< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Feb-24-06|| ||McCool: Maybe this guy.
|Feb-24-06|| ||Calli: The notes have the name of the annotator attached.|
|Feb-24-06|| ||twinlark: Having just recently played through Dus Chotimirsky vs Capablanca, 1925, I'm struck by the similarity of the Queen Bishop orchestrating attacks on both wings from d7.|
|Mar-26-06|| ||epiglottis5: Regarding 4...Bf5, see the website below. It has very informative analysis.|
|Mar-26-06|| ||who: from the link provided by <epiglottis5>. |
<A further point: Why do I know this? Even in 1977, well before computers and Chessbase, I knew exactly how bad my opponent’s move was – and the reason I knew was simple: I was the stronger player! I had done my opening analysis; I had studied books on the Slav Defense; I had read the footnotes as to why 4…Bf5 was bad, and I remembered them.>
So Yermolinsky is wrong about there being no opening theory on 4...Bf5.
|Aug-08-06|| ||Notagm: What if white had played 34. Rc1 (instead of Ra1), to keep black's bishop out of c2 and e4?|
|Aug-08-06|| ||Calli: <Notagm> if 34.Rc1 then Rxf4+!|
|Feb-08-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <Notagm: What if white had played 34. Rc1 (instead of Ra1), to keep black's bishop out of c2 and e4?>|
<Calli: <Notagm> if 34.Rc1 then Rxf4+!>
<Calli>'s post highlights a neat tactic, however, after 34. Rc1 Rxf4+, the game can continue 35. Nxf4 (35. Kxf4 Bg5+ leaves Black clearly better) Rxg1 36.Ne2, after which the position seems essentially equal, so 34. Rc1 would have been an improvement over the obvious 34. Ra1 (posting the Rook on an open file, but allowing the invasion of Black's LSB).
|Feb-08-09|| ||keypusher: <Who>
<<A further point: Why do I know this? Even in 1977, well before computers and Chessbase, I knew exactly how bad my opponent’s move was – and the reason I knew was simple: I was the stronger player! I had done my opening analysis; I had studied books on the Slav Defense; I had read the footnotes as to why 4…Bf5 was bad, and I remembered them.
So Yermolinsky is wrong about there being no opening theory on 4...Bf5.>
But why is 4....Bf5 is in the footnotes? Because that is where they put the "don't play this" lines. Later on in your link:
<After Capa’s lucky escape, the writing appeared on the wall, in the game Johner-Nisson from 1920. There White played the correct 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3, and killed Black. (P F Johner vs A Nilsson, 1920)
Check out some statistics: I looked this line up on Chessbase.com. The first seven games played with this line (White playing correctly, starting with Johner-Nilsson) give us six White wins, and Black scored one measly draw.>
In short, 4....Bf5 is a thoroughly crappy move. That was Yermo's point.
<who: <acirce> regarding Capa never playing this again see Spielmann vs Capablanca, 1928 and Lasker vs Capablanca, 1921.>
In the Spielmann game, after 5. cxd5 Capablanca played the superior 5....Nxd5 instead of 5....exd5, and Spielmann failed to find Nd2 and e4. In the Lasker game, White had played e3, after which ...Bf5 is perfectly fine. In fact, Capa's own annotations point out that e3 makes ...Bf5 possible. Looks like he had learned his lesson.
|Aug-30-09|| ||birthtimes: Here's some of what Capa himself had to say about this game...|
After 6. Qxb6, "cxd5 is better. The text move leaves Black with a perfectly safe game. In fact, I prefer Black's game after the [queen] exchange."
After 10...Bd7, "Black's plan consists in advancing the b6 pawn in due time and posting a knight at c4. White will then be compelled to take it off, and Black will retake with the b-pawn, undoubling his pawns and increasing the pressure against White's QR and b-pawn."
After 11. Be2, "Bb5 is better, since it would hinder Black's plan."
After 15...Na5, "This move was made stronger through White's previous move, which was weak."
After 18...Nc4, "Black's first plan is completed. White will now have to take the knight, and Black's only weakness, the doubled b-pawn, will become a source of great strength at c4. Now for two or three moves Black will devote his time to improving the general strategic position of his pieces before evolving a new plan, this time a plan of attack against White's position."
After 19. Bxc4, "White takes...probably for two reasons: first, he wants to play e4 immediately, and second, he thinks that the knight will probably be stronger in this position, which is somewhat blocked, to use the technical term."
After 22...b5, "Black has already established his position; there is no longer any danger and his pieces are all well posted. It is, therefore, time to evolve a plan of attack, which in this case will be to fix as many White pieces as possible on the queen's side by threatening b4, then somewhat to break up the king's side through g5, and then through the greater mobility of the rooks to occupy the open g-file. When this is accomplished, Black will then be threatening White's position through the king's side, and at the same time will always maintain the threat of b4."
After move 31...Rag8, "Black is now ready to reap the reward for his well-developed plan. All that is now needed to incline the balance in his favor is to bring the bishop at d7 to bear pressure against White's position."
