|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Oct-04-03 |
| bishop: Capablanca could not possibly have missed the simple move 41.Rc1, there simply was no way for him to escape from the fatal pin. The losing move seems to be 34...Qc7 after which Capablanca's Rook is in trouble. |
 |
Oct-04-03
 |
| Calli: This game followed the incredible see-saw game 11 of the match. Capablanca was so shaken with the realization that he could make so many mistakes in one game that he is not himself in this game. The whole 33...Rc3 idea is a bad plan and, as Bishop says, he doesn't even recover by retreating the rook. BTW - 40.g3 is to prevent Qh4+ getting out of the pin. |
|
| Oct-04-03 |
| Benjamin Lau: <bishop>
Now that you mention it, the game does seem to have been lost earlier. Do you think Capablanca stuck around just to see if Alekhine would be able to find the right moves to exploit the pin? <BTW - 40.g3 is to prevent Qh4+ getting out of the pin. > Yes, I knew that. It appeared to be Capa's last hope. That was why I still wonder if Capablanca really did see the 41. Rc1. Surely after 40. g3, he could safely resign against someone so tactically alert as Alekhine? Or maybe he was just hoping to get lucky? |
|
| Oct-04-03 |
| drukenknight: 33...Rc3 why not Nc3? |
|
Aug-02-04
 |
| Knight13: 41. Rc1! was a good move. White gets a rook for free. |
|
| Jan-25-06 |
| alexandrovm: The rook can go anywhere, ugly for black some moves after Capa resigned... |
|
| Mar-02-06 |
| johnwgoes: 21. ...Rxc5 seems better than the text.
22. Nxb7 I don't understand. Why trade the good knight for the useless bishop? In fact, since the c4 outpost is secure already, might as play 21. nxf6 rather than Nc4 the move prior. 22.Bd3 seems better than the text. |
|
Jun-08-06
 |
| Peligroso Patzer: Does anyone know whether one or both players may have been in time trouble in this game (which could explain why Capablanca did not resign until move 41, and also possibly why he committed the oversight that got his Rook into trouble at moves 33-34)? In his "My Best Games of Chess, 1924-1937", Alekhine comments that both players were "continuously short of time" in the preceding game in the match. Alekhine's concluding commentary on that game also includes an apologia to the effect that he included it (Match Game #11) in his best games collection -- notwithstanding the many mistakes on the part of both players -- only because of its "outstanding sporting importance". Match Game #12 did not receive similar dispensation (i.e., it was not included in Alekhine's Best Games book). BTW, I believe this was the first world championship match that used the primary time control of 40 moves in 2-1/2 hours (followed by 16 moves per hour as the secondary, etc. time control). This became the standard time control for world championship and candidates match games until at least the early 1980's. |
|
| Aug-05-06 |
| lopezexchange: 21...Rxc5!! 22.b4,Nxa3; 23.Qb2,Qb6; 24.bxc5,Qxc5!; 25.Bd3,Kf8; 26.Nf4,g6!; 27.h4,Nc4; 28.Qa2,Qc6; 29.h5,g5; 30.Ne2,Be7; 31.Ra1,Bd6; 32.Rfb1,Ra8; 33.e4,dxe4; 34.Bxc4,bxc4; 35.Qb2,Rb8; 36.Qb6,Qd7; 0-1
The rest is just technique.
