< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jan-21-04|| ||tamar: Whitehat1963: Here are some of Garry's words from his interview on chesscafe with some bearing on this game.
"There are many elements, but still, you know, itís the big tournaments like in St.
Petersburg 1914 he missed it. So there was something, a littler bit, like Rubinstein,
Keres, Bronstein, they lacked just one bit. But because they lacked this little bit and
itís more of psychology and fighting spirit and they were superseded by Lasker,
Capablanca, or Botvinnik, it doesnít mean that Rubinstein, Keres, and Bronstein,
they didnít deserve the same
credit promoting the game of
chess. So thatís why I felt it
vitally important to analyze
the contribution of these
players. And I was surprised
myself, because I wanted to
be absolutely impartial.
When I write about the
players, the stories, and you
will see in Volume Two and
Volume Three, Iím not giving my own personal opinion neither on Botvinnik or
Karpov. There are facts. I donít want to deal with the facts outside of the game of
chess. The facts, whatís happened with Botvinnik or Keres, or Karpov they will be
there, but itís not for me to decide. My task is to analyze their contribution.
And Iíve been analyzing Rubinstein games, and I looked at theÖ itís not only his
games, you have to look at his games in his time. So I analyzed quite thoroughly the
games of Lasker, Tarrasch, all the games played in the beginning of the 20
Century, first 50 years, before World War I, and it was crystal clear to me that
Rubinsteinís contribution was enormous. And then I could immediately trace, could
it be, Botvinnik as his successor. But he never liked to talk about it. But I saw, you
know, Botvinnik actually inheriting a lot fromÖ opening approach, you know, the
technique, so itís, Rubinstein was there, he had a lot of elements that he was not able
because of probably some psychological weaknesses to put into most powerful
display. But it happened.
And I even learned, you know, later Plisetsky found that in early sixties, before
playing Botvinnik, Petrosian studied Rubinstein games.
So itís very entertaining, sometimes, you know, it could be questionable, but if other
players, other experts will display different opinions thatís good for the game of
HR: Well, I thought your treatment of Rubinstein was so interesting because for the
most part heís not regarded by most players as being as important as you make him.
And I think heís ignored unfairly.
GK: Absolutely, but thatís happened with many players who just missed it by an
HR: Do you think if he had Ė now this is a guess on your part of course Ė but based
on what you have done, do you think if he played Lasker say between 1908 and
1912 he defeats Lasker or not?
GK: Still think Lasker would have beaten him.
HR: You think Lasker wins?
GK: Because he was missing, you know, this very important element of psychology.
I think he didnít stand a chance against Lasker before World War I. Why Iím
unhappy about the failure to have such a match, because this kind of match could
make tremendous contribution to the game of chess. And if this match would have
been played you could see the real contribution of Rubinstein and he would not be
disregarded as much as he was without being able to play the match..
|Jan-21-04|| ||Whitehat1963: <tamar> Thanks a lot! I've always thought that Rubinstein was underappreciated. But do you know if GK had anything in particular to say about this game? |
|Jan-21-04|| ||tamar: Sorry, no. But it looks like Rubinstein was winning, and Capablanca wrangled a draw. Around move 19 Capa is just down a pawn. |
|Jan-21-04|| ||Whitehat1963: Here are the two endgame specialists quitting before quitting time again. Why? |
|Jan-21-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Akiba has more pawns in total, but Capa has a passed pawn. To stop the passed pawn, Akiba must give up his own kingside ambitions as well. That and there is probably a perpetual check. |
|Jan-22-04|| ||Calli: <Whitehat1963> wrote "But do you know if GK had anything in particular to say about this game?"|
No, but Keres wrote pages of analysis on it. Try to find "Art of the Middle Game" (or something like that) by Keres and Kotov. They wrote different chapters in the book.
Keres says that Capablanca makes a brilliant save in this game. He willingly simplified the position for about 10 moves. Something you are not supposed to do when down a pawn. (to Rubinstein, no less!). All leading up to 27...b4! Keres goes into the complications that white will encounter if he goes for the win with 28.c4 He may win, but he may also lose. Rubinstein decided to be safe. I believe this was a third round, so he was still in the running.
|Jan-22-04|| ||Lawrence: Preliminary round 3. Rubinstein never made it to the finals, and neither did Bernstein, Nimzowitsch, Blackburne, Janowski, or Gunsberg. In the finals Capa lost a game to Lasker and another to Tarrasch--T.'s only win!!--and finished 2nd to Lasker in both the final stage and the "preliminary plus final", though Capa won the preliminary. In other words, Lasker made the mother of all comebacks in the final stage, 6 wins and 2 draws. Source: "Chess Stars". |
|Jan-22-04|| ||AdrianP: As might be expected from the chesscafe.com quotation, GK uses this game to illustrate (i) Capa's tenacity; (ii) Rubinstein's slight deficiency in 'fighting character'. GK's analysis attempts to establish that Rubinstein had a winning advantage but frittered it away by avoiding complications. I will post some analysis of GK's when I have the book in front of me. |
|Jan-24-04|| ||Lawrence: In "OMGP" vol.1 game 81 Garry quotes Capa as saying at the beginning of the tournament that he thought Rubinstein was in good shape to win it and that he himself would be happy to come in 2nd because he wasn't in very good health. Does anyone know what his problem was? Surely not high blood pressure at that early stage. (?) |
|Jan-29-04|| ||AdrianP: The first critical position is after 15...Kh8. Garry regards the text 16. Be4 as a serious mistake giving it one question mark. Following Tarrasch, he considers that 16. Ne4! Be7 17. h4! was winning for W and that 16. Bd3!? was probably better. |
Here is Gazza's assessment "The nature of Rubinstein's mistake can be explained: after quickly gaining a winning advantage and afraid of squandering his advantage, he decided to operate with purely technical means, without any risk - and he moved his B from h7, so as not to have to calculate the 'sharp' varioantions with ...g7-g6. Moreover, the retreat to e4 looks logical: the long diagonal! Playing against any other opponent (apart, perhaps from Lasker), Rubinstein would most probably have converted his pawn advantage. But Capablanca makes things as difficult as possible for White and puts up a desperate resistance.".
