< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
|Aug-27-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <DrG> If you like my work, fine, if you don't ... |
Its about the game, and that is pretty well represented. (I have both a web page and a video on the game, you may criticize when you also have a web page and a video, then we will stop and compare notes.)
|Aug-27-13|| ||TheFocus: <then we will stop and compare notes> |
Or we could just have a pissing contest.
|Aug-27-13|| ||DrGridlock: <AJ> I don't own a newspaper, but I'm pretty sure the Chicago Tribune got "Dewey defeats Truman" wrong. There are plenty of other non-newspaper owners who also share that opinion.|
Yes, I have seen your video and web-page. They could benefit from a tighter presentation, and a focus on facts instead of these kinds of discursive ramblings when someone calls you out on a point.
Are you going to respond to <Karpova's> question,
<Who were those masters and what's your source?>
<LIFE Master AJ: BTW, some masters watching this game (early on) felt quite sure that BLACK was better, ala Nimzovich and the play against the doubled Pawns.>
just additional bloviating on your part?
Have you read Alekhine's commentary on the game? Because he is quite sure that Black is not better in the early part of the game.
|Aug-28-13|| ||Robed.Bishop: Uh oh, it seems there's trouble brewing...|
|Aug-28-13|| ||DrGridlock: <(And you are still wrong, talk to me when you have a degree of creditability.)>|
Not sure what this "creditability" is, but my credit score is pretty good.
<if all you can say to back up your argument is "Dewey beats Truman,">
Not all I can say. I also added <Karpova's> challenge to you to provide a source for your bloviating.
It detracts from your credibility when you make wild claims ("Capablanca dominated the 1924 New York tournament," "masters watching the game felt Black was better") and then just stare at the moon when anyone challenges you.
|Aug-28-13|| ||OhioChessFan: <Gentle reminder about being off topic>|
|Aug-28-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: I have notes based on general principles a few scrolls above on page 10. I believe that Capablanca had foreseen the outline of the whole endgame even before he began initiating the middle-game to endgame transition, and may have even calculated specific important variations at least 10 moves beforehand. The more I think of it, the more I believe that this is the best played endgame as a whole that I have ever seen.|
The peerless Capablanca was just out of this world in endgames that required concrete calculations, and in rook endgames. As kibitzers mention in other pages, he lost exactly two rook endgames in his whole career, both ironically to AAA in their 1927 WC match.
|Aug-30-13|| ||ernieb: You are nice people, Gregor and Dr. Gridlock. Thanks for not carving me up for my opinion. Best wishes for you all in all things.|
|Aug-30-13|| ||maxi: The game's 36...Rf3 loses. Reti analyzed 36...Rc8 and it seems to lose, too. But my computer pal believes 36...a6 draws. The idea is a quick Black advance on the Queen side to force the exchange of some Pawns.|
|Aug-30-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <maxi> But can you blame Tartakower for winning TWO Pawns? (Most of the time, that's a win.)|
Good point, though ... and thanks for posting. (Deep Shredder found 36...a6; in just a few minutes.)
|Aug-30-13|| ||Pawn and Two: <maxi & Life Master AJ> After the move 36...a6!, were you also able to find a drawing line against the variation indicated by <Peligroso Patzer> on May 6, 2012?: 37.Kh5! b5 38.Kg6!.|
If you have analysis, please post it. This line should provide some interesting analysis.
|Sep-03-13|| ||RookFile: In some ways, it almost doesn't matter whether the game should have been a win or a draw. Capa played it the only way you should play it with white, and let the chips fall where they may. I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm much more interested in the play that came just out of the opening.|
|Sep-03-13|| ||JoergWalter: <Rookfile> on a sidenote:|
commentators of this game
Lasker vs Spielmann, 1925
have overlooked the application of Capablanca's method when they recommened 37. Rb4 instead of 37.Rc1 (see my post there.)
And yes we can admire the game for our very own reasons. And these may be different from what computer assisted analysis may reveal.
|Sep-03-13|| ||JoergWalter: Smyslov/Levenfish in their book on rook endgames give this game as another illustration of Capablanca's manouvre:|
Levenfish vs Lisitsin, 1935
|Sep-04-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: To me, the amazing thing was how similar it was to some of Nimzovich's (Aron Nimzowitsch) celebrated victories.|
Black gave White doubled QBP's. He was OOOH SOOO VERY CLOSE to the 'magic formula.' Yet, it was Tartakower's failure to completely grasp all of the doctrine that Nimzovich outlined when playing against the doubled Pawns ... and this was eventually his undoing.
And Capa's play was so darn near perfect ... and PLEASE remember!!!! ... ... ...
I don't think there is another game like this (that predates it). Capa was the FIRST to show what a powerful combination that a Passed Pawn, King on the 6th Rank, and a Rook on the 7th rank actually are. Also remember that Capa sacked TWO Pawns (both with check!) to reach the maximummer position.
Words like GENIUS ... (endgame) PERFECTION ... and "FIRST OF ITS KIND" are all overused nowadays, but perfectly applicable here.
|Sep-04-13|| ||NM JRousselle: AJ,
This is one of my top 2 favorite rook endings. I'm torn between this one and Schlechter - Rubinstein 1912.
In both cases, these endgame magicians make the wins look so-o-o-o-o easy.
|Sep-04-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <NM Jim Rous> Yes, agreed.|
|Sep-06-13|| ||JoergWalter: < LIE Master AJ: To me, the amazing thing was how similar it was to some of Nimzovich's (Aron Nimzowitsch) celebrated victories.>|
|Sep-06-13|| ||TheFocus: <JoergWalter> <Which ones?>|
ROFL! I bet you he cannot name too many games won by Nimzowitsch that showed any type of endgame artistry such as this.
Nimzowitsch was not the best endgame player. I think that was his biggest weakness as a player. He was strong enough in the endgame, just not in the upper tier.
|Sep-06-13|| ||TheFocus: <AJ> <it was Tartakower's failure to completely grasp all of the doctrine that Nimzovich outlined when playing against the doubled Pawns ... and this was eventually his undoing.>|
Nonsense. When examining games by Tartakower and Nimzowitsch, I would say there was no difference in their understanding of how to do battle against doubled Pawns.
Any master worth his salt would understand the process. It is not rocket science <AJ>!!
Dang. Even I play against doubled Pawns on Nimzowitsch's level. And I daresay that <AJ> does too.
|Sep-06-13|| ||DrGridlock: <Joerg> and <Focus>, |
Admirable, but likely futile effort to get <AJ> to document his bloviations.
It's more likely to end in some retread comment pointing out that unless you have a video and a web-page, you're not allowed to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
|Sep-09-13|| ||JoergWalter: Another example for Capablanca's manoeuvre:
Kramnik vs Leko, 2004
|Sep-09-13|| ||RookFile: If you want to really get provocative, I submit to you that the Nimzo-Indian should be renamed to be the Alek-Indian. Alekhine played it as early as Nimzo did, in a far more modern manner, and with much better results than old Nimzo had.|
|Oct-26-13|| ||Chessman1504: A gem of simplicity and grace. This is why I play chess.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·