< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Sep-07-08|| ||whiteshark: "The diagram shows an example of of a rare occurrence in Capablanca's games, a double blunder. |
click for larger view
Capablanca played 23...Qf6, and remarked, '23...Kh7 was the right move. The text move exposed Black to a variation, which I thought at the time would win for Black without much trouble, but careful examination will prove this not to be the case. In fact, Black cannot win at all."
Full annotations: http://chessforallages.blogspot.com...
|Sep-07-08|| ||Calli: Having trouble with the term "double blunder". Black made a mistake and White did not take advantage of it. Is that "rare"? Usually, I think of "double blunder" as the same player making consecutive (or nearly so) blunders. Typically missing the win and then the draw.|
|Sep-07-08|| ||sneaky pete: Fahrni vs Spielmann, Barmen 1905, position after 9 moves|
click for larger view
Nun folgt wieder kein Entwickungszug eines noch unentwickelten Steines, was genau nach dem Erwarten der angeblich ganz "neuen Schule" ist, die nur von einigen Großmeistern angewendet wird (nach Réti).
Analogie! (den Springerzug droht Sxe6. Ich hätte auch anders spielen können, aber diese "Schachtechnik" war mir seit Jahren schon bekannt!)
10... Dd8-b6 11.Dd1-h5+ ..
Sieht wegen g7-g6 wie Tempoverlust aus. Der Zweck aber ist g7-g6 zu erzwingen, um dann Df3 zu ziehen, worauf Sg8-f6 nicht möglich ist.
11... g7-g6 12.Dh5-f3 Sg8-h6 13.Df3-f6!
Nun kann Tg8? nicht geschehen wegen Dxe6+ event. DxD, Sxe6, Lxb5, Sxb5. Dann droht Sb5-c7+!
Hans Fahrni in 1922 regarding Réti's claim of a new approach quoted by <Gypsy> in the first post of this page.
|Jan-16-09|| ||sleepyirv: What on Earth did Fahndrich/Kaufmann do that they ended up playing against Capablanca AND Reti?|
|Aug-31-09|| ||birthtimes: After 26...Rb6, Capa writes, "The beginning of a very elaborate plan, the first object of which is to force the advance of one of White's queenside pawns, so that the White rooks cannot be free to manoeuvre and attack Black's queenside pawns."|
After 27...Rc8, "To prevent the White rook from going to c3. At the same time the attack on the c-pawn holds the knight at d4 and keeps a rook defending the pawn."
After 29...Kg6, "Forcing the c-pawn to advance, which is part of Black's plan. If Rf2 the f-pawn will soon advance and the Black rook go to c3."
After 31...Ra6, "The plan is maturing, White will have to play a4, and Black can then break through by b5!"
After 33...b5, "Now, as the rook goes through, and the king advances to the centre, the enormous power of the bishop at e4 becomes evident. The passed f-pawn will soon advance and the game will be over."
And after 42...h5, "Now the king must move to d1, and after forcing the exchange of the knight for the bishop, the passed f-pawn cannot be stopped."
From "My Chess Career" by J.R. Capablanca, 1966, pp. 116-118.
|Oct-08-10|| ||TheFocus: Reti was NOT a partner of Capablanca's in this game. <CG> should correct this.|
Reti NEVER claimed to be Capa's partner either. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
|Oct-08-10|| ||Calli: Reti had himself as partner in "Modern Ideas in Chess" and discussed Capablanca's thoughts during the game. See Gypsy's first post on this game. Edward Winter says he wasn't and the controversy was discussed in the BCM but I don't have those issues.|
|Oct-08-10|| ||chancho: This "consultation" game was played in Vienna on March 11, 1914.
