< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jun-09-09|| ||ughaibu: One of the interesting things is that all the players' months are numerals, except Fischer. Why's that then?|
|Jun-09-09|| ||keypusher: <ughaibu: One of the interesting things is that all the players' months are numerals, except Fischer. Why's that then?>|
No doubt my subconscious was trying to extend Fischer's tenure by three characters.
|Jun-11-09|| ||FSR: Note that Tarrasch was #2 in 111 different months between 1890 and 1906, but could never surpass Lasker - http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Play... In terms of longevity, Lasker's most amazing performance has to be Moscow 1935: undefeated at age 66, half a point behind co-winners Botvinnik and Flohr, half a point ahead of Capablanca, whom he beat nicely. Fine wrote that the papers rightly called Lasker's performance "a biological miracle."|
|Jun-11-09|| ||FSR: I am reminded of this quote by Edward Lasker (Chess Secrets, p. 168):|
"After this game Mieses good-naturedly offered me a bet that he would gain a higher place in the tournament than I. Like every other chess master whose age approaches the half century mark, he did not realize that twenty-five years is an almost impossible handicap to give another master who is anywhere near the same class. I accepted the bet and won it . . . ."
Emanuel Lasker gave Capablanca odds of 20 years, and finished ahead of him in tournaments in 1914, 1924, 1925, and 1935. Only in 1936, at age 67, did he falter. Lasker also did well against Alekhine (+3-1 in decisive games, as I recall). Against Euwe he was +3=0-0.
|Jun-29-09|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Capa's weak opening play is almost as horrible and inexplicable as White's in Chigorin vs Janowski, 1895|
|Jan-22-10|| ||JG27Pyth: Good lord the kibitzing on this game is absurd. No one seems to want to give credit to Verlinsky for playing magnificently here!|
|Jan-22-10|| ||keypusher: <JG27Pyth: Good lord the kibitzing on this game is absurd. No one seems to want to give credit to Verlinsky for playing magnificently here!>|
With 14...Bb5 Verlinsky could have trapped Capablanca's queen. If you have the White pieces and your queen is doomed after 14 moves, you have played horribly, no matter what your opponent has done.
I am amazed Capablanca was able to drag the game out so long, frankly.
|Apr-23-10|| ||keypusher: <Among the non-champs Keres' 17-year span is as much of an outlier than Lasker's 36 years among the champs.>|
I have corrected myself elsewhere, but Keres was never #1 on the chessmetrics list -- the 17 year gap was his first and last appearance as #2. Pretty stupid mistake on my part.
|Jun-23-10|| ||WhiteRook48: 14...Bb5 how does that trap the queen? all it seems to do is lose a piece|
|Jun-24-10|| ||keypusher: <Catfriend> Don't know if this fits in your collection -- Verlinsky missed 14...Bb5, trapping his great opponent's queen, then sacrificed his own!|
|Jun-25-10|| ||WhiteRook48: oh i see it now.|
|Mar-06-12|| ||Lambda: <In terms of longevity, Lasker's most amazing performance has to be Moscow 1935>|
That wouldn't be the obvious choice if judging by Chessmetrics; it's a 2707 performance at the age of 66, while Korchnoi at Sarajevo 1998 has a 2761 performance at the age of 67. (Although of course he has many more "tries" at it.) The great age-outlying performance for Lasker would be New York 1924 with 2828 at the age of 55. I don't think there are any other 2800+ performances by anyone over 50.
|Mar-06-12|| ||maxi: Did Capa really give a simultaneous display the same day he played Verlinsky? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the day of the display he had been driven in a car for many hours. Does anybody know?|
|Mar-06-12|| ||brankat: Capablanca must have had a pretty bad day :-) Verlinsky, on the other hand, played a fine game.|
|Mar-06-12|| ||brankat: <They more or less kissed and made up at Saint Petersburg 1914, but then that idiot Gavrilo Princip went and did something that postponed the match another 7 years.>|
Apparently "the idiot" was not concerned with the prospect of Lasker-Capa match. Just how selfish can one be?
|Mar-06-12|| ||Pawn and Two: <maxi> In "The Unknown Capablanca", by David Hooper and Dale Brandreth, they tell of the simultaneous exhibition you are asking about.|
<On a free day during the Moscow 1925 tournament Capablanca travelled all the way to Leningrad to give a display against thirty first-category players; after a gruelling five and a half hours of play he scored +18 -4 =8, and then he travelled back.>
The date of the exhibition was Nov. 20, 1925, and one of Capablanca's losses, was to fourteen year old M.Botvinnik.
