|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-03-04 | | matein8: <Calli> I think that Capablanca probably analyzed your first variation <17...d4 18.Qc2 Rxc6 19.bxc6 dxc3 20.Bxc3 > and intuitively thought that he could not hold on to the c-pawn. As far as the quote by GK, I am sure that he did not even bother to analyze this line and that D. Plisetsky et al probably lifted the quote by Capablanca and attributed it to GK. Any time you see a famous person who writes a book, look for the collaborators mentioned and it was probably they who “ghostwrote” the book. I am sure the same thing happened with Fischer and the book, “Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess”. With “My 60 Memorable Games”, I’m sure it was Fischer’s own analysis (duh, it’s his games) but other than that, it was Larry Evans’ work. At least the exchanges that result from 17. Nxd5 are straightforward and easy to see: 17…BxN 18. BxB Nc5!(now the Q must leave the defense of the B) or 19. Qa2 NxB (and the Q cannot play QxN because of 20. Bxh2 (exchanging B for Q and a pawn)). |
 |
Jan-03-04
 | | Calli: <matein8> I think you are right about ghost writing, if thats the right term for this kind of thing. I don't even have OMGP, but probably a close reading of it will reveal which games GK was really interested in and which were filled in by his assistants. |
|
| Feb-13-04 | | ughaibu: Yes, I remember this game now. It is strange (and interesting) to claim this among one's best games and strange also for white to claim it as their game (but again interesting). |
|
Feb-13-04
 | | Benzol: <Calli> Do you remember Kibitzing on another version of this game? Capablanca vs Janowski, 1911
Now here's the rub. Which version is the correct one? Capablanca vs Janowski, 1911 |
|
Feb-14-04
| | Calli: lol - Memory is the second thing you lose and I don't remember the first. Actually there are three copies in the DB http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Looks like duplicates. I don't see any differences. |
|
Feb-14-04
 | | chessgames.com: This is the correct game score. We have a new program which lets us combine all of the kibitzing and game-collection entries when we find cases like this. Thanks. |
|
| Apr-19-04 | | dag: Cool game. What struck me the first time through was the breathtaking aplomb with which they tossed away their rooks--not something I'd do if I hoped to reach an endgame! And speaking of rooks, I've often thought you can predict the winner by who castles second (except when it's on the next move), particularly if there's a big discrepancy in lag time till the rook is actually used; here Janowsky waits 13 moves to use it, Capablanca only 2. (Isn't there a Morphy game where he castles his way to mate?) And at 24, ...Bxh2+ feels a little desperate, as if Black hasn't quite thought the whole thing through but senses an opportunity and doesn't want to lose it. All the odder, then, that he didn't see the "better" move at 53. |
|
| Aug-04-04 | | Tiamat: I'm curious, I've seen many things at 53, what about 52? Be5 (Dawid can't move his pawn up), Ne5, 53... Qg6, Ng6
54... B7 H2 55... B8 (Queen, check) most likely Nf8, 56. Qb7 (his pawn is taken no matter what, and puts him in check again when he does, and now its a knight & king & 2 pawns vs a queen king & a pawn -Kerry |
|
Aug-04-04
| | Calli: "54... B7 "
The pawn is on b5 if you are not playing 52.b6 No cheating! :-) |
|
| Aug-05-04 | | Tiamat: Yeah, I realized my mistake, but yesterday when I checked my comment wasn't here, so I thought oh good! no ridiculous mistake! Sorry about that. |
|
Dec-28-04
 | | vonKrolock: Capa reportedly admitted - i have not the original source of the quote - that he was "overplayed" in this game "for the first time" in his life... But he won - Janowski's mistakes, therefore, appears as something quite natural and comprehensive - moreover in this side of the Atlantic: Capablanca, as strong as Morphy was, would start his european campaigns at least as flamboyantly as Pillsbury started - whith a great Tournament victory: So, Jano's claudications - his instability was notorious - were simply necessary... A point that was, perhaps, already been discussed somewhere - but if it was not, it's worth some thoughts: The period 1911-13 was not the right moment for a Capablanca vs Rubinstein match? - the Polish GM was in his prime: Remember the series of impressive victories in the major Tournaments of 1912... Now that fantasy is already flying - imagine a Six Men Candidates Tournament around 1912 or 1913: Capa, Rubinstein, and further Schlechter, Tarrasch, Marshall respectively representing the leading Countries - Austria-Hungary, Germany and the USA (NOTE: Considering that Rubin was THE Russian) - and a sixth name to complete the field: Janowski or Teichmann - !? - to have still some name linked to the traditional centers - Paris and London - Yes, a short match would be in order: Janowski vs Teichmann (NOTE - This one was the winner of Karlsbad 1911) - the winner would join the Candidates... Lasker would have to accept a challenge for the first half of 1914: That's my proposition, i believe it's reasonable. I know, the Chess world awaited till 1914 for a major clash in Saint Petersburg (whithout Schlechter) - but it was a Tournament, not a Match-Tournament - and Lasker was there: If he arrived to win - and he won - an imediate 'match' for the World Championship could be delayied - and it was (moreover that 1914-18 was not a propice period to talk about great Chess battles) ... Then came 1919: Schlechter was dead, Rubinstein was a shadow of himself, Tarrasch and Janowski growing older, Lasker a fifty years old grey World Champion - Capablanca, Alekhine, Bogo, Nimzo and a few others the names for the 20's... <51...Qe1>? The point of 51...Qh1 52.Ka2 Ne5 is not only that 'b7' is defended, but also 'b8' by the Knight from 'd7' or 'c6', and - not least - that Qg2 is a strong threat - For instance: If 53.Nb2 - to avoid an exchange of Queens - then 53...h2! 54.Qd2 (the threat was 54...Qd5 etc) 54...Qf3!! 55.Qh2 Qb3 followed by c4-c3 etc |