Gazza levels a similar criticism at Capa, in general, seeing a reluctance to calculate specifics as one reason why he lost to Alekhine.
In general, Gazza postulates that Rubinstein contributed more to the progress of the game than Capablanca.
|Jan-29-04|| ||Whitehat1963: Who is this Gazza? |
|Jan-29-04|| ||AdrianP: <Who is this Gazza?> I don't know whether or not it was deliberate but you are echoing the words of an illustrious member of the English judiciary. The Gazza in question was Paul Gascoigne, the footballer... the Gazza in question here is Garry "Gazza" Kasparov... |
|Jan-29-04|| ||Calli: Capablanca mentions his ill health in a couple of places. The most prominent being his story in "My Chess Career". A few days before the start, Bernstein asked him who would win the tourney among Lasker, Capablanca and Rubinstein. Capa picked Rubinstein because Lasker had not played recently and he, Capablanca, was in poor health. He also wrote of the illness in Capablanca magazine.|
In neither case, does he elaborate on the nature of the illness.
|Jan-30-04|| ||ughaibu: AdrianP: See this game Gipslis vs Smyslov, 1967 for a similar story. |
|Sep-28-04|| ||beatgiant: Has anyone commented on 20. b3 as a possible improvement, with the idea of keeping the queenside pawns together to better slow down Black's queenside advance? If then 20...c4 21. a3 , with the idea of continuing with 22. e2 and then playing to consolidate and restrain the queenside counterplay. |
|Jun-30-05|| ||aw1988: Capablanca also mentioned he in his poor health would be happy if he got 2nd. Of course, the winner of the tournament happened to be the "inactive" Lasker.|
|Feb-17-06|| ||Rohan: Kasparov mentions this game in his book Learn Chess with Garry Kasparov
his analysis focuses on the end game starting after move 27 when he says that it seems that white has a tremendous advantage having an extra pawn and well positioned queen then by move 33 states whites formidable kingside superiority is balanced by blacks apparantly modest but extremely powerful a pawn .His final comment is that "Capablanca defended his inferior position with astonishing ease ,testifying to his virtuosity. ... Appreciate defence .Learn to defend-a good sheild can withstand the blow of any sword.|
|Sep-29-07|| ||capablancakarpov: Capaīs 27.b4! saved the day, giving him the decisive A pass pawn.|
|Oct-06-07|| ||notyetagm: <Rohan: ... His final comment is that "Capablanca defended his inferior position with astonishing ease ,testifying to his virtuosity. ... Appreciate defence .Learn to defend-a good sheild can withstand the blow of any sword.>|
Great quote by Kasparov about this magnificent defensive effort by Capablanca.
|Oct-06-07|| ||notyetagm: <capablancakarpov: Capaīs 27.b4! saved the day, giving him the decisive A pass pawn.>|
Yes, a brilliant save by Capablanca.
Endgame genius Rubinstein must have been in shock after the game that he failed to convert his rather large advantage into a win. He was probably counting on getting the whole point from somewhere around the middlegame.
|Dec-10-07|| ||Karpova: L. Van Vliet in the Sunday Times (giving 28.Qxc5 a question mark):
<A mistake that enables Black to escape with a draw. Correct is 28.c4 and if 28...Qc8 29.Qb6, followed by f3 and g4. Or if 28...Qa7 29.Qd8+ Kh7 30.Qa5, etc.>|
Donaldson/Minev think that 28.c4 was the best try also though they say that if it was winning was open to question. Seems that Keres analysed this position in <The Art of the Middlegame>.
|Jun-18-09|| ||Bridgeburner: Keres would have killed to have had an engine, and then killed the computer to find that even with super-accelerated processing, it's diabolically difficult to extract a win from this Q+P endgame.|
|Nov-25-12|| ||Everett: <GK's analysis attempts to establish that Rubinstein had a winning advantage but frittered it away by avoiding complications. >|
This was Kasparov's most frequent criticism of Karpov's chess, though it took him a couple of matches to get a plus score on Tolya.
|Nov-26-12|| ||perfidious: If it is at all possible to obtain a copy, <The Art of the Middlegame> by Kotov and Keres is a fine book, in which I first saw this game many years ago.|
|Nov-26-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: I was fortunate to pick up "Kunsten at Vinde I Skak", the Danish translation of the Kotov and Keres book, from a second hand store for the equivalent of a buck! The chapters on the analysis of adjourned games and the defence of difficult positions by Keres are by far the best bits of the book.|
Keres does indeed use a few columns analysing 28. c4 as White's best chance to play for a win.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
from the Chessgames Store