The chess games of Jose Raul Capablanca

Capablanca

Jose Raul Capablanca
Number of games in database: 794
Years covered: 1893 to 1940
Overall record: +371 -46 =262 (73.9%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
      115 exhibition games, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS

With the White pieces:

Ruy Lopez (63)
    C66 C88 C83 C62 C63
Orthodox Defense (57)
    D63 D51 D52 D64 D61
Queen's Gambit Declined (44)
    D30 D37 D31 D38
Queen's Pawn Game (30)
    D02 D00 D05 D04 A50
French Defense (26)
    C12 C11 C01 C14 C00
Nimzo Indian (22)
    E34 E38 E22 E33 E35

With the Black pieces:

Orthodox Defense (52)
    D67 D53 D64 D63 D51
Ruy Lopez (43)
    C66 C77 C73 C88 C72
Queen's Pawn Game (37)
    A46 D02 D00 D05 E10
Nimzo Indian (18)
    E24 E34 E23 E40 E37
Queen's Indian (17)
    E16 E12 E15 E18
Slav (17)
    D19 D17 D12 D15 D10

Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924 1-0
   Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918 1-0
   O Bernstein vs Capablanca, 1914 0-1
   Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1927 0-1
   Lasker vs Capablanca, 1921 0-1
   Capablanca vs K Treybal, 1929 1-0
   Capablanca vs M Fonaroff, 1918 1-0
   Capablanca vs J Corzo, 1901 1-0
   Capablanca vs NN, 1918 1-0
   Janowski vs Capablanca, 1916 0-1

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: [what is this?]
   Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)
   Capablanca-Alekhine World Championship Match (1927)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Capablanca! by chocobonbon
   Match Capablanca! by amadeus
   Jose Raul Capablanca's Best Games by KingG
   "The Immortal Games of Capablanca" by Reinfeld by mjk
   capablanca best games by brager
   Capablanca´s Official Games (1901-1939) Part I by capablancakarpov
   Capablanca's Best Chess Endings by refutor
   Capablanca's Best Chess Endings (Irving Chernev) by nightgaunts
   Ruylopez's favorite games by Ruylopez
   Guess-the-Move Chess: 1920-1939 (Part 2) by Anatoly21
   On the shoulders of giants by ughaibu
   Capablanca vs the World Champions Decisive Games by visayanbraindoctor
   José Capablanca's Rook Endings by Knight Pawn
   Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors Part 1 by MetalPlastic

GAMES ANNOTATED BY CAPABLANCA: [what is this?]
   Lasker vs Capablanca, 1921
   Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910
   Capablanca vs Lasker, 1921
   Capablanca vs Lasker, 1921
   Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1913
   >> 27 GAMES ANNOTATED BY CAPABLANCA

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Jose Raul Capablanca
Search Google for Jose Raul Capablanca

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA
(born Nov-19-1888, died Mar-08-1942) Cuba

[what is this?]

José Raúl Capablanca y Graupera was the third World Champion, reigning from 1921 until 1927. Renowned for the simplicity of his play, his legendary endgame prowess, accuracy, and the speed of his play, he earned the nickname of the "Human Chess Machine".

Background

Capablanca, the second son of a Spanish Army officer, was born in Havana. He learned to play at an early age by watching his father and defeated Cuban Champion Juan Corzo in an informal match in 1901 by 6.5-5.5 (+4 −3 =5), turning 13 years of age during the match. Despite this and despite taking 4th place in the first Cuban Championship in 1902, he did not focus on chess until 1908 when he left Columbia University where he had enrolled to study chemical engineering and play baseball. He did, however, join the Manhattan Chess Club in 1905, soon establishing his dominance in rapid chess. He won a rapid chess tournament in 1906 ahead of the World Champion Emanuel Lasker, and played many informal games against him. Within a year or two of dropping out of university and after playing simultaneous exhibitions in dozens of US cities, winning over 95% of his games, Capablanca had established himself as one of the top players in the world alongside the other greats of the period, especially after the Capablanca - Marshall (1909) New York match exhibition win 15-8 (+8 -1 =14).

