|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 204 OF 204 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Feb-06-10
 |
| veigaman: <blueofnoon> agree, "chess fundamentals" is a great book, a manual to learn how to play easyly. A chess book to learn the chess principles and the importance of thinking in a long term.This book showed how important the ending was for capablanca |
 |
Feb-07-10
 |
| maxi: All of Capa's books, (Chess Fundamentals 1921,
My Chess Career circa 1920, Last Lectures 1966, A Primer of Chess 1934) make fascinating reading.Chess Fundamentals is the closest to a textbook. Capa covers endings, the middle game and the openings, and gives a few illustrative games. Last Lectures was published by his second wife from collected materials and, while interesting for historical reasons, is the least useful to learn chess from. A Primer of Chess is a lot like Fundamentals, but perhaps with more advanced stuff. My Chess Career is a self-promoting book designed to awe the public and thus press Lasker into granting Capa a match for the World Championship. It is because of this book that some people say Capa was presumptuous. It has several early games with interesting if rather inaccurate analysis. (The practical genius was a rather poor analyst.) All are great, but to learn chess the best is probably Fundamentals. |
|
| Feb-07-10 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <TheFocus: Have you read Chernev's excellent book Capablanca's Best Endings> No I haven't.
<blueofnoon: IMO it's still "chess fundamentals" by the man himself.> This book I have read, a long time ago. However, Capablanca did not explain the techniques he used in terms of piece activity and dynamic play. He did not quite seem to explain his middlegame to endgame transitions well; nor his difficult endgames, some of which I have mentioned above. <how Capablanca perceived the game of chess> I do not think Capablanca himself could describe his chessic thought processes. If one goes to the nitty-gritty of trying to analyze some of his finest defensive efforts, it is incredible how he could have calculated all the pertinent variations in order to avoid defeat in a finite amount of time. He could play defense in difficult positions with almost computer-like precision. I have proposed this before. Capablanca probably did not think in the normal 'I move this, he moves that' manner. Instead, potential chess positions probably flashed in and out of his mind's eye very quickly, like in rapidly moving pictures. He scanned these 'moving pictures' and followed what seemed to him the objectively best ones. Many of us have periods like this, when it seems that we suddenly see and comprehend a smorgasbord of potential chess positions during a game, but the ability comes and goes. With Capablanca in his prime, it was a consistent ability. This would explain why he played so quickly and with such high precision; never seemed to have gotten lost in any position and always seemed to know what to plan and what to do; why he played the board 'blindly' and seemed unaffected by the usual tension that often results in a chessplayer's psychological collapse while defending difficult positions. This would also explain his riddle-like pronouncements, such as given any position, he could see everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. He could not explain it properly himself. At any rate, I do agree that every chess player should read Chess Fundamentals if he can get hold of a copy. Another nice exercise is to look up in CG.com how Capablanca treated certain positions that we see arising in the ongoing live-on-the internet chess tournaments. For instance, when one sees an endgame such as the recent Karjakin vs Anand Corus 2010, it it highly instructive to see how Capablanca played it out when he himself got into a similar endgame. |
|
Feb-07-10
|
| maxi: I agree with what you say, <Visayan>, that Capablanca probably saw positions at a glance. That is perhaps why his analysis is so bad, he is trying to justify --giving variations-- facts he already knew to be true. Justification a posteriori. Do you think it could be that Capa was a bit autistic, or that he could be afflicted with a similar syndrome, like Asberger's? |
|
Feb-07-10
 |
| notyetagm: <maxi: I agree with what you say, <Visayan>, that Capablanca probably saw positions at a glance. That is perhaps why his analysis is so bad, he is trying to justify --giving variations-- facts he already knew to be true. Justification a posteriori. Do you think it could be that Capa was a bit autistic, or that he could be afflicted with a similar syndrome, like Asberger's?maxi: I agree with what you say, <Visayan>, that Capablanca probably saw positions at a glance. That is perhaps why his analysis is so bad, he is trying to justify --giving variations-- facts he already knew to be true. Justification a posteriori. Do you think it could be that Capa was a bit autistic, or that he could be afflicted with a similar syndrome, like Asberger's?> Good question. |
