|Nov-12-04|| ||Bobak Zahmat: It is not smart to deny analysis made by Capablanca of a variation. This way Chajes shows that not everyone can understand the meanings of every move made by super grandmaster. After 11. ... d4 is actually played, Capablanca dominates the game! |
|Nov-12-04|| ||Whitehat1963: Even though he's my personal chess hero, Capablanca's analysis was hardly perfect. Here's what he says about black's 29th move: "29... e6 would be no better, as then White could
play either 30. g6+! xg6 31. xe7+ d8 32. e5
threatening the ook, and 33.f7 mate."
Only one problem, 29...Re6 is indeed much better than Chajes' 29...Be6. If white plays 30. Bg6+, black counters more than effectively with the simple 30...Nxg6!
What do Crafty and the chess engines have to say about 29...Re6, 30. Bg6+?
|Nov-12-04|| ||matey: Whitehat, no way Capablanca would of made such an obvious analysis error, that note needs to be taken out. |
|Nov-13-04|| ||Whitehat1963: I make no apologies or retractions, <matey>. I'm just as surprised as you are that Capa could miss something so obvious, but my weak computer program confirms that 29...Re6 followed by Capa's 30. Bg6+ is effectively countered by 30...Nxg6! Can anyone with access to a good program like Fritz or Crafty confirm this? My program says that black has a significant advantage after 30...Nxg6! (Perhaps Capa saw this move but left it out of his published analysis, but I can't see why he would.) |
|Nov-13-04|| ||Calli: The notes are from "My Chess Career" (Macmillan 1920) Capablanca did indeed make the gross analysis error of 29...Re6 30.Bg6+?? |
He does however, also, give the correct move of 30.h4! This essentially wins the pawn because if 30...g4 then 31.Nf4 wins easy. He is therfore correct when he says that Re6 is "no better".
|Nov-14-04|| ||euripides: Golombek repeats the error in his book on Capablanca. |
|Nov-14-04|| ||offramp: Capablanca may have written his notes to this game without a board in front of him...just looking at the scoresheet.
Had the position arisen on the board at the time he would not have blundered away a piece. |
|Nov-14-04|| ||Calli: <euripides> Good point. In the revised, edited version (Batsford 1997), John Nunn corrects Golombek, calling 30.Bxg6 "a total oversight". Nunn was unaware that Capablanca had made the same error! Did Golembek blindly copy "My Chess Career"? Glancing at his other notes, he refers to Capablanca's annotations several times but adds his own comments as well. It appears that he started with Capa's comments, but failed to check this variation.|
Another point - In Golembek's notes to the critical 18...h6?, he wrongly claims that Capablanca recommended 18...Bg4 and goes on to show that Black still has a bad position. However, as you can see from the notes, Capa recommended 18...0-0 and then 19...Bg4. Nunn also corrects another annotation in the game. Conclusion: Instructive notes by Capa albeit with a bad error, but a really sloppy effort from Harry on the annotations for this game.