< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jun-02-04|| ||mynameisrandy: Okay, that does it. Capablanca is the coolest player ever. |
|Apr-29-07|| ||chessamateur: Wow sick game by Capa. Any know of the sac 's soundness?|
|Apr-29-07|| ||Richard Taylor: Incredible game by Capablanca!|
|Apr-29-07|| ||Richard Taylor: It's sound becsye Capa won!
He gets three pawns for the piece and has lot of attacking forces ready to get at Black's weaknesses. But such attacks have psychogical factors also, as in Tal's attacks (many attacking situations relyon he "fear factor" in fact) in many cases - Bernstein did well to defend for so long.
Objectively - only computers don't make unsound sacs (or the best of them probably don't) - Capa was called the machine - but he was - while very great -also human.
But - the attack was sound because Capa won!
|Apr-29-07|| ||Themofro: For those questioning the opening played by black, it's known as the Capablanca freeing manuever he used it quite regularly all thorougout his career, although it wasn't abnormal to find his opponents use it against him, as in this game. In Reinfeld's classis book "The Immortal Games of Capablanca" it's full of this opening, wonderful book btw highly reccomended. The idea being to take dxc4, white takes back pawn, and play Nd5, then have the bishop on e7 traded off, and later usually aim for an e5 push. Like ...7 dxc4 8 Bxc4 Nd5 9 Bxe7 Qxe7 etc. You DO NOT play a b5 push as happened in this game, that was blacks mistake. I beleive that black was getting it confused with a different opening. You aim for an e5 push like a normal semislav, make white lose time, and trade off some peices, it's relatively drawish, but it's very solid and a good defense for black to know. It used to be what i would always play except that people nowadays don't play Bg5, they play e3 and keep the bishop inside the pawn, which decreases the openings effectiveness a bit, but it's still good to know.|
Wonderful game by Capablanca.
|Apr-29-07|| ||Peligroso Patzer: When I saw that today's GotD was Capablanca vs. Bernstein from 1914, I automatically thought of this famous game with the brilliant tactic on move 29: O Bernstein vs Capablanca, 1914.|
|Apr-29-07|| ||whithaw: Capablanca was said to have gone to the bathroom several times during this game. At the time, cell phones were still allowed in tournaments, and it is rumored that Capablanca had called the Turk (version 9.0) during critical stages. Of course, Ossip was probably relying on analysis from Turk 6.0, which had not been designed to use dual cams (like Turk 9.0.)|
|Apr-29-07|| ||notyetagm: 29 ... b6-b2!! What a genius Capablanca was.|
|Apr-29-07|| ||Plato: I would never dispute that he was a genius, but 29...Qb6-b2 in that game was obvious, don't you think? Two exclamation marks for that move?|
|Apr-29-07|| ||notyetagm: <Peligroso Patzer: When I saw that today's GotD was Capablanca vs. Bernstein from 1914, I automatically thought of this famous game with the brilliant tactic on move 29: O Bernstein vs Capablanca, 1914.>|
Gee, that's what I thought, too. :-)
But this is still a simply brilliant game by Capablanca.
|Apr-29-07|| ||Themofro: <Plato> Obvious? Somewhat, granted. However, still doesn't take away from the acheivement. In memory serves, then Fred Reinfeld gives it two exclams btw.|
|Apr-29-07|| ||acirce: If such a move deserves exclamation marks it's only because of its aesthetical value. There is certainly nothing that signifies "genius" about such a simple tactics. Should be able to separate those two.|
|Apr-29-07|| ||keypusher: No doubt that's right. But Capablanca's ...Qb2 reminds me of this old classic:|
J Mason vs Winawer, 1882
After 39 moves, this is the position:
click for larger view
Mason continued 40. Rxg5! hg 41. Qh7+ Nd7 42. Bxd7 Qg8 43. Rb7+!! Kxb7 44. Bc8+!! Ka8 45. Qxg8, and White won.
It's a six-move combination with very few branches. Fritz 8 finds it very quickly, so you could say the double exclamations for 43rd and 44th moves are for aesthetics. But for a human to visualize those moves is almost impossible. Capablanca's combination is even simpler--the variations are all two moves long. But you have to see it! And Bernstein, a very strong player, did not.