On March 13th and 14th, (in Vienna) Capa played Tartakower twice, and on the 15th, Reti.|
Game 1) Tartakower vs Capablanca, 1914
Game 2) Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1914
----------Capablanca vs Reti, 1914
|Oct-08-10|| ||Mata Hari: No mas!|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Calli: Picture of Capablanca playing Reti in the Vienna chess club:|
|Oct-09-10|| ||ughaibu: Who's the other guy without a tash?|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Calli: Don't know any the others in photo. I think there was a fine for not wearing a mustache in that era. :-]|
|Oct-09-10|| ||TheFocus: I do not think a stash on Capablanca would look good. Or Pillsbury for that matter. Both men were handsome buggers.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||kamalakanta: <sleepyirv: What on Earth did Fahndrich/Kaufmann do that they ended up playing against Capablanca AND Reti?>|
Maybe they put some money down?
|Oct-10-10|| ||Calli: Something odd happened and the old link doesn't work. Try this one:|
|Oct-10-10|| ||BobCrisp: <Edward Winter says he wasn't and the controversy was discussed in the BCM but I don't have those issues.>|
You didn't miss much. They were just a couple of <Quotes & Queries> covering the same ground.
|Oct-10-10|| ||chancho: Another game where Capa played the same guys in 1911, and according to <Paladin at large> was a consultation game played with Tartakower on Capa's side:|
Fahndrich / Kaufmann vs Capablanca, 1911
|Oct-10-10|| ||Calli: <BobCrisp> Thanks for the info! Reti's original German annotation can be seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=l2...|
It remains a mystery, then, how Capablanca thought he was solo and Reti thought he was consulting.
|Oct-10-10|| ||sneaky pete: <Calli> From Ken Whyld's column:|
No.4517 - Michael McDowell notes that in <My Chess Career> Capablanca does not acknowledge his partner in the consultation games Capablanca & Currington v Davidson & Ferguson (pp.22-4) and Kaufman & Fähndrich v Capablanca & Réti. "Was there any reason for this? I find it hard to believe that Réti in particular made no contribution to the game." In <Modern Ideas in Chess> (pp.107-9) Réti makes it clear that he was in consultation. Perhaps Capa saw it as a master class.
No.4537 - Edward Winter comments on Q&Q 4527, the consultation game with Capablanca and Réti as allies, quoting <Dynamic Chess> by Coles, p. 13, 'the black forces were, as Réti admits, largely conducted by Capablanca'. Where did Réti make this admission? As we saw in March, not in <Modern Ideas in Chess>. The Sept-Nov. 1914 issue of <Wiener Schachzeitung> says that the pair won jointly. Mr Winter says that Capablanca's annotations the April-May 1914 issue of <Capablanca Magazine> make it clear, in the note to 33... b5!, that he considered it a solo effort. "Esta brilliante concepción me valió grandes elogios, incluso de mis adversarios ..."
|Oct-10-10|| ||Calli: <Sneaky Pete> Many thanks for the report. Given the reportage of Wiener Schachzeitung, it surely must be a consultation game. I believe the publication was well connected to the Vienna Chess Club and unlikely to make a mistake of this kind. The only remaining question is the extent of Reti's involvement. Capablanca, obviously, considered Reti's involvement insignificant. If a source for R.N. Coles' statement can be found, it's possible that Reti was regulated to being a relay between boards.|
|Oct-10-10|| ||TheFocus: Without an accurate report, it is hard to accept Reti as Capablanca's partner, but I am willing to say, yeah, maybe Capablanca partnered up with the youth. Capa's notes do not indicate this, but it can be plausible.|
To me, Reti's notes in <Modern Ideas in Chess> can be construed as "post-mortem" analysis.
Perhaps we may never get to the bottom of this. It would be nice to see if other publications support this. Neither <The Field> nor <Yearbook of Chess> suggest Reti as Capa's partner.
|Oct-11-10|| ||sneaky pete: <... maybe Capablanca partnered up with the youth.>|
That's right, let's not forget that Capablanca was a full 6 months older than Réti.
|Oct-11-10|| ||TheFocus: <sneaky pete> LOL! Did not catch you napping!|
I can't believe I made that mistake. Didn't even look up their ages. Just thought Capablanca was much older than Reti. This is what happens when you get older.
|Oct-11-10|| ||maxi: You partner up with Reti but don't notice him?|
|Jul-27-13|| ||frontcode: If you're interested in recorded live comments, in Spanish, of this famous game, you may click on:|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·