|
| Feb-07-10 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <maxi: Capa was a bit autistic> Yeah, good question. Capablanca the idiot-savant (",) My ongoing hypothesis is that at the age of 4, when the CNS is still not fully myelinized and the brain quite plastic, the young boy JR Capablanca managed to recruit usually non-chessic areas of his brain into processing chess info in his efforts to comprehend the game that he saw his father was playing. Perhaps he was using his language areas in an unusual manner to process chess info. Once he got wired this way, it would stick more or less permanently when his CNS got permanently myelinized. If so, it was an unusual combination of the proper brain as directed by genetics and the right environmental accident at the right age that created a Capablanca. |
|
| Feb-07-10 |
| blueofnoon: <Capablanca did not explain the techniques he used in terms of piece activity and dynamic play. He did not quite seem to explain his middlegame to endgame transitions well; nor his difficult endgames, some of which I have mentioned above.> What we all have to remember is this book was written over 80 years ago. And I believe the expected audience of this book is intermediate players, between 1500 - 2000 in today's Elo scale. We should not compare this one with books authored by likes of Nunn, Dvoretsky or Watson. How many books which dealt with theme like "endgame strategy" (not just elementary positions but common motifs in endgames), general positional ideas and such were there, in 1921? I also disagree with the opinion that Capablanca was a "poor" annotator. If that's the case, why did Botvinnik call Chess Fundamentals "the best textbook on chess"? In my opinion Chess Fundamentals is one of the best books of chess written in pre-WWII era, and it still holds some instructive value even today. |
|
Feb-07-10
|
| veigaman: <blueofnoon> agree with you. Chess Fundamentals teach from the very first page the importance of the logic in chess and how to divide a problem in mini problems. it teach you to think in a long term and it is an original book because it goes from the endgame to the opening. |
|
Feb-07-10
|
| maxi: Capablanca was a good teacher but a lousy analyst. For about 45 years I have carefully gone over his analysis. Not only he often gives unfounded lines, but he also gives moves that are impossible or simply lose a piece. Still, his appreciation of a position is always correct. That is precisely the point! |
|
| Feb-07-10 |
| blueofnoon: Let's be objective.
First of all, we need to compare his analysis with that of his contemporaries like Reti, Nimzovitch, Lasker, Spielman etc before claiming he was a bad analyst. If I remember correctly, GM Jacob Aagaard found many wrong analysis within "My System", with the help from computers, but praised that book nevertheless. Second, we need to remember "Chess Fundamentals" and other books by Capa were not his Ph.D thesis. Unlike Garry Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors", the intention of Capa's books were not to seek the ultimate truth of chess games, but to teach how you should start studying chess to beginners and intermediate players. I can understand some of you have the motivation to promote "Capa knew everything, but he was not capable of expressing his ideas correctly" and such. But such an extreme claim should be backed up with concrete evidence. |
|
| Feb-07-10 |
| visayanbraindoctor: Some of Capablanca's notes in the 1910 Lasker vs Schlecter WC match IMO are lousy, either error-prone or not well explained. Any one could go through the analysis of the first 8 games in the game pages. I believe Capa would not even play some of his own recommended analysis if it were he the one actually playing over the board. Among his contemporaries, Alekhine compared to Capa, was a much better analyst, as shown in his compilation of his best games books. AAA would often go into specific lines and check them for errors. I agree with <maxi> that Capa seemed to be analyzing backwards at times, trying to justify what he already knew was correct. He could see the correct potential positions, but often did not bother to show the step-by-step method of how to get there or explain why the potential positions are correct. For example, in the crucial game 5, we arrive at this position: 
