|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-17-04
 | | Gypsy: This must be a misassigned game: Duz Chotimirsky-Capablanka, Moskow 1925. Sadly, Duras was indeed retired by then.
At his prime, 1906-1912, Duras ranked somewhere 4-th to 6-th in the World---about tied with Schlechter and Maroczy, following the trio of Lasker, Rubinstein, and Capablanca, but leading such greats as Tarrash, Mashall, Janowski, Bernstein, Nimzowich, Spielmann, Vidmar, Mieses, Teichmann, Tartakover, and others. Duras was one of the most talented tactical players of all times, tough like nails, he was a kind of early-day Korchnoy. Capa could play blindfolded with anyone, but Duras was ammong the few he respected. Capa's understanding of chess was higher, but in terms of fantasy and calculation power Duras was probably near equal: For instance, in Duras-Swiderski, Wienna 1908, Duras anounced and delivered to his stunned oponed oponent a mate-in-12. |
 |
| Mar-18-04 | | Lawrence: <Gypsy>, you're right, this is round 12 of the Moscow 1925 tournament, Duz-Chotimirsky vs Capablanca. (Source: "Chess Stars") |
|
Mar-18-04
 | | Calli: Chessgames: correct header info
[Event "?"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1925.11.25"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Dus-Chotimirsky, Fedor Ivanovich"]
[Black "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A48"]
<Lawrence> & <Gypsy> Thanks! |
|
| Jul-12-04 | | Whitehat1963: Capablanca puts Dus-Chotimirsky in full-retreat mode from the opening onward, winning easily. |
|
Feb-24-06
 | | twinlark: Capablanca's two pawn sacs in this game are astonishing. The first in particular (11...c4!!!) is an ultra-grandmaster move. There is no tangible return in the foreseeable future, its purpose being to simply and gradually tie white's pieces into knots. The second pawn sac applies the garrot to an increasingly restricted position. It's noteworthy how Capablanca eschews obvious responses such as 12...Nxe4 (13.Re1) , relying on 12...Nc5 to pile on the pressure (threatening 13...Rd8 and 14...Ne4). . The way Capablanca gradually coils around his opponent's position is mesmeric and wonderfully illustrated with the preparatory two rook pawn moves at moves 16 annd 17 which seem to say: "you ain't going nowhere rabbit!" From here the switch of focus between the Queen and King wings makes it hard to work out which side he's really aiming at. The second pawn sac with 29...b3 initiates a series of pins which crush the life out of White's position, winning the exchange on d1 via the decisive breakthrough on the Queenside. And then White's last two pieces die on the pin right next to his King! Absolutely awesome. |
|
| Feb-24-06 | | euripides: Occasionally Capablanca looked more prescient than Alekhine in the opening lines he explored. The KID was fashionable for a time in the 1920s, but then fell into some disrepute until the 1940s. But I don't know if people realised how dynamically Black could play. Here Capablanca shows the dynamic potential in a way that reminds me of Kasparov: Shirov vs Kasparov, 1992 . It's a remarkable idea even if <tud> is right that Capablanca would not usually have played it. This is another game omitted from Golombek's book on Capablanca: but then Golombek announces in that book (1946 or so, I think) that the KID is no good. |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | paladin at large: <twinlark> Nice observations. In fact, Capablanca won the third brilliancy prize for this game. Winter calls it a masterpiece of complexity and notes that Purdy in 1942 called it "one of the most remarkable masterpieces in modern chess". |
|
Mar-24-06
| | twinlark: <paladin at large> Yet it's a relatively unknown game by Capa. Quite extraordinary. |
|
| May-04-06 | | whatthefat: This is a really fascinating game, it surely deserves more attention. Capablanca's idea here with 12...Nc5 is immense. Unfortunately, the plan requires his opponent's aid with 13.Qe2?!, since 13.Ncxe5! seems to refute it. Nonetheless, the rest of the game is highly instructive. |
|
May-04-06
| | twinlark: <whatthefat>
Don't all plans need the opponents' aid to succeed?
|
|
| May-04-06 | | whatthefat: <twinlark>
I suppose they do, yes, but here white actually seems to enjoy a significant advantage after 13.Ncxe5. |
|
May-05-06
| | Calli: After 13.Ncxe5 Nh5 is a complex position For instance, 14.b4 Ne6 leaves the Queenside weaker or 14.Ng4 Rd8 is also unclear. |
|
| May-06-06 | | whatthefat: <Calli>
It's true, there are big complications, so perhaps I'm being too pessimistic about black's compensation. Following 13.Ncxe5 Nh5 14.b4 Ne6 I looked into 15.Ng4, since black didn't look to me to have compensation for the material after 15...Rd8 16.Ra3 Nhf4 17.c4. By continuing 17...a5! with ...Nc5 to follow however, black does seem to stand okay. If so, then Capablanca's 12...Nc5!? is truly magnificent, and the game is a genuine masterpiece. |
|
May-06-06
| | twinlark: Thanks for that guys, I was starting to feel disillusioned about the extent to which computers are trashing old masterpieces. This is one of my favourite games. The other is Reti vs Alekhine, 1925. Apparently LMAJ's computer analysis has shown that Alekhine's 26...Re3!! is more like 26...Re3!!? |
|
May-06-06
| | twinlark: Or maybe more like 26...Re3?!!! |
|
| May-06-06 | | Mateo: <twinlark: It's noteworthy how Capablanca eschews obvious responses such as 12...Nxe4 (13.Re1)> Well, I do not see why 12... Nc5 (!?) is better than 12... Ne4. After 13. Re1 f5 14. Be4 fe, it is nearly equal. Now : 1) 15. Re4?! Nf6 16. Nce5 Ne4 17. Qd5 Kh8 18. Qe4 Bf5  . White has 2 pawns for the exchange, but Black has the Bishop pair and is better developped. 2) 15. Qd5 Kh8 16. Nfd2!  , White has a small edge.
