< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|May-06-07|| ||goldenbear: ianD: Botvinnik-Tal, the rematch.|
|May-06-07|| ||goldenbear: I think 15.exd4 is also very strong.|
|Aug-21-07|| ||Cactus: Why not take the pawn on move forty?|
|Aug-21-07|| ||Benzol: <Cactus:> <Why not take the pawn on move forty?>|
After 40...xa4 41.d8 sets up some nasty threats. 42.h8# is one.
41...a1+ 42.h2 g5 43.h8+ g6 44.g8+ f5 45.g4+ e4 46.e8+ d5 47.e5+ d6 48.c5+ d7 49.e7+ d8 50.c7# is one way.
|Sep-03-07|| ||Dr. Siggy: TARRASCH'S RULE: - "In complicated Rook endings the most important rule is one laid down by the author: The Rook's place is BEHIND the passed pawn; behind the enemy one in order to hold it up, behind one's own in order to support its advance" (Dr. Tarrasch, "The Game of Chess", english transl., London 1934, pages 57-9).|
PROOFS: - From <Alekhine vs Capablanca, World Championship Match, Buenos Aires 1927, 34th and final game>, after 53... Ra6:
I. "The Rook's place is BEHIND one's own passed pawn". - [N.B.: As in this game] - 54. Ra4! and so on.
II. "The Rook's place is BEHIND the enemy passed pawn". - [N.B.: Placing White's Rook at a7 and Black's Rook at a2] - "The weaker party can usually make such an endgame a draw but it must play energetically for counter-attack" (Dr. Tarrasch). - 1. a6 Kf6 2. Kf3 h5 3. Ke3 (after 3. Ke4 Rxf2 4. Kd5 Ra2! 5. Kc6 Kf5 6. Kb7 Kg4 7. Rf8 Kxg3 8. a7 Kxh4 9. Rxf7 g5 10. a8Q Rxa8 11. Kxa8 g4, White wins the Black Rook but may lose the game) Kf5 4. f3 Ra3+ 5. Kd4 Rxf3 6. Rf8 (better than 6. Kc5 Ra3 7. Kb6 Kg4) Ra3 7. Rxf7+ Kg4 8. Rf6 Kxg3 9. Rxg6+ Kxh4 (the material is even, but Black's defensive task is still hard because of the unfortunate position of its King) 10. Kc5 Kh3 11. Kb6 h4 (Black must push its passed pawn as fast as possible) 12. Rg5 Rxa6+ (the simplest, although 12... Ra2 also draws: 13. Ra5 Rxa5 14. Rxa5 h3 15. a7 Rg1 16. a8Q h2) 13. Kxa6 Kh2 14. Kb5 h3 15. Kc4 Kh1 16. Kd3 h2 17. Ke2 and stalemate (analysis by Y. Averbakh).
|Mar-02-08|| ||Knight13: One of those "Basic Chess Endings" by Reuben Fine positions. Black had rook in front of the pawn so he lost.|
|Mar-10-08|| ||SBGiffy: Can someone demonstrate the win after 60... Rxa5? . If rooks are exchanged the black king gets to e8 in time to save the f pawn after which I cannot see how white wins. I've seen another site which actually give the move as 60. Rb2+ which makes more sence to me... black king then cannot take on a5 as after Ra2+ the rooks are exchanged and now white king is 1 move closer to the f7 pawn and will win it. Is white's 60th here correct?!|
|Mar-11-08|| ||Calli: <black king gets to e8> Then just advance f4-f5 and White will win a pawn.|
|Apr-07-08|| ||Whitehat1963: Is 23. Qa5 the winning move, then? Or is 23...Nc4 the losing move? At what point do the engines say the advantage was gained? At what point might Capa have recaptured the initiative?|
|Mar-05-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Alekhine deserved to win the match because he simply outplayed Capablanca. Capa's biggest mistake was underestimating Alekhine, a mistake I'm sure he would not have repeated during a re-match. Alekhine played at an exceptional level after he won the title for a 4 or 5 year period where he reached an atmospheric peak in performance, thus raising the bar to new, unseen heights. For a period he simply "destroyed" opponents, treating everyone like patzers, even the great Nimzowitsch. However, Capablanca played chess as if it were his mother tongue. Perhaps it could be argued that Alekhine won more brilliant games, whereas Capablanca won more "brilliantly", by virtue of his pure style, which shunned all that was unnecessary and gratuitous OTB. Although Alekhine thoroughly deserves to be regarded as an artist, Capablanca, the chess technician, brought his own, perhaps deeper vision of art, into the game.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Petrosianic: <Alekhine deserved to win the match because he simply outplayed Capablanca.>|
Actually, their overall level of play seemed to be about the same, but Capablanca missed more opportunities, the worst of which was blowing the win on the last move of Game 27. Alekhine didn't do things like that.
