< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|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?
|Oct-01-16|| ||devere: <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.>|
This is often-repeated nonsense. In fact the London rules called for a purse that was half what Capablanca himself had raised to challenge Lasker. And quite obviously it also didn't require a return match if the champion lost, as Alekhine did when he played Euwe. Alekhine was a great chess player, but not a great person.
|Nov-18-16|| ||offramp: Today's title, "Roamin' Orthodox" seems to be a pun on "Roman Orthodox" although I do not know what a Roman Orthodox might be. Is it a font?|
Great game, though, one of the all-time greats. Capablanca built up a huge position out of the opening.
click for larger view
But he now played 26. Ng4. 26. Nc4! would have been quite a lot better,
After that Alekhine got himself back into the game and went on to win.
The kibitzing for this game explains all its fine points, but only read every third kibitz.
|Nov-18-16|| ||beatgiant: <offramp>
The obvious interpretation is that Capablanca was the Roman (Catholic) and Alekhine was the (Eastern) Orthodox. But, would chessgames.com make fun of religious designations? Say it isn't so!
|Nov-18-16|| ||beatgiant: <offramp> Or maybe the Roamin' Orthodox is Alekhine's king's bishop, which "strays" from the Orthodox Defense move (...Be7) and roams from f8 to b4, e7, g5, h6, g7 before finally exchanging on f6.|
|Nov-18-16|| ||offramp: <beatgiant> it could be that this is a QGD Orthodox Defence but it roamed away from the standard lines.|
There is no Roman Orthodox church or font, or church with font, but there is a <Romanian Orthodox> Church and I've met both of them.
|Nov-18-16|| ||kevin86: white will be mated by black's other queen|
|Jul-19-17|| ||Johnnysaysthankyou: @Allejin, I suspect the opposite. SOMEONE in Argentina had a beef with Capablanca and believed in Alekhine. Who it was, may never be known.|
|Dec-05-17|| ||Howard: Given the complexities of this game, one wonders what the silicon grandmasters may have found in it, which others may have missed.|
|Dec-05-17|| ||morfishine: <offramp> Yes, Capa had the opportunity to place a Knight on <d6> which practically forces Black into a defensive exchange sac. For all intents and purposes, Black acquiesces to a desperate defense. |
But alas, this didn't happen
|Dec-05-17|| ||Howard: At what move did this take place ?|
|Dec-08-17|| ||maxi: Perhaps someone can help me. Where is it that Capa comments on this game? Another thing, I think I remember, but I am not sure, I may be confused, that Capablanca said that he was mystified by losing this game, because in similar positions with the white pawn in f6 he had always won. Is there any source citing this?|
|Dec-08-17|| ||maxi: Alekhine has 26.Ng4, 32.Nf6+, 47.Qd7, and 60.a5 as Capa's blunders.|
|Dec-09-17|| ||maxi: The complexity of the endgame after 39.KxB is mind-boggling. There are so many tactics! No wonder two geniuses like Capa and Alehine had so much trouble with it OTB.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·