The next day in the Moscow tournament, Capablanca lost to Verlinski.
According to one site I checked, the distance between Leningrad (Now St. Petersburg), and Moscow is 370 some miles by air, and 390 some miles by road or rail.
Hooper and Brandreth did not indicate Capablanca's mode of travel, but my guess it would have been by rail.
Even today, many trains take 7 or 8 hours to make this trip. Perhaps Capablanca took an over-night train, at least on his way to Leningrad, but even that was probably not too restful of a ride.
The long trip, gruelling display, and then disasterous loss to Verlinski, should have been a reminder to Capablanca, that even he was subject to the need for rest and preparation.
|Mar-06-12|| ||maxi: Dear <Pawn and Two>, thank you for the quotation. I don't have that book, but will try to get it. I don't know where I heard about the long journey. So he traveled for about 16 hours and played tough opponents for 5 1/2 hours. Some preparation for a tournament! But he could never figured it out, you know, he could never quite believe he was human. The realization, coming sometime near the end, must have been terrible and overwhelming. If it ever happened...|
|Mar-07-12|| ||King Death: < Jonathan Sarfati: Capa's weak opening play is almost as horrible and inexplicable as White's in Chigorin vs Janowski, 1895>|
This was the thought that went through my mind when playing this game out. Capa had a rare rough day.
|Mar-07-12|| ||Penguincw: Black just demolished white's queenside.|
|Apr-01-13|| ||The Rocket: Capablanca- Greatest player of all time? Not quite...|
|Jul-25-13|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: Capa was probably hungover in this game.|
|Jul-25-13|| ||RookFile: Long tournament with a lot of tough guys. He was probably just tired. A guy like Rubinstein put up a minus score in this event - just one illustration of the strength of the field.|
|Aug-14-14|| ||Albion 1959: To Kangaroo - Shadow 812 does not say or infer that Verlinsky or any other Russian masters were patzers. The simple statement was that this the worse game by Capablanca in tournament career. He got into a mess in the opening and should have lost as early as move 14! - This was a poor and weak effort from Capablanca, though I am of the opinion that his last round loss to Euwe in the 1938 Avro tournament, was his most weakest and feeble effort!|
|Aug-14-14|| ||Maatalkko: <keypusher: I was as surprised as I expect anyone would be to find that Dr. Tarrasch never topped the list.>|
I'm not surprised. What I find surprising/confusing is this often repeated idea that, at one point in the late 1890s or early 1900s, Tarrasch was stronger than Lasker and probably would have become World Champion, had they played at exactly that moment.
Is there any evidence supports this belief? Or is this just a counter-intuitive position that the would-be cognoscenti have echoed through the years?
It's true that Tarrasch won their first encounter at Hastings 1895, but Lasker won right back at Nuremberg 1896 and finished ahead of Tarrasch in both tournaments.
Their lifetime score of +18 -4 =8 is a massacre. It's true that their strength got more and more imbalanced over time, but that doesn't prove that Tarrasch was ever equal or better in post-1894 years.
|Aug-14-14|| ||perfidious: <Maatalkko: What I find surprising/confusing is this often repeated idea that, at one point in the late 1890s or early 1900s, Tarrasch was stronger than Lasker and probably would have become World Champion, had they played at exactly that moment.>|
Never seen this view anywhere until now and it is difficult to believe that anyone but, as you put it, 'would-be cognoscenti' might see matters that way, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·