I think computers lead us to under-value some of these short combinations.
|Apr-29-07|| ||Plato: In the case of the Capablanca combination, I do appreciate its aesthetic value but the back-rank theme is extremely well-known (and that was the case in 1914, too). I think most 2200+ players would spot a move like 29...Qb2 in a blitz game in a matter of seconds, so it appears to me that two exclamation marks are overkill for such a simple tactic. There *are* short combinations that I feel deserve "!!" for their originality, making them very difficult to spot in the first place, but 29...Qb2 is not one of them. |
It's largely subjective, though.
|Apr-29-07|| ||Chess Classics: The pun is very accurate, given Ossip's play here...|
|Apr-30-07|| ||kevin86: A good game with a comical king chase and then a very sharp finish. Capa wins again-Chess's version of Jeff Gordon.|
As a whimsy,check out the name Ossip backwards-now stop the snickering.
|Apr-30-07|| ||acirce: <No doubt that's right.> <But you have to see it! And Bernstein, a very strong player, did not. I think computers lead us to under-value some of these short combinations.>|
Now I'm not sure if you agree with me or not. And Mason-Winawer is much harder to see - it's not very relevant how quickly Fritz finds it. So I don't know if I agree with your point about computers this time. Pretty much every time I visit my club I see players around 2000-2200 find deeper tactics than ..Qb2 in blitz.
Sometimes computers have even got the opposite effect. Nowadays you hear the knee-jerk "you just say that's easy because you can use Fritz" so often that suddenly the best players in the world apparently aren't supposed to find simple combinations on their own.
|Apr-30-07|| ||keypusher: <acirce> On further reflection, my previous post was stupid.|
<And Mason-Winawer is much harder to see - it's not very relevant how quickly Fritz finds it. So I don't know if I agree with your point about computers this time. Pretty much every time I visit my club I see players around 2000-2200 find deeper tactics than ..Qb2 in blitz.>
Right. At least I posted Mason-Winawer.
|Apr-30-07|| ||ganstaman: I hate you all. Do you know how long I spent looking at this game trying to find Capa playing his Q to b2? I thought maybe it was just a sideline or something.|
For the other reading-comprehension-impaired people out there, it's in reference to the game <Peligroso Patzer> links to above.
|Apr-30-07|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Bernstein was actually a very strong player who should not be judge solely because he brought out the very best in Capa in three famous games.|
The other game with ... Qb2! was remarkable not only for that combination (foreseen well in advance) but also for its strategy of playing with the hanging pawns, i.e. playing ... c4 despite the blockade with Nd4. Capa noted that this would shield the backward d-pawn from frontal assault. Nunn et al. note that later games M Bertok vs Fischer, 1962 and Timman vs Short, 1993 were largely modelled on O Bernstein vs Capablanca, 1914
|Jan-05-08|| ||Ulhumbrus: On 16...Bxb4 Edward Lasker gives 17 Nd4 and 18 Nd5 while Capablanca gives 17 Nd5 at once.
Bernstein was indeed a first rank player, strong even when old, as in the game O Bernstein vs Najdorf, 1954 played when Bernstein was seventy-one or seventy-two years of age.|
|Nov-03-09|| ||WhiteRook48: I don't see a 28...Qb2|
|Nov-29-09|| ||MaczynskiPratten: <WhiteRook48> <I don't see a 29...Qb2>; it's because the kibitzers are referring to this other well-known game O Bernstein vs Capablanca, 1914. Rather confusing to have the two threads mixed!|
|Jan-31-10|| ||KingG: <If such a move deserves exclamation marks it's only because of its aesthetical value. There is certainly nothing that signifies "genius" about such a simple tactics. Should be able to separate those two.> I agree with <acirce>, however no less of a player than Botvinnik called it a stroke of genius. Probably because it needed to be seen in advance. The move itself is rather simple.|
|Apr-09-11|| ||Lil Swine: a few desperados at the end. loser moves, they sort of ruin the brilliancy.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·