|
| Jun-05-05 | | paladin at large: Excellent perspective above by <paulalbert> and <Calli> on this well known game. As has been pointed out, this was a subpar middle game performance by Capablanca. However, he was very proud of his endgame from move 55 on. (Janowski's chance to win is gone, as is his last chance for perpetual check.) It is a hair-raising position. My question is - what do the super computers say about his conduct of the endgame from move 55 on? |
|
Sep-16-05
 | | Averageguy: With the benfit of hindsight, black probably should have taken a draw. |
|
Jul-21-06
 | | CapablancaFan: Chernev said Janowski checked on the wrong square.53...Qe1+? Had Janowski played 53...Qh1+! It would have been very difficult for Capa to get out of that circumstance. |
|
| Nov-22-06 | | Bishops r power: Way!!!!!! i mean yayyyyyy!!! |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | Zorilla: OMG !!! 58. Ne4 that was a BEAUTIFUL MOVE. Amazing! |
|
Aug-31-07
| | Fast Gun: A full-bloodied game with action and plenty of incident, this colourful game was probably never truly credited as one of Capa's best games, because Janowski could have at least four forced draws by perpetual check, and missed a winning line on move 53:
Capa showed great skill and ingenuity to actually win this game, it reminds me of a boxer who is on the ropes and getting battered but somehow manages to stay on his feet, goes on to survive, then deliver a knockout blow at the end: Janowski must have felt sick and frustrated after this game, wondering how he managed to lose when he was on top for so long: Chess can be a cruel game !! |
|
Aug-31-07
| | CapablancaFan: <Fast Gun> Yeah, your right about this game. Janowski after the game still immediately didn't know where he went wrong. In one of Chernev's books I read years ago, he stated that it wasn't until he went upstairs and "other masters" had to show him where he went wrong. Janowski certainly had to be kicking himself when it was pointed out. Kudos to Cap, because as you said, he was against the ropes and fought back like a lion. |
|
Jul-08-08
 | | Ulhumbrus: Amongst other things which it may do, the manoeuvre 56 Nc5 prepares to play, according to Capablanca, the pair of moves 57 Qxc4+ and 58 Ne4 whereupon the Queen and Knight together control the "wall" of squares c2, d2, e2 and f2, preventing the Black Queen from giving any checks to the White King. |
|
Nov-19-09
 | | waustad: Why are you calling this a Colle System game? Yes, there is an early e3, but the typical c3, Bd3, Nbd2 leading to an eventual break with e4 is what I think of as the Colle System. |
|
Feb-07-10
 | | visayanbraindoctor: The endgame is remarkably difficult. Aside from the asymmetry, with both sides racing pawns on opposite sides of the board, it is also an open Queen endgame, which for humans are the most difficult to play. Technically, White is also two pawns down, but in endgames such as this material does not count as much as initiative and piece activity.
click for larger viewHow should White proceed?
(1) First he forces back Black's centralized Knight, thus reducing Black's piece activity. 55. b7 Nd7 56. Nc5 Nb8
click for larger view(2) White centralizes his pieces, thus increasing his piece activity with the aim of directly attacking the Black King; and picking up pawns in the process. 57. Qxc4 Kh8 58. Ne4 Kh7 59. Qd3
click for larger viewIt was characteristic of Capablanca that all his moves often just seemed to precisely fit in. Noticed how centralized his two remaining pieces are, and that they 'coincidentally' defend all the squares from which the Black Queen can check him. (3) A direct attack on the Black King with the final sting being to exchange off Black's Queen and Queen his advanced pawn. 
click for larger viewIn these types of endings, (in this particular case an asymmetric and open Queen ending) material and pawn weaknesses are not as important as dynamic piece activity and the initiative and the attack. In other words, Capablanca would play these endgames as though they were middlegames. |
|
Feb-07-10
 | | Boomie: Capa thought that 13. Be2 was bad. He said the bishop belongs on g2 here. But since this was his first tournament in Europe, he was reluctant to play a move like g3, which he thought would be criticized. Funny considering he was rated 4th in the world according to Chessmetrics. Of course, this rating was based almost solely on his match with his rabbi and sponsor, Frank Marshall. |
|
| Jun-09-12 | | thejack: 17.Nc6 fails to 17.-Rc6: 18.bc6: d4 19.Nd5 Bd5: 20.Bd5: Nc5! 21.Qa2 Nd5: (22.Qd5: Bh2:+) |
|
| Jan-04-13 | | chrisfalter: tarswelder provides an excellent, detailed analysis of the game on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEU... . However, you must understand French if you wish to benefit from the video. |
|
Jan-21-13
 | | Check It Out: <chrisfalter> Such a teaser. Great game, very historical. The comments, especially on page 1, detail some of the significance of this important game. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
