<Best Avatar - Non James Cameron Category>, <Best Profile>, <Best Game Collection>, <Best Historian>, <Best Username/Handle>, <Best Written Post>, <Funniest Kibitzer>, <Most Constructive>, <Best Informed>, <Most Helpful>, <Best Analysis - Non Silicon/Computer Category>

So, please take a moment this weekend, while you are passed out (or recovering) from champaign, to consider who should deserve a nomination.

Who have written some of the most thoughful posts, which member have helped (you) out the most when you posed that 'What happens if 25...Rxd4'?

Second, the methodology - presenting a starting and ending point in a game, 28 moves is large gap, gives room for possibilities in between. I found the games strategic ideas instructive. This is a battle between two classical giants. They were making theory at the time, some of which we feed today to Rybka in it's opening book.

As a weaker player than many, <DrMal> included, I find comments like <16. To prevent c5, either now or a later stage. There is no Black bishop and White’s whole plan is based on that fact. He will attempt, in due time, to place a knight on d6.> instructive. It is something that a tool like RYbka won't ever help me understand.

I couldn't help to notice that <DrMal> statements that <very little was accomplished during the next 28 moves>, on a game with 48 moves, and <Capa's annotation at move 13 may not be charming but it is certainly accurate. It is one of the few that is> contrasts with you statement that <This the 11th game is an absolute gem in every way>

The fact that Rybka and other engines exists have changed chess preparation forever. In spite of their many uses, we won't ever remember all of their advise and play them over the board. At the end, we have to integrate their analysis into theory and abstraction that we can remember and use. It is not simply "egos" or "human stupidity"; it is chess at the very top as expressed by Anand, Kramnik and many other GMs. I expect Rybka and lesser engines to find mistakes in both book analysis (I love to run engines against older book analysis!) and game played by the cream of chess - the Kasparov, Botvinnik, Karpov, Fischer, Tal, Korchnoi, etc. It often gets me lost too, specially when learning from a pragmatic Lasker, or understanding a move within the context of a tournament or match development, where the player goal plays a large role.

I wouldn't dare to analyze one of my games without an engine. One last remark: in response to several after the game analysis Fischer used to remark, "yeah, but could you have found it over the board?"

To me, Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine are equal in strength and in a class by themselves. When they faced each other in 1921 and 1927 the younger man won, as is natural in a long match between two equal talents.

Rather than bemoan all the "what if" matches in chess history, like Fischer-Karpov for example, I'm just extremely grateful that the two ultimate dream matches actually DID happen! i.e. Lasker-Capablanca, and Capablanca-Alekhine. Those two matches not only represent chess at the highest level, but chess at the highest level possible.