< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Aug-23-03|| ||offramp: It was brave of Duras to take on the World Chamion and his colleague in consultation! |
|Aug-23-03|| ||ughaibu: I thought Duras retired long before this(?) |
|Aug-23-03|| ||tud: Capa enjoyed "special" life in Moscow, that's why his results were not always bright. Here he helps a soviet player, when he could play blindfolded both. I guess it's the result of a bet, and only final 20 moves belong to Capablanca. It's just an opinion. |
|Aug-23-03|| ||ughaibu: Dus Chotimirsky was a reasonable player, at Saint Petersburg 1909 he was the only player to win against Rubinstein and the only one other than Rubinstein to win against Lasker. |
|Mar-09-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: <I thought Duras retired long before this> Yes, he retired from competitive international chess after WWI due to his profession of government official. But he did not stop to be interested in chess, although he occupied himself with chess composition in particular and played quite rarely. |
|Mar-09-04|| ||Calli: Anyone know the source of this game? I have looked at my Capablanca CD with 1200 known games and it is not there. |
|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
[White "Dus-Chotimirsky, Fedor Ivanovich"]
[Black "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
<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!
|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.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·