< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|May-16-08|| ||dabearsrock1010: gorgeous ending wow a work of art|
|May-16-08|| ||keypusher: <Grega: Nice game. But why white did't play 6 d5 ? >|
Good question. White gets a clear advantage after 6. d5 a6 7. Ba4 (7. Bxc6 is not so good) b5 8. Nxb5, says Shredder.
|May-16-08|| ||Calli: Mr C agrees.
5...f6 (The defense used by Black was very weak, but its purpose was to throw the opponent on his own resources.) 6.fxe5 (d5 was better)
-Notes by Capablanca in the local paper and translated by E. Winter in his book.
|May-16-08|| ||Calli: DBC: White is Leopoldo Carranza|
Source: Capablanca by E. Winter , page 35
|Dec-29-08|| ||sleepyirv: A wonderful zugzwang, very precise- any rook or king move allows Black to skewer and f4 would just lead to more problems.|
|May-06-11|| ||Caissanist: Does Winter actually say his name was Leopoldo Carranza? When a Latino player is given with two last names, then his "real" last name is usually the first one (e.g. Jose Capablanca y Graupera, Julio Granda Zúñiga, Lenier Dominguez Perez). Since there are also two games here with the name "L Molina", most likely he should be in here as Leopoldo Molina (or Leopoldo Molina Carranza).|
|May-06-11|| ||Calli: Yes, he gives Leopoldo Carranza. The source is the short lived Cuban magazine "Revista del Cub Argentino de Andrez", April-June 1911, pages 41-45.|
CG has added "Molina-" to Leopoldo Carranza name. I checked Winter's Capablanca, Skinner's Alekhine, and Gaige's Personalia. Nowhere is Molina given as part of his name.
|May-06-11|| ||Calli: One more bit of information. Leopoldo Carranza and Lizardo Molina Carranza played at the Buenos Aires tournament in 1921. They finished 12th and 14th, respectively. First, this confirms that they are two different people. Secondly, their names as given in the book "Chess Results 1921-1930", page 10, are exactly as given in this note. (No "Molina" for Leopoldo.)|
|May-08-11|| ||Caissanist: Hmm, I'd check my own copy of the 1911 issue of Revista del Cub Argentino, but I seem to have mislaid it somewhere....|
|May-16-11|| ||Calli: <Caissanist> Sorry about that, it's probably because I said "Cuban" in my previous post when I meant to say "short lived Argentinian magazine". Now, you will probably find it. :-) |
Hey, the name is correct now! Time for a beer.
|Jun-10-15|| ||TheFocus: This was one of thirteen exhibition games against the best players of Argentina, played during Capablanca's 1st South American Tour.|
This game was played in Buenos Aires on May 19, 1911.
|Jun-15-15|| ||FairyPromotion: The finish reminded me of: Alekhine vs Yates, 1922|
|Jun-15-15|| ||moodini: I don't think that this is zugzwang. Even if white could pass his moves he would still lose by Rxh3 then Rh2+ (for example).|
My understanding of zugzwang is that the compulsion to move damages the position. Is that correct?
|Jun-15-15|| ||mruknowwho: "Pawns are the soul of Chess." -Philidor|
|Jun-15-15|| ||TheTamale: This game is a little more subtle than the bang-'em-up miniatures that my limited mind enjoys, but it was fascinating to review the final several moves and understand the thought behind them. Worthy of greater study, perhaps.|
|Jun-15-15|| ||kevin86: How about a better pun:
MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS.
|Jun-15-15|| ||catlover: <moodini> Yes, this is zugzwang all right. |
When it’s your turn to move, you cannot just pass. So white does have to move, but any move he makes will cost him dearly.
Since the pawns are all blocked, he has to move either the rook or king. The only king move available is 45. Kf2, but then after 45…Rh2+ the king moves and Capablanca picks up the unhappy rook perched on C2. The only rook move available that doesn’t result in 45…pxR is 45. Ra2, but then after 45…Rh2+ the same thing happens.
|Jun-15-15|| ||Bubo bubo: <moodini> In my opinion zugzwang describes <any> situation where the duty to move is harmful, so I consider White to be in zugzwang here (since the compulsion to move will speed up his breakdown). |
But of course zugzwang is more interesting and important if the result of the game depends on it (e.g. the endgame K+R vs K), so your stricter definition also makes sense.
|Jun-15-15|| ||reticulate: Black is a pawn down in a rook ending, yet has a completely won game. Beautifully done.|
|Jun-15-15|| ||jith1207: <catlover> Can't white move pawn to f4? Technically not exactly rook or king move, right? I believe White can prolong fight there. Please correct if I am missing any obvious here.|
|Jun-15-15|| ||CapablancaFan: The final position white is in complete zugzwang! Any move he makes and his game crumbles yet it is his move, lol!|
|Jun-16-15|| ||Abdel Irada: This is not a case of zugzwang in the strictest sense, since Black would have winning threats even if White *could* pass, but it is nonetheless clear that (a) White must make a move and (b) any move he makes will leave him even worse off.|
In effect, this is therefore zugzwang.
|Apr-22-16|| ||Aleksej: beautifol game|
|Feb-08-17|| ||Toribio3: Amazing! Simple moves by Capablanca that made him famous in the chess world.|
|Feb-08-17|| ||ughaibu: Was this another prearranged game?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·