|Jul-18-03|| ||Calli: ChessGames - This was a simul in San Francisco on April 11, 1916. Source: "Capablanca: The Chess Machine CD" |
|Jan-26-05|| ||mjk: Hmm, I'm no Capablanca, but doesn't 35.♕xf7+ win? |
|Jan-27-05|| ||tpstar: <mjk> Good pick-up! 35. Qxf7+ Kh6 36. Qh7+ Kg5 37. Qxh4+ Kf5 38. Qf4+ Ke6 39. Qf7+ eats both pieces with check (39 ... Ke5 40. f4+) with an easy win. A rare oversight by the Machine. |
|Jan-27-05|| ||InspiredByMorphy: 35.Qf3? What is black threatening? |
|Jan-27-05|| ||mjk: <tpstar> If it was a simul as <Calli> notes, then it could be that Capablanca let Black off the hook--to the detriment of his statistics here :) Thanks, for the analysis. |
|Feb-16-05|| ||aragorn69: The game's score could be wrong. See Edward Winter's note on it at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
Capablanca might have played 33.Qe4 (and not 33.Qf4). The problem is no one has found a contemporary source yet... |
|Oct-18-15|| ||MissScarlett: <It will be noted that Mr Donaldson’s article gave White’s 33rd move as Qf4, not Qf5. In either case this would mean that Capablanca overlooked a forced mate, but a suggestion now from Richard Forster (Zurich), supported by Mr Donaldson, is that it is far more likely that Capablanca played a third move, 33 Qe4, after which the rest of the game makes sense and no mating line was missed. Whether any error in the moves was a mistranscription by Caparrós has yet to be discovered.>|
This game appeared in the <BDE> on April 27th, 1916, and is evidently Caparros's source:
Move 33 is given as <Q-Kt>. It's practically certain that <Q-K4> was meant, so I'm going to submit a correction to that effect.
|Nov-22-15|| ||TheFocus: From a simultaneous exhibition in San Francisco, California on April 11, 1916.|
Capablanca scored +29=3-0.
|Nov-11-18|| ||MissScarlett: Capa and Fink at the Mechanics':
Looks as if Capa may have been set one of Fink's wicked problems.