click for larger viewLasker embarked on a plan to advance his passed pawn 46... c5 47... c4 
click for larger viewCapablanca disapproved of it in his annotations, saying that Lasker should have moved 46... Rb5 
click for larger viewTypically, Capa did not explain why, or perhaps could not explain why. So he looks like an autistic person trying to explain something that tied up his tongue; his notes look truncated. What was actually probably happening was that Capa saw a plan based on creating some kind of semi-fortress in the Queenside, from where Black can proceed to improve his position in a safer manner. Lasker's plan, while also logical (advancing one's passed pawn is usually logical), opened up his King to checks and attacks. Schlecter was in fact hoping such a thing would happen when he sacrificed a pawn, and Lasker in this case fell for it. |
|
| Feb-07-10 |
| visayanbraindoctor: BTW I do not believe Capa had Asperger's syndrome. He was quite functional, in fact had a job as a Cuban diplomat. However, diseases like Asperger's do show that an anatomically normal brain may have areas (the brain is actually the most complex system known to science and if we talk about it, we are actually usually talking not about all of it, but of parts of it) that do not seem to function in the normal way, resulting in weird behavior commonly regarded as abnormal. If a CT scan of a brain belonging to an Asperger's afflicted person is studied, it would show no gross abnormality. So the reasons for the abnormal behavior may lie in the synapses, possibly the way the brain is 'wired'. Most probably, the bulk of the wiring (the number and the way the synapses are connected) is done in the developmental stages from fetus to age 4, when the myelinization of the brain is about to get completed. This is said in conjunction with my post above hypothesizing that the 4 year old JR Capablanca may have suffered a 'shock' to his brain, in his efforts to figure out the game that his father was playing, and so may have recruited additional 'wirings' in normally non-chessic brain areas (say the language areas) into processing chess info. One possible result is that he started treating chess positions in blocks of moving pictures, instead of analyzing in the normal move-by-move manner. Perhaps an analogy would be a speed reader comprehending blocks of sentences and paragraphs, instead of reading the same more slowly word for word. |
|
Feb-07-10
|
| veigaman: Capablanca used to avoid explaining all the details in chess fundamentals to force the reader to think.
Capablanca was a genius, we have to check the first day played by him in database being 4 years old: R Iglesias vs Capablanca, 1893
This game just show his chess understanding, 4 years old playing petroff, full understanding of bad bishop, centralization of king,etc. I have read that he took the exam to get into the university and he finished first than the rest with a lot of diference with almost a prefect score. I have no doubt that he was natural genius |
|
Feb-07-10
|
| maxi: <blueofnoon> I believe that Fundamentals is a good book to learn chess, as I have said above. What I am saying is something that becomes obvious to anyone that studies Capa's annotations: he does not form his opinion based on variations, as the ones he gives suck. Fischer pointed this out too, by the way. He himself says he immediately understood a position, the people who saw him play said the same thing, and it is obvious from his annotations. I have no agenda. I don't care particularly about Capa, no more than any other chess star, for that matter. I have no thesis about his knowledge on endings or what have you. Precisely what I found interesting about him a long time ago is that he "thought" in a way unlike the way other people did. <visayan> Thank you for your comments on autism and Asberger's syndrome. Your theory is interesting. Perhaps you could do further serious study about it? |
|
| Feb-07-10 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <maxi> That would probably require advanced diagnostics like PET scans. It simply can't be done in my part of the world. <veigaman> Seems we are in a nature vs nurture topic. My hypothesis obviously says that Capablanca was to a large extent the product of the environment, although a completely accidental and rare event in his case. To ask a rhetorical question, how many 4 year olds go and watch their parents play chess? I haven't seen a single one in my entire life. Thus we have the undoubtedly rare case of a 4 year old watching and attempting to comprehend his parent play a chess game, without any one forcing him to. Perhaps forcing him to do so would change conditions so that he does not wire non-chessic areas of his brain to process chess info. The odds alone of a 4 year old kid accidentally watching and by his free will trying to comprehend chess games his parent was playing must be astronomical. It can probably only happen in a chess-playing family, or in a culture where nearly every one plays chess. We will have to multiply this probability with the chance that such a kid also has the genes to create a genius brain that could wire itself in the proper manner. Capablanca was a genius of geniuses in the field of chess, something that another chess genius Lasker acknowledged. For instance, Lasker regarded Pilsbury as a chess genius. In the Pillsbury page, <James Demery> quotes Lasker as saying <A genius has left us.