"If 33. Bxb4 Bxb4 34. axb4 h5 threatening to advance the pawn, and Black should win."
After 34. Ra1, "This makes matters easy for Black. He should have played Rc8.
From "My Chess Career" by J.R. Capablanca, 1966, pp. 153-157.
|Aug-30-09|| ||birthtimes: "Let’s go back a couple of moves and think what Black would do in case of a little move transposition, 5.cxd5 cxd5 (5..Nxd5!? is what Black probably has to do, but White must be doing well after 6.Nd2, followed by e4)...There’s no modern theory after 4..Bf5?, because it’s a bad move and nobody would play it any more. Capa himself must have figured it out pretty quickly, as I don’t know of any other games of his played with this variation."|
Looks like Yermolinsky didn't do his homework...
OK Alex, we'll let you off the hook this time...try Spielmann-Capablanca, Berlin, 1928. The first nine moves are as follows...
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Bf5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. e3 e6 7. Bd3 Bb4 8. Qc2 Bxd3 9. Qxd3 Qa5
Now, if 6. Nd2 Nf6 7. e4 I suspect Capa would play 7...Bg6. If 8. Qb3 Capa would probably play 8...Qb6 with Nbd7 and e6 to follow.
|Jan-30-10|| ||KingG: <Now, if 6. Nd2 Nf6 7. e4 I suspect Capa would play 7...Bg6.> Yeah, and he would have had a bad position.|
|May-21-10|| ||GMMandetowitch: This game is a model example of the "principle of two weaknesses".Black combines the attack on both flanks to finally break through white's defence.Great game by Capa,altough 4-...Bf5 is nowadays considered a weak move,because 5-cxd5! and 6-Qb3!|
|May-21-10|| ||tpstar: <Joao> That's great how you love chess and are using this site to improve. Please consider kibitzing under a different username, as we aren't supposed to call ourselves "GM" unless we have earned that title. See you around. =)|
|Nov-05-10|| ||xombie: This is a game of such undiluted joy. Perfectly illustrates the principle of multiple weaknesses and piece activation - with the obvious but very impressive pawn sac to activate bishop. This is perhaps my evergreen favorite, along with Capablanca-Tartakower. The rook jabs from side to side has been well noted by chessgames.|
|Nov-17-10|| ||timothee3331: Wouldn't 27....gxf4 ? be a better move. Now 28.gxf4 is forced.
While instead of 28.Kf3 ? There could be 28.Ng2! gxf4 ?! 29.Nxf4!|
|Feb-12-11|| ||kingscrusher: I have video annotated this great positional game here:|
|Apr-15-12|| ||Derived: So instructive.|
|Mar-24-13|| ||Karpova: After 21.e5
click for larger view
Neil McDonald: <It is when you see a leading grandmaster of 1916 play such a move that you appreciate the debt we owe to Capablanca and other pioneers of positional chess such as Rubinstein. Janowski thinks he is gaining space in the centre, but in reality with this and his next move he is creating a mass of dead wood in the centre that can be chopped down with ...g7-g5.>
From page 83 of Neil McDonald 'Chess Secrets - The Giants of Strategy', 2007, Everyman chess
|Jan-02-14|| ||onam: Better was the maneuver 35: Ra7 and 38:Bh4 winning the e7 bishop , bad luck for Janowski, who see this maneuver two moves after when is too late.|
|Jan-02-14|| ||keypusher: <karpova>
<Neil McDonald:> <It is when you see a leading grandmaster of 1916 play such a move that you appreciate the debt we owe to Capablanca and other pioneers of positional chess such as Rubinstein. Janowski thinks he is gaining space in the centre, but in reality with this and his next move he is creating a mass of dead wood in the centre that can be chopped down with ...g7-g5.>
We've learned a lot in the last hundred years, but I think even in 1916 people could see 21.e5 was an awful move. It's not like they hadn't heard of bad bishops. At the time Vidmar apparently pointed out 21.ef ef 22.f4 followed by Nf3 and Ne5, as has already been posted by other kibitzers.
<onam: Better was the maneuver 35: Ra7 and 38:Bh4 winning the e7 bishop , bad luck for Janowski, who see this maneuver two moves after when is too late.>
If you mean 35.Ra7 and 36.Bh4, I don't think that is playable: 36....Rxh4 37.Nxh4 Rxg1.
|Sep-26-14|| ||Bronder: Capablanca's 10th move!
He is so in charge of this game, and this is especially so when it looks as if he is not. White's attacks are like a day-dream that Capablanca casts in front of Janowski's eyes.
|Dec-01-14|| ||nikrj: 10... Bd7!!
One of the deepest moves ever!
Capablanca was a genius!
|Feb-09-15|| ||GoldenBird: 4...Bf5?Is this a joke? After 1.d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bf5?! is met by 5. cxd5! cxd5 6. Qb3, when black must move his bishop back to c8 to achieve a decent position|
|Feb-09-15|| ||GoldenBird: Also, if 5....Nxd5 6. Qb3 Qb6? 7. Nxd5! wins|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·