|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Apr-06-05 |
| paladin at large: <paladin at large>Expressing the power of Capablanca's forces in another way: After move 9. he made only one other pawn move (40.....d5) in the entire game! First, he gives his pieces ample scope, and then he unleashes them. In this regard, the compact Black pawn formation gives the Black queen tremendous lateral scope throughout the rest of the game. |
 |
Nov-26-05
 |
| Dim Weasel: In his book "The Benko Gambit Revealed" Neil McDonald also presents this game as a brilliant BGA strategy precedent. |
|
Nov-27-05
 |
| KingG: Some people think that Capablanca blundered the pawn. |
|
| Nov-27-05 |
| RookFile: I think he did in the sense that he did not seriously consider the possibility: it does involve a loss of time by white and also involves handing the initiative over to black. A lot of great discoveries happen this
way: like Flemming discovering penicillin because he was careless with some petri dishes. It's the man of genius who is able to take advantage of the opportunity in the new situation. |
|
| Jun-22-06 |
| MindRotorVia: If white had instead played 15.f3 then the c6-pawn is still attacked and black can't immediately play 15...e6. He would have to have thought of another plan. |
|
| Jun-22-06 |
| offramp: <MindRotorVia: If white had instead played 15.f3 then the c6-pawn is still attacked and black can't immediately play 15...e6. He would have to have thought of another plan.> That is an extraordinarily perceptive point! |
|
Aug-19-06
 |
| whatthefat: The question of whether Capablanca blundered the pawn is an interesting one. Indeed, it probably applies to many moves considered 'great' in the history of chess. I do believe that if black had been just about any other player, we would simply assume he made an oversight, but then that white "exploiting" the oversight with 9.Nc6?! was a still deeper oversight! If we only had the power to take the two players aside at the moment of 10.Qa6, and pose each the question: "Who is winning?" Regardless of what Capablanca saw or didn't see when he played 8...g6!?, we have only the moves to go on; and in that sense, the game is an incredible creative achievement. |
|
| Aug-19-06 |
| ughaibu: Another a-pawn blunder controversy: Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908 |
|
| Aug-19-06 |
| RookFile: I think it's like this. Capablanca's understanding of the game was such that he probably didn't even consider the time wasting scheme Nimzo devised to win a pawn. That's probably the best way to put it. Then when Nimzo went ahead and did it, Capa's fabulous positional understanding and incisive play exploited the opportunites this presented in a means that would later become commonplace Benko gambit type play. |
|
| Aug-19-06 |
| RookFile: You can think about it like this. Any time black fianchettoes his dark squared bishop like this, a correct strategy of white's is to try to exchange it off, leaving black with dark squared weaknesses. (I.e Bg5, 0-0-0, with the eventual idea of something like Qe3 and Bh6). If that piece is not exchanged off, it is black's best piece on the board, and literally cuts the board in half with its power. There are lines in the Gruenfeld where white is happy to give up rook on a1 for the g7 bishop. What then, should black have to fear from a time wasting maneauver with the queen to win the rook pawn, when he gets to keep the g7 bishop ?! |
|
| Aug-19-06 |