> when Pillsbury died. However, of Capablanca, Lasker says <I have known many chess players, but only one chess genius, Capablanca.> Obviously Lasker regarded Capablanca as a level above 'ordinary' chess geniuses. This also brings to mind another peculiar phenomenon. No world champion has ever been in awe of another world champion who is his contemporary. For instance, Anand is certainly not in awe of Kramnik, Kasparov, or Karpov, all of whom he has played over the board. Kramnik is certainly not in awe of the above. They of course all respect each other as the best chess players in their era, and as dangerous rivals over the board. It is only with Capablanca that we get pronouncements from the World Champions who were his contemporaries and over the board rivals that look like he awed them with his chess abilities. In some ways, it makes them look like ridiculous fan boys. (See page 170 of this corner for some of these remarks by Lasker, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik.) Be that as it may, it is still best to actually study the way Capa handled his middlegames and endgames before taking the word of these world champions seriously. Now if they indeed were seeing someone that represented such a rare phenomenon that he awed them, then the most pertinent question is probably: Can we 'artificially' create another phenomenon like Capablanca? My opinion is yes, if the conditions that created him could be duplicated. But we can't just force millions of 4 year old kids to watch their parents play chess; the forcing quality of the experiment might destroy it. It has to be set up in such a way that these kids by their own will would sidle up to the chess board, and voluntarily watch their parents play chess. Perhaps one or two would suddenly announce, "Hey Pa, you cheated; and don't laugh at me because I have learned how to play this game by watching you play it," or something similar. |
|
| Feb-07-10 |
| blueofnoon: Alekhine was a super analyst. In fact, I suppose he was one of first top players who published their analysis in such a concrete and thorough way. Saying Capa's analysis was sloppy because he was inferior to Alekhine in that respect is like putting a label of "bad analyst" on Karpov because he doesn't go as through as Fischer or Kasparov. Please have a look at Lasker's chess manual, 500 open games by Tartakower, and The games of chess by Tarrash. Do you think they did much better job than Capablanca? This is completely matter of opinions, but I, for one, have strong doubt that they did. |
|
Feb-08-10
 |
| keypusher: <Please have a look at Lasker's chess manual, 500 open games by Tartakower, and The games of chess by Tarrash. Do you think they did much better job than Capablanca? > I don't know enough about Capablanca's analysis to have an opinion, but I do have a little bit to say about the other three that you mention. I have Lasker's book on the 1909 St. Petersburg book and several books by Tarrasch. It's my opinion (but I haven't rigorously proved it) that Lasker was a more accurate annotator than Tarrasch, but he assumed a mugh higher level of chess knowledge and skill on the part of his readers than Tarrasch did. Tarrasch was really great at explaining things in ways that an amateur could understand. (I have been told that the same is true of Chess Fundamentals.) But everyone in those pre-Fritz days made mistakes -- Tartakower pointed out a big one by Lasker in his notes to one of Tartakower's games at St. Petersburg. Tartakower's analyses in 500 Master Games are consciously very light and non-exhaustive (remember, too, that his co-author was Du Mont -- does anyone know how they split up the work?). Tartakower would not want to be judged by those annotations. My St. Petersburg 1914 book reprints his annotations to Bernstein-Lasker -- very long, rather "literary" and very, very good. He was writing for grown-ups there. |
|
| Feb-08-10 |
| Tripler: What do you think is the best book on Capablanca?
- About Capablanca, not by Capablanca.