|
|
| May-06-06 | | Mateo: After 12... Nc5!? 13. Nce5 Nh5! (Calli's suggestion is better than 13... Rd8 14. Bg5 h6 15. Bf4, White seems to have a better position) 14. b4 Ne6 15. Nc4 . White won 2 pawns, but it is quiet unclear. Maybe that's as good as 12... Ne4, but as I said previously I do not see why it is better. |
|
| May-06-06 | | Mateo: 30. Nb3?! cannot be good. 29... b3! was a Greek gift, as after 30. Nb3 Ba4, there is a double pin. Better seems 30. Qc3 Rab8 31. c5 . |
|
May-07-06
| | Calli: Capablanca's speculative play here is probably due to his poor standing in the tournament. Capablanca scored only 5½ in the first 11 rounds of this tournament (2 wins 2 wins 7 draws). Starting with this game in Rd 12, he finished with 7 wins and 2 draws, but still could not catch Bogoljubow. |
|
| May-07-06 | | RookFile: Any way you look at it, it was dumb of white to play e3, then e4, in the opening. |
|
| Sep-21-06 | | RookFile: But, Capablanca's play must be considered as completely modern, decades ahead of his time. This is an awesome game. |
|
Dec-12-11
 | | visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: Capablanca's two pawn sacs in this game are astonishing. The first in particular (11...c4!!!) is an ultra-grandmaster move. There is no tangible return in the foreseeable future, its purpose being to simply and gradually tie white's pieces into knots. The second pawn sac applies the garrot to an increasingly restricted position.> This is another relatively unknown Capablanca masterpiece. That ultra-grandmaster move is something that hardly anyone at all would even think of, or actually make, both in Anderssen's time or today. There was no threat to black, nor is he threatening anything, and there is no immediate return of dividends within the horizon; and so at least 99% of chess players would probably continue playing 'normally' without the sac. It is a pawn sacrifice with some positional compensation, but it does not lead to a won game. It does inject more dynamism in the position so as to enable Black to increase his chances to play for a win. This game reminds me of the more famous Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1914. It's surprising that there are present-day chess fans who have the wrong notion that the positional sacrifice is a post WW2 phenomenon. They see one being played in the internet, and exclaim it has raised chess to a higher level (presumably compared to past games such as this). They just could either be ignorant or biased. |
|
Dec-13-11
| | visayanbraindoctor: I have been wondering what specific positional advantages does the 1st pawn sac obtain. I now think it's a clearance sacrifice in order to increase piece activity.
click for larger view11... c4
click for larger view12. Nxc4
click for larger viewThree things have changed:
1. The c-file is now half open for black to exploit with his rooks and queen. Later on Capa does this 28... Rdc8, but only on the 28th move when it is more effective to do so. 
click for larger view2. Th c5 square is now vacant for Black's knight. Capa in fact occupies it with his next move 12... Nc5, 
click for larger viewand then exchanges off White's light squared bishop, allowing him to later exploit the weakness of White's weak Queenside light squares. note the position after 30... Ba4 
click for larger view3. The a3-f8 diagonal is suddenly opened for his KID g7 dark squared bishop to occupy. In the King's Indian Defense, the g7 bishop is a positional problem, and often in games that black wins, black succeeds in activating this bishop, either via the c1-h6 or the a3-f8 diagonals, or by opening the center (even if it means sacking a pawn or two). Note the position after 31... Bb4
click for larger viewBoth bishops have now been activated and are raking White's Queenside. Capa naturally had to do another clearance pawn sac to do this 29... b3 
click for larger viewbut it's worth it.
Also note how Capa makes sure his king knight is activated. As is typical of KID positions, he jumps it to h5 (22... Nh5), hitting the f4 square which it later occupies 25... Nf4. 
click for larger viewDus Chotimirsky drives it back with 32. g3, but Capa simply retreats it to e6 where it now watches the weak d4 central square. |
|
Dec-13-11
| | visayanbraindoctor: 
click for larger viewAt this point, Black is two pawns down, but just look at at the relative values of the pieces! All of Black's pieces are activated, occupying important files and diagonals and controlling important central squares. White's pieces are getting in each other's way, and control nearly zero important files, diagonals, and central squares. If we compare each black piece with its counterpart white one, each of the black pieces has more scope and control more important squares than its white counterpart. In the above position, Black's bishops are not just valued at 3, each of them has attained a value of at least 3.5. His rooks may each have a value of 5.5. His Queen 9.5. On the other hand, White's knights probably have been devalued to 2.5 each. His rooks to 4.5 each. His Queen to 8.5 Capablanca's chess mind seemed to have worked this way. He did not see a Queen as always being valued at 9, his rook at 5, his bishop or knight at 3. He always assigned values to them based on their activity. For such a chess mind, making sound sacrifices becomes seconds nature. It's why Alekhine praised Capa's sacrifices as always correct and sound. |
|
Dec-13-11
| | visayanbraindoctor: An addition: There are King's Indian Defense variations in which White exchanges off central pawns, thus opening the d-file. This game seems to be a good model for black KID players on how to handle such partially open formations- activating pieces, especially the g7 bishop, and controlling the central dark squares with one's knight. Here Capa shows a pawn sac may be worth the above; and even if it does not give a clearly won position black induces problems for white to solve and increases his chances to play for a win. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
