As far as I can tell Capablanca till 1919 or 1920 was a creative genius of the first order, but somewhat careless and with a certain (possibly justified) tendency to underestimate his opponents, so he often makes mistakes. But usually he does not have to pay for them because he is so good he can still win and his opponents are often so much in awe of him that they do not make full use of the opportunities he allows them.

Capablanca 1920-1924 is a creative genius with almost perfect play. He is at his strongest. He has brilliant conceptions, both tactical and strategic. He intuitively plays the best move. He is at is best.

The later Capablanca is very strong and capable of subtle positional chess, but does he does have not the creativity and tactical sharpness of his youth. He also tries to keep his games simple, which is not a very good thing to do in many games.

Had Capa been forced to struggle - who knows how strong he would have become?

Apart from whatever else it may do, the move 18 Be4 appears to get ready to remove the Nd5 which guards the point c7, after which White's Q attacks and then invades the point c7.>

18 d3-e4!

click for larger view

Yes, preparing to invade down the open c-file in general and the weak c7-square in particular seem to be a major point of 18 d3-e4!.

Several moves later we get 23 c1xc7, with the White c7-rook in <SEVENTH HEAVEN> *dominating* the position. Notice in particular the nasty <LATERAL PIN> of the Black f7-pawn to the Black g7-king.

23 c1xc7

click for larger view

Here's what Capa himself had to say...

"Looking back to this period from San Sebastian [1911] to Saint Petersburg [1914] it will be found that the play has gradually developed in strength. The endings are as ever before of a high type, the imagination has reached its full scope, and brilliant combinations and conceptions are the rule. The openings are much better played, and in fact there seems to be no special weakness in any of the departments of the game. I think I might be said to have reached the height of my power as a chess master.

Hereafter I may gain a little from experience, and the style may be somewhat changed accordingly, but whatever I may gain in one way I am sure will show a corresponding loss somewhere else. I may become more difficult to beat, but will also not be so apt to overcome strong opposition.

It is only in the openings that I have yet a great deal to learn, and this will soon be done as we shall see presently.

Hereafter, if I may be allowed to continue this dissertation, the interest in my play will centre mainly upon the question as to whether or how far I may be able to perfect certain phases of my game, and in which way this will affect my style of play, which will tend in the future to apparently ever-increasing simplicity, without losing, as some games will show, the former brilliancy when the occasion demands it."

The fact is that the bishop is doing very little, while the Black knight at d5 is the key to Black's defense, hence the necessity of exchanging the almost useless bishop for a most valuable knight."

After White's 21st move, Capa explains, "Now the square at c7 is controlled by White, and this decides the game. Should Black attempt to protect it by Bc6 he will soon lose a pawn through knight takes bishop, as White will be able to bring up enough forces and win either the c-pawn or the a-pawn. It should be noticed that Black's weakness throughout the middle game is his inability to command the Black squares."

And after 27. Nh4, "The knockout blow. The bishop no longer defends the square at d7, so that the king cannot come out to f6 because of Nd7+, and so there is no way of defending the kingside pawns. Black could have resigned now."