Having said that, the book I liked by him most is "Last Chess Lectures" - I've read it many times. Ivanchuk said it was his favourite chess book! (I assume Capablanca wasn't aware they'd be his Last Chess Lectures - they were written for radio broadcast in South America, I think.) The notion of trying to recreate the conditions for another four-year old Capablanca-like subgenius sounds rather creepy to me, even if it were possible. (Ever seen "The Boys From Brazil" where they - i.e. mad scientists - try to recreate the conditions of the young Hitler?) I don't believe Capablanca had Asperger's or anything autistic. (Fischer prabably did have undiagnosed - undiagnosed because unrecognized - Asperger's; his attention to detail is phenomenal in chess, but in life - cf.his website - the endless detailing of trivia suggests he could not see the bigger picture in an argument.) Capablanca, by all accounts, was sociable and mentally balanced. The equation "genius = nutcase" is a cliche. (Sometimes it is true.) As an example of when it isn't true, e.g. Carlsen is a normal young man - just as Kasparov described himself as a fairly normal person who just happens to play a lot of chess! (Before he retired of course.) |
|
Feb-08-10
 |
| whatthefat: <visayanbraindoctor: <maxi: Capa was a bit autistic> Yeah, good question. Capablanca the idiot-savant (",) My ongoing hypothesis is that at the age of 4, when the CNS is still not fully myelinized and the brain quite plastic, the young boy JR Capablanca managed to recruit usually non-chessic areas of his brain into processing chess info in his efforts to comprehend the game that he saw his father was playing. Perhaps he was using his language areas in an unusual manner to process chess info. Once he got wired this way, it would stick more or less permanently when his CNS got permanently myelinized. If so, it was an unusual combination of the proper brain as directed by genetics and the right environmental accident at the right age that created a Capablanca.> If that is the case then the same phenomenon would be expected to have occurred again many times since, and not only in chess but other fields too. As it is, I know of little experimental evidence for such fundamental differences in brain function, except in cases of brain injury or retardation. Capablanca is not particularly unusual in the age at which he learned the game, and there is no evidence to suggest that he played or thought about chess substantially differently to any of the other great players. |
|
Feb-08-10
 |
| KingG: <No world champion has ever been in awe of another world champion who is his contemporary. For instance, Anand is certainly not in awe of Kramnik, Kasparov, or Karpov, all of whom he has played over the board. Kramnik is certainly not in awe of the above. They of course all respect each other as the best chess players in their era, and as dangerous rivals over the board. It is only with Capablanca that we get pronouncements from the World Champions who were his contemporaries and over the board rivals that look like he awed them with his chess abilities.> Both Anand and Kramnik consider Kasparov to be the greatest player of all time. I don't know if you can get any praise higher than that. You can also get an idea of how little chance Kramnik thought he had of beating Kasparov in their match, even though he was in the top 3 in the world, by watching his DVD for chessbase. He also praises Kasparov far more than any other world champion in his interview http://www.kramnik.com/eng/intervie.... <he is a chess player who does not seem to have weak spots. At least, I don't know which weak point he had in his better days. Many books can be written about him.> <As for his strong will, Kasparov could be compared to Botvinnik but he surpasses his teacher because he is much more flexible.> <Though rigid, Kasparov is open to any changes. He is able to change his outlook on chess in six months. Kasparov absorbs things like a sponge; he soaks up all changes, everything he sees he processes quickly and makes it part of his arsenal. I think this is the main quality that makes Kasparov different from the other chess players.> <Kasparov definitely has a great talent. There is nothing in chess he has been unable to deal with. The other world champions had something 'missing'. I can't say the same about Kasparov: he can do everything. If he wishes to play some type of positions brilliantly, he will do it. Nothing is impossible for him in chess.> Topalov isn't really a real world champion, but he also put Kasparov on a different level to the other top players of his generation, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_W3.... |
|
| Feb-08-10 |
| paladin at large: I believe a key experience for Capa as a four year old was his repeat visits to the Havana fortress, where his father was stationed. Capa was fascinated by the soldiers, the different ranks and functions, cannons on the ramparts, etc. This categorization tied in to his comprehension of the chessboard and the qualities of the pieces he saw on it. |
|
| Feb-08-10 |
| paladin at large: Capa was not an idiot-savant. He had many interests, was well read, sociable, spoke five languages, had no impairments to speak of. If you are looking for something odd in the course of his development, apart from his brilliance at chess and aptitude for the natural sciences and probably math, it is the way the world reacted to him. He noted once to Olga, his wife, ca 1938, that "everything I have ever done (on the chessboard) has been written down". He was the focus of attention and awe for practically as long as he could remember. He was the most famous Cuban. To the credit of Celso Golmayo and the Havana Chess Club and Capa's parents, they saw to it that he developed as a normal child, at least as much as possible. |
|
Feb-08-10
 |
| TheFocus: The following is a list of books about Jose Capablanca as presented at Winter's (Chess Notes> * A Brief Review of the Chess Record of José Raúl Capablanca by D. Welles (New York, 1911) * Kh. R. Kapablanka Opyt kharakteristiki by E.A. Znosko-Borovsky (St Petersburg, 1911) * 20 Partien Capablanca’s by B. Kagan (Berlin, 1915)
* Glorias del Tablero “Capablanca” by J.A. Gelabert (Havana, 1923 and 1924) * Kapablanka i Alekhin: bor’ba za mirovoe pervenstvo v shakhmaty by E.A. Znosko-Borovsky (Paris, 1927)* * The Immortal Games of Capablanca by F. Reinfeld (New York, 1942, 1974 and 1990) * Homenaje a José Raúl Capablanca (Havana, 1943)
* Partidas Clásicas de Capablanca by G. Ståhlberg and P. Alles Monasterio (Buenos Aires, 1943) * Capablanca by F. Chalupetzky and L. Tóth (Kecskemét, 1943) * Capablanca Veszit by F. Chalupetzky and L. Tóth (Kecskemét, undated) * Capablanca’s Hundred Best Games of Chess by H. Golombek (London, 1947, New York, 1947, New York, 1978, St Leonards on Sea, 1989, London, 1996 and Aylesbeare, 2004) – plus German translation/adaptation: J.R. Capablanca 75 seiner schönsten Partien * Het Schaakphenomeen José Raoul Capablanca by M. Euwe and L. Prins (The Hague, 1949) – plus German, Spanish and Russian translations * Capablanca’s sämtliche Verlustpartien (Flensburg, 1951)* * Trofei di Capablanca by L. Penco (Milan, 1954)
* Kapablanka by V. Panov (Moscow, 1959) – plus Spanish translation* * Capablancas Förlustpartier by J.E. Westman (Uppsala, 1963) * Weltgeschichte des Schachs: Capablanca by J. Gilchrist and D. Hooper (Hamburg, 1963) * J.R. Capablanca by B. Hörberg and J. Westberg (Örebro, 1965) * Kapablanka by V. Panov (Moscow, 1970) – plus Spanish, Italian and Serbian translations * Capablanca by S. Petrović (Zagreb, 1974)
* The Unknown Capablanca by D. Hooper and D. Brandreth (London, 1975, New York, 1975 and New York, 1993) * Capablancas Verlustpartien by F.C. Görschen (Hamburg-Bergedorf, 1976) * Capablanca, Leyenda y Realidad by M.A. Sánchez, two volumes (Havana, 1978) * The Best Endings of Capablanca and Fischer (Belgrade, 1978) * Capablanca’s Best Chess Endings by I. Chernev (Oxford, 1978 and New York, 1982) * Capablanca – das Schachphänomen by W.N.
