< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Feb-11-12|| ||drukenknight: 32 Qc4. Gee sorry about that, I am going fast obviously. It looks intersting to me, and didnt use the pc. God knows I have made some bad moves over the years...|
|Feb-11-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Everyone makes mistakes. (Its why there are erasers on pencils.)|
|Feb-12-12|| ||TheFocus: <AJ> Did you miss this? You are wrong about the inventor.|
<This is the, "Cambridge Springs Defense." It is named after one of the very few International Tournaments played in the U.S. prior to 1950.
(Cambridge Springs, 1904.)
(The variation is so named because it was first introduced by Harry N. Pillsbury and played for the first time at that tournament.)
I also propose that this variation be referred to as the, "Pillsbury Variation" after its creator. A.J.G.>
Well, Pillsbury did not introduce this move. It was introduced by Emanuel Lasker in this game, in 1892, a full 12 years before Pillsbury played it:
A Hodges vs Lasker, 1892
|Feb-26-12|| ||The Curious Emblem: I believe it was safer and better to have played 60. Rc2. 60. a5 is a bit too ambitious.|
|Mar-01-12|| ||tpstar: The remaining marker posts look a little funny without the background context, but at least any real chess content was preserved here. There have been other instances where legitimate discussion and helpful analysis get swept away along with the squabbling, which is frustrating when you want to review it later.|
Great major piece endgame.
|Apr-04-12|| ||rjsolcruz: In the Asian Youth 2011, the continuation 5 cxd5 was played in Tachaplalert of Thailand vs Sol Cruz of Philippines.|
|Dec-12-12|| ||CanteurX: An obviously faked game.
Checkmate with pinned queen?
|Dec-12-12|| ||aliejin: One of the more exciting games
of chess history .... that race
pawn, trying to crown, both of
opponents pressed for time ....
and the spectacular mate
In a way, Capablanca's fate changes
forever with this game.
|Jun-27-13|| ||paladin at large: <offramp> < Alekhine was 2-1 down at game 7 but he did not lose faith!
He kept the faith and won the match!!>
You don't need to cheerlead for Alekhine; I remember who won the match. I am sure you are right that Capa did not expect to fall behind again after game 7. I was pointing out Capa's resiliency long into the match, at Games 27, 28, 29.
Alekhine was not always a fighting tiger. At Nottingham 1936, AA won in the 1st round but, after his 2nd round fumbled loss to Capa, AA went into a listless stretch (look at his game with Tylor), not winning again until about round 9.
|Nov-07-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: After 17...Be8 Black has the bishop pair but White has greater space and a lead in development. How can White make use of his greater space?|
The game D Andreikin vs Kramnik, 2013 offers one three suggestions of how Capablanca might have been able to prevail with greater space against the bishop pair:
The move 15 Be4 offers one suggestion: exchange one of the bishops
The move 16 Rfd1 offers a second suggestion: gain a lead in development.
The movea 18 Qa4, 19 Nb3 and 20 Rd6 offer a third suggestion: use the lead in development to start an attack
|Nov-21-13|| ||perfidious: <paladin at large:.....Alekhine was not always a fighting tiger. At Nottingham 1936, AA won in the 1st round but, after his 2nd round fumbled loss to Capa, AA went into a listless stretch (look at his game with Tylor), not winning again until about round 9.>|
By an extension of this logic, one could conclude that any great master was not always, as you put it, a fighting tiger. Even Fischer took a short draw with White near the finish of one of his numerous US championship victories with the event in the bag. Shall we thus conclude that there was lack of fight in him? How about Korchnoi, who in 1972 played a team event at Moscow which featured several draws of fifteen moves or less? Was he another chicken?
Alekhine indeed had a winless stretch at Nottingham from rounds 2-8 (-2 =5), with some short draws, but what is your point?
|Jan-21-14|| ||Chessical: <CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP. Check to Capablanca>. |
When the eleventh game in the match at Buenos Aires between Capablanca and Alekhine for the world's chess championship was adjourned on Friday evening Capablanca remained in the hall for two hours studying the board.
He then decided make use his right to postpone the play for one day. The game will therefore resumed, tonight, so far it is considered one the most notable ever played.
What appeared at first to Capablanca triumph was turned into a fairly even game through Alekhine's masterly style. Capablanca opened with the Queen's Pawn, while Alekhine used the Cambridge Springs variation. Both later disregarded accepted forms and engaged in very unusual combinations. —Press Association Foreign Special.
<Western Daily Press - Monday 10 October 1927, page 8>.
|Aug-13-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: |
<Shadout Mapes: 51...Rf8 is one of those legendary errors which plagues so many online databases.>
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that 51...Rf8 is not the move actually played in the game?
51...Rf8 is in fact the actual move played, according to both Alekhine and to biographers Skinner and Verhoeven.
-Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.170
-Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946," (McFarland 1998), p.326
|Aug-14-14|| ||capafischer1: the absolute fact remains that lifetime capablanca won 2 more games than alekhine head to head and as much as I admire alekhine too, he did everything possible to avoid a rematch but gave bogoljubow not 1 but 2 chances.|
|Sep-02-14|| ||coldsweat: What a nightmare to play these positions under time constraints!|
The history I've read is that Capablanca had insisted upon difficult conditions in order for Alekhine to be able to play him in this 1927 World Championship, and that Alekhine simply insisted upon the same conditions for a rematch. What is the truth here?
|Sep-02-14|| ||Petrosianic: <What is the truth here?>|
The truth is that the match was played under the ""London Rules", which were a set of rules for World Championship matches, agreed on by Capa and most of his potential challengers (including Alekhine himself) during the London 1922 tournament. A lot of people were dissatisfied with the way Lasker had been able to go underground with the title for years, and wanted some kind of rules that would require a champion to face a challenger who ponied up a decent purse. There was supposed to be nothing punitive or difficult about them. Quite the reverse.
However, after the Depression hit in 1929, those conditions became more difficult to meet than they had been pre-Depression. Alekhine insisted that Capa play under those rules (which by then really WERE difficult) but allowed other challengers that he wasn't trying to avoid more leeway. In the end, Capa-Alekhine was the one and only match played under the London Rules, but they had been intended as a blueprint for all future matches.
|Sep-02-14|| ||MissScarlett: <The truth is that the match was played under the ""London Rules", which were a set of rules for World Championship matches, agreed on by Capa and most of his potential challengers (including Alekhine himself) during the London 1922 tournament.>|
I prefer to call them 'Capa's Rules'; he drew them up, and the others agreed to them, as if they had a choice....
<In the end, Capa-Alekhine was the one and only match played under the London Rules, but they had been intended as a blueprint for all future matches.>
All future Capa matches.
|Sep-03-14|| ||aliejin: The rules of London (unilaterally dictated by the world champion,
as was the custom at the time), they were terrible for aspirant.
You had to get a lot of money. If we add the certainty
to the world of chess, Capablanca was invincible .....
Nobody was interested in a match for the title. But my country,
where Capablance was a God, wanted to pay tribute to Cuban
and funded the match. (Helped the spectacular visit Alekhine did in 1926)
What no one imagined was a defeat of Capablanca .............|
|Apr-10-16|| ||Russian Patzer: According to Levenfish and Romanovsky "Alekhine - Capablanca Match, 1927" and Shaburov "Undefeated Champion", the game ended in mate: 67. Qg2 Qh1.
Is this line incorrect?|
|Apr-10-16|| ||offramp: <Russian Patzer: According to Levenfish and Romanovsky "Alekhine - Capablanca Match, 1927" and Shaburov "Undefeated Champion", the game ended in mate: 67. Qg2 Qh1. Is this line incorrect?>|
Yes, that is incorrect. There were no checkmates in this match. In this game Capablanca resigned one move from checkmate so the authors of that book supplied the missing one move instead of putting it in a footnote.
Irving Chernev wrote that Capablanca was never checkmated. There are, I believe, some game scores where Capa was checkmated but it is possible that the scores have been "filled in" in the same way.
I mean that an annotator has extended the score to include the mate, instead of writing "White resigned owing to a mate in 2, which would be achieved thus ...." etc.
Blimey. What a load of crap.
|Apr-10-16|| ||plang: Does it really make a difference when he resigned? Is this some sort of macho thing?|
|Apr-10-16|| ||The Kings Domain: Arguably the two greatest luminaries of the sport going at their best in their prime. The multiple queen ending merely highlights this. This championship match was the Kasparov-Karpov rivalry of its era, and it's no surprise the two K's each had their respective idol in this one of a kind 1927 match.|
|Apr-10-16|| ||offramp: <The Kings Domain:...it's no surprise the two K's each had their respective idol in this one of a kind 1927 match.>|
Eh? Who? Say what you mean, dude!
|Apr-10-16|| ||AlicesKnight: <The Kings Domain; "... at their best in their prime"> Possibly so generally, though this is the game which Alekhine describes as a 'true comedy of errors' in his notes. He cites 43....Qc6 and 60 ....Rd8 on his part, allowing drawing lines, as well as Capa's 47.Qd7 and 61.a6 missing a draw, among a number of faulty moves.|
|Sep-16-16|| ||Marmot PFL: <Its probably a bad idea to nominate yourself for an award, but I may as well go ahead and do it. This may be the finest and most thorough job of annotating a chess game anywhere on the Internet. If you know of a better job ... one where the author was at least a Master and spent perhaps 2000 hours (or more) working on the game ... be sure to let me know!! Otherwise, until I see proof of a better job, than I nominate this game as: |
The Best Annotated Chess Game on the Internet! >
yeah sure, 2000 hours is a 8 hour workday, 5 days a week for a solid year (with 2-week vacation), just on one game?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·