chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Emanuel Lasker vs Jose Raul Capablanca
New York (1924), New York, NY USA, rd 2, Mar-17
Spanish Game: Berlin Defense. Closed Wolf Variation (C66)  ·  1/2-1/2
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 23 more Lasker/Capablanca games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
Oct-18-08  vikinx: Even for a draw, I'm surprised to see no kibitzing.
Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: What in hell is a Closed Wolf?
Feb-25-10  Petrosianic: <Even for a draw, I'm surprised to see no kibitzing.>

There was still none after this comment.

<What in hell is a Closed Wolf?>

Never heard that name, but apparently it's 4... d6 in the Berlin Defense, rather than the more open lines that result after the usual Nxe4. I would have called that a transposition to the Steinitz Defense.

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Annie K.: <keypusher: <What in hell is a Closed Wolf?>>

An undomesticated canine, prior to ingestion of Little Red Riding Hood? :s

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Petrosianic> Ever since I noticed 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 labeled an "anti-Nimzoindian" some of these names have really started to get on my nerves.

<Annie K.> Works for me.

Feb-26-10  Petrosianic: <some of these names have really started to get on my nerves.>

What boggles me is the anachronistic ones. Like...

Lasker vs Janowski, 1910

Pretty prescient of Lasker and Janowski to be playing the Botvinnik Variation in 1910.

Feb-26-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: Schiller's Caxton Code of chess opening is to put it mildly pretty non-systematic.

<Steinitz Defense> would have been my choice, too.

And Wolf earliest game in this line, Maroczy vs H Wolf, 1903 is a ... <Improved Steinitz Defense>

Wolf's Black C66 games: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Feb-27-10  percyblakeney: <pretty non-systematic>

Yes, I recall some discussion concerning why 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 is the Kramnik variation when he only played it once, in a rapid game, while already Alekhine and Tartakower played it several times in tournaments. At the same time 2.Na3 isn't named after Zvjaginsev (some discussion on the subject at V Zvjaginsev vs Ponomariov, 2006), who used it with success against top opposition. Instead it is called the Kronberger variation because of S Kronberg vs S Bonay Toscas, 1985 (at least ought to be the Kronberg variation...).

Feb-27-10  Petrosianic: Naming conventions are a subject all their own.

Like how many openings have multiple names:

Ruy Lopez/Spanish Game
Center Counter Defense/Scandanavian Defense
Greco Counter Gambit/Latvian Gambit
Petroff Defense/Russian Defense

Part of the fuss over the Batsford rewrite of My 60 Memorable Games had them even changing the names Bobby had used for openings, with things like "Hyper-Accelerated Fianchetto"

One of the biggest openings today, the Catalan should really be called the Tartakover Opening. Tartakover invented it at the request of the Barcelona 1929 organizers, who wanted an opening to put the region's name on. Nice of him to do so, considering there isn't one with his own name on it. He originated another line after a trip to the zoo, and called it the Orang-Utan, so what do you do with a guy like that?

<Yes, I recall some discussion concerning why 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 is the Kramnik variation when he only played it once, in a rapid game, while already Alekhine and Tartakower played it several times in tournaments.>

For that matter, Alekhine wasn't the first to play Alekhine's Defense, he's just the one who brought it to prominence. CH Stanley first played the Morphy Defense to the Ruy Lopez in his match with Rousseau, but Morphy is the one who understood the principles behind it and made it work. (Stanley's idea was an immediate b5, while Morphy knew to keep that in reserve).

Mednis has a major beef in <How to Beat Bobby Fischer> about openings not being named after Fischer. He even gripes in a Fischer-Keres game about how Keres invents a variation and it's called the Keres Variation, but Fischer doesn't get his name on anything. He wanted the Poisoned Pawn Variation and 6. Bc4 against the Najdorf named after him. But the joke is that he gave them really awkward names (in Descriptive Notation, no less!) that would never have caught on. He'd wanted the Poisoned Pawn to be called "Fischer's QNP", and the other to be called "Fischer's 6. B-QB4".

I'd always meant to write to him and say that the first should really be called "Fischer's OPPONENT'S QNP" (an even MORE awkward name!). Fischer didn't invent the opening, of course. It was played several times in the 50's, most notably by Tolush, who lost a famous game to Tal and won a not-so-famous game against Korchnoi with it. Fischer is the one who brought it to prominence, of course, but I'm not sure how prominent it was until 1972. He didn't play it very often, and Spassky was the first big name player he'd played it against. He'd played it 3 times against Bruno Parma, and a couple of other games against non-GM's, but that was it. It was Game 11 of the 1972 match that really put the variation on the map.

May-26-16  edubueno: A attempt to improve Capa's play was done by Larsen against Tal in 1968, without final success.
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
6.1 for and against Capa's dark or light sq bishop rule 20..f6!
from Techniques of Positional Play 45 Practical Metho by Takchessbooks
Round 2 March 17th
from New York 1924 by Benzol
Second Round (6)
from Alekhine, A. NEW YORK 1924 by superstoned
Round 2 March 17th
from New York 1924 - Alekhine by StoppedClock
April, p. 86 [Game 70 / 4532]
from American Chess Bulletin 1924 by Phony Benoni
6.1 for and against Capa's dark or light sq bishop rule 20..f6!
from Techniques of Positional Play 45 Practical Metho by takchess
Round 2 March 17th
from New York 1924 - Alekhine by vantheanh
6.1 for and against Capa's dark or light sq bishop rule 20..f6!
from Techniques of Positional Play 45 Practical Metho by isfsam
Capablanca!
by chocobonbon
Capablanca!
by Sven W
6.1 for and against Capa's dark or light sq bishop rule 20..f6!
from Techniques of Positional Play 45 Practical Metho by Del ToRo
vikinx:.... I'm surprised to see no kibitzing.
from They were surprised by Calli
On the shoulders of giants
by ughaibu
Round 2 March 17th
from New York 1924 by JoseTigranTalFischer


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC