, Ne4; 26 Qe1, g5! would have left Black with a quite obvious, perhaps decisive positional advantage. 27. ... c5?
Black is still playing under the hallucination mentioned above. Otherwise he would doubtless make the move 27..., Na5, which after 28 d4 would have left him with an inferior but by no means hopeless position. After the text-move all is over. 37. ... Kg6
Black resigned without even asking about the opponent's sealed move, which happened to be 38 a4. White's last six moves were good. |
|
| May-20-07 |
| sneaky pete: Alekhine's final comment (after 37... Kg6) is amazing: "Black resigned without even asking about the opponent's sealed move, which happened to be 38.P-QR4. White's last six moves were good." I never knew one could beat Alekhine with only 6 good moves. |
|
Jun-23-07
|
| Gregor Samsa Mendel: After move 23, Capablanca says, Alekhine has "a poor, and perhaps totally lost game." Alekhine thinks black is winning at this point, and if he had played correctly at move 24, he would have had "a quite obvious, perhaps decisive positional advantage." So two of the greatest players in the history of the game have diametrically opposing evaluations of the position after white's 23rd move. Which one of them is right?? |
|
| Aug-15-07 |
| newton296: im surprised alekhine saw he was lost. But the knight heading for d5 is gonna be a killer. blacks rook is stuck guarding passively at c7 or c8 white then turns his attention to winning pawns on the other side of the board with his 2 bishops and knight vs 1 rook basically. the f pawn or h pawn is gonna fall soon if not both creating even more threats as capa would have passers too. |
|
| Aug-15-07 |
| newton296: 27)...c5 ? doesnt this just allow capa's simple but winning line rxn ... bxr QxB ?
why didnt AA play 27) ...na4 instead to prevent the loss of material? Granted the (n) is gonna do alot of hopping but AA's position is good here and it seems he could be alright. |
|
| Aug-15-07 |
| newton296: just saw the above post and was glad to see the great capa , agrees with me about 27)...c5 ? instead of Na4 . |
|
| Aug-16-07 |
| Hans Jochen Peters: As regards the assessment of the final position, I think we can quietly say that the case is closed. The "scientific" procedure of winning as indicated by Capablanca and posted here by Calli is certainly convincing enough. And in case there are still any doubts left, we can certainly trust AA who would for sure have resumed play if he would have seen the slightest chance of saving half a point in this game which he was supposedly very eager not to lose. Much more interesting is in my view the assessment of the position after 27. exd. Here Capablanca and AA seem to differ quite a bit: While Capablanca seems to hold the view that after 27....Na4 White´s position is vastly superior, if not outright won, AA obviously felt that Back´s position, though inferior, would not at all have been hopeless. - I think it is remarkble that AA fails to give the move 28.Ng5 suggested by Capablanca as the strongest continuation, and indeed, the variation given by Calli seems to be quite convincing. The alternative to Calli´s 28....h6 is of course Bxg5,but after 29.fxg Qd7 (to prevent Bc6) and 30.d4(!) I do not see how the knight stranded on a4 will ever be able to join again the black forces. In short: Also after Na4, Black´s position is extremely difficult and his chances of saving the game seem to me to be considerably smaller than White´s chances of winning.though the winning procedure is admittedly not as clear as the winning procedure in the final position. |
|
| Sep-07-07 |
| candide1500: This game is very instructive, and an especially good lesson for beginners who, as a rule, tend to use the material based "point count" rather than analyzing the position to decide who stands better. I give chess lessons at my high school and I would appreciate it if anyone could suggest any more games with these types of end positions. I find they are the best way of helping beginners break their bad habits. |
|
| Sep-07-07 |
| paladin at large: <candide1500> It is such an unusual game. The battle seems to be joined and then it grinds suddenly to a halt. I know of nothing like it with these forces (numerous pawns, three minors vs two rooks). I think the best way to approach this game, pedagogically for beginners, is to go through Capa's notes on his errors (in the thread) in the opening and subsequent loss of time and disadvantage, as well as the recognition on his part that he needed a creative combination to have a viable way forward. The following game, although in some respects dissimilar, also shows Capa getting into a fix with two bad moves entering the middle game and the best way forward involving sacrifice of the exchange. Mieses vs Capablanca, 1913 |
|
| 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".> http://www.ishipress.com/alekhine.htm
|
|
| 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. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
Secrets of Opening Surprises
|
|
|
sac: 26.Qd2
icon.