< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|May-20-06|| ||THE pawn: <ughaibu> Capablanca dominated the field during 1914-1927, and was able to win a couple of tournaments over lasker. But he too, did dominate the field during the same period of time. So domination can be shared, can't it?|
|May-20-06|| ||square dance: <the pawn> capa didnt come ahead of lasker in a tournament until moscow 1936.|
|May-20-06|| ||THE pawn: <square dance>...eh...
Nothing beats a good joke before the real post!
Capablanca dominated the field, Lasker excluded. Happy, <ughaibu>? After all, you can't say «capablanca didn't the dominate the field». That sounds weird...
|May-20-06|| ||ughaibu: Topzilla probably dominates his school tournaments, raising a fuss every time a player easily wins against less than best opposition makes nonsense of the term "dominate".|
|May-21-06|| ||THE pawn: Then to what does it apply? You can't dominate against someone of equal strength after all. You can only dominate against less than best opposition. Otherwise «dominate» wouldn't even exist.|
|May-21-06|| ||ughaibu: If a person is the dominant player of their era, they demonstrate this dominance precisely by domination over the best opposition.|
|May-22-06|| ||THE pawn: I see your point.|
|May-22-06|| ||panigma: Ughaibu, I don't know if you follow tennis, but try this. Roger Federer is the number one tennis player in the world, and has been for the last few years. He has won 7 major tournaments out of the last 11, including the last 3. Rafael Nadal has won "only" one major title in his career.|
Yet, head to head, Nadal leads the career series 5 to 1.
Is Federer therefore not dominating his sport?
|May-22-06|| ||panigma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_...|
|May-22-06|| ||ughaibu: Panigma: How does this relate to Capablanca?|
|May-22-06|| ||panigma: According to you from a previous post, <dominance implies consistently and convincingly coming ahead of all serious rivals>. I am interested in your answer to my question as it relates to another genre. Is Federer "dominant," or would you argue that because of his record versus Nadal, this word would not apply to him? I am not intending to provoke, just discuss.|
|May-22-06|| ||ughaibu: I dont know anything about tennis or how to rate the comparitive success of it's players, if you say Federer is the dominant player, I'll take your word for it.|
|May-22-06|| ||who: I think that if a WC thinks that there is someone else who is so clearly superior that he's willing to give up his title without a fight (and the games show that Lasker was correct in his assessment), you have to figure that the new WC is dominant.|
|May-22-06|| ||ughaibu: That Lasker didn't want to play a match but instead wanted to give the title to Capablanca, does not imply that Lasker thought Capablanca was a better player than himself, it implies that Lasker thought Capablanca was the best player excluding himself, it says nothing about how he viewed his own relative strength. On top of which, it is just Lasker's opinion, results speak for themselves. Yet again, dominance is not decided by one event, Havana 1921. You wouldn't say that Savon was the dominant player in the early 70s because he won one USSR championship, would you?|
|May-22-06|| ||who: I agree that one set of results doesn't prove everything. However, Lasker's resigning his title without play does indicate a lot to me. You say "it is just Lasker's opinion", but that seems like quite the relevant opinion in the matter. When they played Capa won, when they didn't play Lasker thought Capa would win, when Sonas uses a formula to determine the best player Capa is the best. I'm not sure what sort of proof you're looking for.|
|May-22-06|| ||James Demery: ughaibu: Why do you think Capablanca won in 1921? I know Lasker was 53 and Capa was 33, but Lasker seemed to be playing better in 1924 at age 56. I`ve read the climate played a role , but I thought Lasker`s style of play should have given Capa more problems than it did.|
|May-22-06|| ||ughaibu: Who: It's not a question of "best" it's a question of "dominating an era". |
James Demery: I dont know, Calli and Iron Maiden are the experts for that kind of question. It's possible that Lasker was depressed by the recent events associated with the war, but that's just a guess.
|Aug-17-10|| ||GrenfellHunt: Lasker resigned the title before he actually played the match with Capablanca. This suggests that Lasker was defeated psychologically before the battle even began: Lasker wanted to be seen as the underdog, the challenger. |
The real question is: why was Lasker so afraid of Capablanca? Lasker had been avoiding a match with Capa for nearly a decade--Capablanca first challenged him after his victory in San Sebastian.
The reasons for Lasker's fears are not clear, but it's worth noting that Capablanca won a blitz tournament in New York that Lasker had competed in. Capa was a legendary blitz player, and it is possible that having seen Capa wipe out all comers in blitz (Lasker himself included), Lasker had no confidence that he could beat the young Cuban.
|Sep-12-10|| ||sevenseaman: Even lightening is sometimes slower.|
|Mar-11-11|| ||HeMateMe: Like a surgeon's scalpel. No wasted effort here.|
|May-20-11|| ||maelith: Nice game by the chess machine Capablanca|
|Jul-17-11|| ||David2009: Capablanca vs C Jaffe, 1910 Black 18...?
click for larger view
18...c5 trapping the Rook but missing 19.Bxh6+! was too ambitious: 18...Bxe5 limits losses to one Pawn. Crafty End Game Trainer link to the position at move 17 to play the ending out (starting 17 Rxe6! Nf6 18 Ne5):
|Jun-15-12|| ||FSR: Horrid play by Black.|
|Dec-11-13|| ||kingscrusher: Hmmm... Jaffe's revenge 3 years later...
Capablanca vs C Jaffe, 1913
|Aug-09-15|| ||jdhb2015: como cubano que soy no puedo menos que estar superorgulloso de que este monstruo magnifico del ajedrez haya sido mi compatriota!!
particularmente este es una de mis partidas favoritas, la sencillez conque es ejecutada cada jugada es asombrosa.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·