| paladin at large: <RookFile> Kotov (Think Like a Grandmaster) featured this game in his segment "Positional Judgement- Open Lines and Diagonals", and noted the strength of black's bishop. The fact that Kotov cited a preponderant number of Soviet players' games underscores the impression this game has made. |
|
| Aug-19-06 |
| ughaibu: RookFile: Lasker again, a species of Yugoslav Attack: Lasker vs Vidmar, 1909 |
|
| Aug-19-06 |
| RookFile: Yes, that is well said ughaibu. What Lasker did was literally a textbook maneauver. It was games like Lasker's that lead Rubinstein to write in an article that the g7, Bg7 fianchetto for black was literally unsound, due to the idea of swapping off the bishop, or h4 and h5 for white. |
|
| Oct-13-06 |
| cizio2: Once again it seems that Aaron Nimzowitsch writes about chess in a way and plays in another way. |
|
Sep-27-07
 |
| MrSpock: Capablanca himself, a very proud man when it came to admitting mistakes, did not even claim to have sacrified the pawn, and in fact, in his notes in "My Chess Career", strongly implies that he just moved quickly and lost a pawn. He calls 8. ... g6 "a novel idea, brought out at the spur of the moment". (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, John Watson 1998) |
|
Sep-27-07
|
| MrSpock: Nimzowitsch lost the game after move 13. and not by grabbing a pawn. |
|
Nov-27-07
 |
| notyetagm: <AgentRgent: I agree P.A. The fianchetto and the play of the rooks on the a and b files is very reminiscent of the Benko Gambit.> In GM Neil McDonald's "Benko Gambit Revealed", this is the first game he examines! |
|
| Aug-02-08 |
| capin: So many comments say that if white move f3 in 14 or 15 then can win or draw, but really not. The following continuation, with Crafty 20.14 moving white pieces shows the power of black rooks and bishop: 14. f3 Ra8 15. Qf2 Qe6 16. a4 Nd7 17. Nd1 Rfb8 18. Ra3 d5 19. Re1 Qd6 20. exd5 cxd5 21. b3 d4 22. Ra2 d3 23. Kh1 Qb4 24. Bd2 Qc5 25. Ne3 dxc2 26. Rxc2 Qd6 27. Nc4 Qd3 28. Rcc1 Rxb3 29. Qh4 Nc5 30. Be3 Qd5 31. Bxc5 Qxc5 32. a5 Rb4 33. Qe4 Rab8 34. Qd3 Bh6 35. Rc2 Rb1 36. Re2 Bf8 37. g3 R8b3 38. Qc2 Rxe1+ 39. Rxe1 Rxf3 40. Kg2 Rf6 41. Re5 Qd4 42. Qe2 Rc6 43. Nb2 Rc2 44. Qxc2 Qxe5 45. a6 Qd5+ 46. Kf2 Qh1 47. Ke3 Bh6+ 48. Kd4 Qa1 49. Kd3 Qa3+ 50. Qc3 Qxa6+ 51. Nc4 Qb7 52. Qd4 Qf3+ 53. Kc2 c6 54. Nd2 Bxd2 55. Qxd2 h5 56. Qd8+ Kg7 57. Qd4+ Kh7 58. Qg1 c5 59. Qxc5 Qe2+ 60. Kc3 Qxh2 61. Qe3 Qh1 62. Qf4 Qe1+ 63. Kc2 Kg7 64. Qf3 f5 65. Qb7+ Kf6 66. Qb6+ Qe6 67. Qd4+ Qe5 68. Qd8+ Kf7 69. Qd7+ Qe7 70. Qd5+ Qe6 71. Qb7+ Kf6 72. Qc7 Qe4+ 73. Kd2 Qd4+ 74. Kc2 Kg5 75. Qe7+ Qf6 white resign. |
|
Aug-02-08
 |
| Boomie: <Well, let's support Tarrasch's idea with a concrete plan: b2-b3, a2-a4 and Rad1...> I can't find any time to implememnt this plan.
14. Bd2 Rfe8 15. f3 Ra8 16. Qf2 d5 seems to equalize. If 17. Rad1, black regains the pawn on d4. 17. exd5 cxd5 18. Bg5 h6 19. Bh4 c6 and no a4 or b3 in sight. Black's center and more active rooks are enough compensation. |
|
| Sep-20-08 |
| Woody Wood Pusher: Nimzowitch writes one way and plays another! No wonder he never made it to WC! |
|
| Sep-20-08 |
| CapablancaFan: <Woody Wood Pusher> LOL. |
|
| Jan-22-09 |
| Berlin89: Can't black take the knight after 26. RxD4? If pawn takes, then Rxb1 with mate... |
|
Jan-22-09
 |
| blacksburg: why take the knight if you can take the rook? |
|
Feb-24-09
 |
| sleepyirv: I like 40...d5 a lot. Up the exchange and two pawns, Capablanca still makes this prophylactic move to stop the embarassing Ne4 followed by Nf6+. |
|
| Feb-24-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: That's a good point. That, combined with something like Qh6 and Rh4, could have been dangerous. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