Black missed a win here. :-((((
I wonder what would have happened in a rematch between these two players. |
|
Aug-05-06
 |
| meloncio: <PeligrosoPatzer> According to the book I have about the match, neither Alekhine nor Capablanca did suffer time trouble in this game, played October 11th. The book also says that 39. f2 was an unnecesary risk, because 39. f2 (with the unstoppable threat 40.c2), would have got the rook with no problem. |
|
| May-02-07 |
| Fast Gun: Ray Keene is featuring a series of Alekhine games in The Times chess column, this is one of them. He adds that Alekhine probably did not include
it as one of his best games because of the tactic that he allowed on move 21 and that Capablanca did not play, I can't believe that Capa did not even
consider Rxc5, he must have seen it but rejected the move:
Keene also adds that on move 17, b4 was stronger that Ne5 because it puts the black queen in danger and finally he adds that on move 39 Alekhine could have played Rf2 instead of Kf2 as Meloncio has rightly pointed out:
As for what would have happened in a rematch, we can only conjecture, but I believe that the real losers were the chess playing public of the World who denied the opportunity of being able to witness more classic games that would surely have found their way into the anthologies: |
|
May-02-07
 |
| Marmot PFL: This is strange. White's KN moves 5 times to trade for black's "bad bishop" with no evident advantage. Maybe it's psychology - it looks like Alekhine is playing for the draw so Capablanca goes to sleep. |
|
Oct-08-07
 |
| notyetagm: "Understanding Chess Tactics" by Martin Weteschnik, page 48: <Every undefended piece is a potential candidate for a pin> Position after 37 f2-f4!:
click for larger viewNow turn to "On My Great Predecessors, Part I", pages 390-391: <'This move, which deprives the black queen of the possibility of occupying a protected square on the e5-h8 diagonal, had been overlooked by Capablanca. The pin on the rook at c3, which Black was just about to resolve to his own advantage by ...  f6, threatening ... xe3, now becomes fatal to him.' (Alekhine)> This quote answers a question I have long held: how did Capablanca get caught in this terrible <PIN>? Here Alekhine provides the answer: Capablanca simply overlooked 37 f2-f4!. Now Capablanca (Black) is in a very bad situation. Since the Black b2-rook is <LOOSE> (one attacker: White b2-queen, one defender: Black e5-queen), the Black queen cannot lose contact with this rook without putting it en prise. Black was planning to release the <PIN> by playing ... e4-f6 and then <PIN-BREAKING> by <DISCOVERY (RUBBERBAND)> ... c3xe3!, shown below. (VAR) Capablanca's planned escape from the <PIN>:
click for larger viewBut with the White f4-pawn covering the e5-square and denying it to the Black queen, this <PIN-BREAKING> scheme fails, leaving Capablanca in a fatal <PIN>. |
|
Dec-10-07
 |
| moonrain: Alekhine himself offered 17. B:f6 B:f6 18. b4 in comments for the game. |
|
| Dec-12-07 |
| rusich: "Unfortunately, Alekhine had something quite different in mind." why unfortunately? |
|
| Dec-21-07 |
| M.D. Wilson: At this stage in the match, the pressure was having a greater effect on Capa than it was on Alekhine. Here, Alekhine shows why he was ready to challenge Capa for the title in 1927. Capa underestimated Alekhine and was largely outplayed, especially after their long series of draws. However, Capa's 3 wins, and some of the tight draws, were impressive as well. It's a shame a re-match didn't occur; Alekhine would have been even stronger, and Capa would not have approached the re-match with the same cavalier attitude. |
|
| Dec-21-07 |
| Petrosianic: This was Alekhine's worst win of the match. The only one of the 6 that he didn't think worth putting in <My Best Games of Chess>. Capa was probably reeling from his defeat in the hard fought Game 12, and just kind of dithers this game away. 34...Qc7 was pointless and just gets him in trouble for no reason. Still, the game is noteworthy, as it marks one of the very few times in his career that Capa lost 2 in a row. In fact, I can't think offhand of any other time it EVER happened. |
|
May-19-08
 |
| keypusher: <Petrosianic> The other I can think of is Rounds 7 and 8 of the final at St. Petersburg 1914; AVRO 1938 is another possibility. Of course, that's an extraordinary record. Lasker's record is also extraordinary: he lost two in a row at Hastings 1895 and two in a row to Capablanca himself, in 1921. But that was it until he was in his 60s. |
|
| May-19-08 |
| Petrosianic: Yeah, that's right. Capablanca-Tarrasch was the very next game, wasn't it?
I don't <think> he lost two in a row at A.V.R.O., but I'm not absolutely sure. |
|
May-19-08
|
| keypusher: <Petrosianic>
<Yeah, that's right. Capablanca-Tarrasch was the very next game, wasn't it?> Yes. Capa went on to beat Marshall and Alekhine in the last two rounds. <I don't [i]think[/i] he lost two in a row at A.V.R.O., but I'm not absolutely sure.> I checked <Benzol>'s AVRO tournament collection and you're right -- Capa did not lose two in a row there. |
|
May-19-08
|
| Calli: JRC's AVRO losses came in rds 6,9,11 and 14 - no consecutive losses. |
|
| May-19-08 |
| RookFile: I don't know if lopezexchange's line is forced, but it does appear that Capablanca missed an opportunity for some sort of advantage with 21... Rxc5. |
|
| May-10-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 41. Rc1!! is a great pin.
Capablanca had held the lead after 10 games in the match, but Alekhine overtook him, scoring victories in this one and game 11 |
|
| Aug-14-09 |
| WhiteRook48: pins! |
|
| Sep-03-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 37 f4 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