Panow (Stuttgart, 1982)
* Endspieltechnik à la Capablanca by L. Nikolaiczuk (Mannheim, 1987) * Das Schachgenie Capablanca by I. Linder and W. Linder (East Berlin, 1988) * Gent Nostra Capablanca by M. Fontrodona (Barcelona, 1988) * Así Jugaba Capablanca by J. Daubar (Havana, 1988)
* Kapablanka v Rossii by V. Linder and I. Linder (Moscow, 1988) * Kapablanka Vstrechi c Rossiey by A.I. Sizonenko (Moscow, 1988) * Capablanca A Compendium of Games, Notes, Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations and Other Rare Archival Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius José Raúl Capablanca, 1888-1942 by E. Winter (Jefferson, 1989) * Partie Jose Raoula Capablanki 1901-1927 (Warsaw, 1989) * Partie Jose Raoula Capablanki 1928-1939 (Warsaw, 1989) * José Raoul Capablanca Ein Schachmythos (Düsseldorf, 1989) * Capablanca by J. Daubar (Havana, 1990)
* The Games of José Raúl Capablanca by R. Caparrós (Yorklyn, 1991). Second edition: Dallas, 1994 – plus Spanish translation * Jose Capablanca by S. Akhpatelov and S. Gordon (undated) * José Raúl Capablanca by D. Bjelica (Madrid, 1993)
* Capablanca 222 partidas (Madrid, 1994)
* Match por el campeonato de ajedrez Capablanca y Alekhine (Buenos Aires, 1994) * Ajedrez La lucha por la iniciativa by O. Aldama Zambrano (Santiago de Cuba, 1994* and Barcelona, 2000) * Jose Raul Capablanca Games 1901-1926 (1997)
* Jose Raul Capablanca Games 1927-1942 (1997)
* Capablanca’s Eighteen Select Chess Games by F.N. Tapia (Havana, 1998) * Capablanca biografía 42 partidas magistrales by J. Chiappini (Rosario, 1998) * J.R. Capablanca by E. Varnusz (two volumes - ‘Games 1888-1925’ and ‘Games 1926-1942’, Altstadthof, undated) * Ajedrez La lucha por la iniciativa by O. Aldama Zambrano (Barcelona, 2000) * Sygrajte kak Kapablanka by I.M. Linder (Moscow, 2004) * Jose Raul Capablanca: Zjizn i Igra by V. Linder and I. Linder (Moscow, 2005) * Jose Raul Capablanca by I. Kourkounakis and I. Babasakis (Athens, 2005) * The Chess Greats of the World: Capablanca by D. Lovas (Kecskemét, 2006) * Capablanca in the United Kingdom (1911-1920) by V. Fiala (Olomouc, 2006) * Capablanca entre sus iguales by R. Milián González (Havana, 2006) * José Raúl Capablanca Avtoportret genia by S. Voronkov, two volumes (Moscow, 2006) * José Raúl Capablanca by G. Siwek (Warsaw, 2007)
* José Raúl Capablanca by F.P. Miller, A.F. Vandome and J. McBrewster (Beau Bassin, 2009). |
|
Feb-08-10
|
| TheFocus: Books and works by Capablanca:
*Cartilla de Ajedrez (1913)
*Havana 1913 (tournament book-1913)
*My Chess Career (1920)
*Chess Fundamentals (1921)
*The World Championship Chess Match between Jose Raul Capablanca and Dr. Emanuel Lasker (1921) *A Primer of Chess (1934)
*Last Lectures (1966 - published by Olga Capablanca)
Capablanca also annotated all his games for New York 1918 tournament book. Also annotated all his games from the Moscow 1936 tournament in "64" Russian magazine. Three columns are also known:
*Chess Weekly (1910)
*Capablanca Chess Magazine (1912 - 1914)
*Diario de la Marina (1912)
I do not agree that all Capablanca's annotations were poor. He did some excellent work in many games. For every game that you can say "oh, that was poor" you can also find the same amount or more that are excellent. |
|
Feb-08-10
|
| TheFocus: Trivia Question: In what event did Capablanca and Alekhine last participate in together? |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 204 OF 204 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
|