<Alekhine played at an exceptional level after he won the title for a 4 or 5 year period where he reached an atmospheric peak in performance, thus raising the bar to new, unseen heights. For a period he simply "destroyed" opponents, treating everyone like patzers, even the great Nimzowitsch.>
Well, Capablanca did the same his whole career. +5-0=6 against Nimzo, +5-0=2 against Bogolubov. Arguing about who won more brilliantly versus more technically doesn't mean much. The real bottom line is that Alekhine had no confidence in his ability to repeat the feat, and went down in history as The Guy Who Avoided Capablanca. Considering the way he was playing in 1930-1931, it's quite possible that he cheated himself rather than Capa.
<However, Capablanca played chess as if it were his mother tongue.>
I have the strangest feeling I've heard that analogy somewhere before. I'm not sure how much I think of it, though. I've heard lots of people butcher their mother tongue.
|Mar-06-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: <Considering the way he was playing in 1930-1931, it's quite possible that he cheated himself rather than Capa.> How true.|
|Mar-06-09|| ||ughaibu: It's rather well established that Alekhine agreed to a match in this period.|
|Mar-14-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: I don't think these guys played the QGD nearly enough in this match! :)|
|May-10-09|| ||WhiteRook48: are you crazy? 33 of them were Queen's Gambits! and 32 of them were declined! Just joking :)
Alekhine then refused a rematch, and they were bitter enemies until the end. Sad story|
|Aug-03-09|| ||WhiteRook48: final curtain|
|Aug-14-09|| ||WhiteRook48: where did Capablanca fail?|
|Mar-24-10|| ||The Rocket: One of the greatest games of all time to win the endgame a pawn up took great skills!|
Alekhine was not only a monster tactician but also at very strong endgame player, which the instructional chessbooks also mentions.
|Nov-22-10|| ||immikhailtal: ahhhh....
rooks belong behind passed pawns!
|Feb-26-12|| ||RookFile: As soon as Capa played 13.... Nb6 and Alekhine played 14. Ba2, you knew this wasn't going to be easy for black at all.
Should black have preferred 13.... b6?|
|Apr-25-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Extensive analysis of Black’s 56th move (specifically considering <56. … Kd5><!?> as an alternative to Capablanca’s actual <56. … h5>) was published by Karsten Müller (with attribution to Erich Körber
of Germany) here: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/muell...|
The idea of <56. ... Kd5><!?> is to avoid weakening the g5-square and the entire dark-square complex on the K-side that Alekhine’s King uses as a route of entry in the actual game continuation. (The conclusion of the above-linked analysis is that White still wins.)
|Aug-16-12|| ||csmath: Engine analysis shows that Capablanca made a decisive error in 26th move with Nc4. Had he played 26. ... Nd3 the balance would stay. |
Practically this move is hard to see and while it is dynamic it escapes to a mortal over the board. While everybody was praising Capablanca like a machine it seems to me Alekhine played here like a machine. Capa had clumsily places knight on b6 and extraordinary vision was required to get out of that. He did not have that here being already tired.
Too bad that they did not play a return match as after going through all of their encounters I believe that would have been extraordinary match of equally matched champions. Alekhine of 1929 without alcohol and prepared Capa would have given something special. I think they both did not want to play against each other even though usually only Alekhine is blamed for that.
|Jul-11-13|| ||jinmin: Beaten at his own game!|
|Sep-14-13|| ||thegoodanarchist: This should be a GOTD. The pun? "Eating Raul", for cinema buffs.|
|Jul-06-14|| ||Bowen Island: In Hellsten's "Mastering Chess Strategy" this game is given in his notes, on page 96, as an example of how to exchange pieces to improve one's (in this case White's) position.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·