Tournaments

Capablanca won the 1910 New York State Championship by defeating co-leader Charles Jaffe in a tiebreaker match. In 1911, he placed second in the National Tournament in New York, with 9½ out of 12, half a point behind Marshall, and half a point ahead of Charles Jaffe and Oscar Chajes. There followed Capablanca’s ground breaking win at San Sebastian in 1911 with 9.5/14 (+6 -1 =7) ahead of Akiba Rubinstein and Milan Vidmar on 9, Marshall on 8.5, and other luminaries such as Carl Schlechter , Siegbert Tarrasch and Ossip Bernstein. Before the tournament, Aron Nimzowitsch protested the unknown Capablanca’s involvement in the event, but the latter demonstrated his credentials by defeating Nimzowitsch in in their game. Winning at San Sebastian was only the second time a player had won a major tournament at his first attempt since Harry Nelson Pillsbury ’s triumph at Hastings in 1895, and it provided a powerful boost to his credibility to challenge for the world title. He did so, but the match did not take place for another 10 years.

In early 1913, Capablanca won a tournament in New York with 11/13 (+10 -1 =2), half a point ahead of Marshall. Capablanca then finished second with 10/14 (+8 -2 =4), a half point behind Marshall in Havana, losing one of their individual games, rumour having it that he asked the mayor to clear the room so that no-one would see him resign. Returning to New York, Capablanca won all thirteen games at the New York tournament of 1913, played at the Rice Chess Club. 1914 saw the <"tournament of champions"> played at St. Petersburg. Capablanca, with 13/18 (+10 -2 =6), came second behind Lasker and well ahead of Alexander Alekhine on 10/18, Tarrasch on 8.5/18 and Marshall on 8/18.

After the outbreak of World War I, Capablanca stayed in New York and won tournaments held there in 1915 (13/14 (+12 -0 =2)), 1916 (14/17 (+12 -1 =4)) and 1918 (10.5/12 (+9 =3)). During the New York 1918 tournament, Marshall played his prepared Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez* against Capablanca, but Capablanca worked his way through the complications and won. Soon after the War, Capablanca crossed the Atlantic to decisively win the Hastings Victory tournament 1919 with 10.5/11, a point ahead of Borislav Kostic.

Capablanca did not play another tournament until 1922, the year after he won the title from Lasker. During his reign, he won London 1922 with 13/15 (no losses), 1.5 points ahead of Alekhine; placed second behind Lasker at New York 1924 (suffering his first loss in 8 years – to Richard Reti – since his 1916 lost to Oscar Chajes); placed 3rd at Moscow in 1925 behind Efim Bogoljubov and Lasker respectively with +9 =9 -2; won at Lake Hopatcong (New York) 1926 with 6/8 (+4 =4), a point ahead of Abraham Kupchik; and won at New York in 1927 with 14/20 (+10 -1 =9), 2.5 points clear of Alekhine, his last tournament before his title match with Alekhine. During the latter tournament, Capablanca, Alekhine, Rudolf Spielmann, Milan Vidmar, Nimzowitsch and Marshall played a quadruple round robin, wherein Capablanca finished undefeated, winning the mini-matches with each of his rivals, 2½ points ahead of second-placed Alekhine, and won the "best game" prize for a win over Spielmann. This result, plus the fact that Alekhine had never beaten him in a game, made him a strong favourite to retain his title in the upcoming match against Alekhine. However, Alekhine's superior preparation prevailed against Capablanca's native talent.

After losing the title, Capablanca settled in Paris and engaged in a flurry of tournament competition aimed at improving his chances for a rematch with Alekhine. However the latter dodged him, refusing to finalise negotiations for a rematch, boycotting events that included Capablanca, and insisting that Capablanca not be invited to tournaments in which he participated. In 1928, Capablanca won at Budapest with 7/9 (+5 =4), a point ahead of Marshall, and at Berlin with 8.5/12 (+5 =7), 1.5 points ahead of Nimzowitsch; he also came second at Bad Kissingen with 7/11 (+4 -1 =6) behind Bogoljubov. In 1929, Capablanca won at Ramsgate with 5.5/7 (+4 =3) ahead of Vera Menchik and Rubinstein, at Budapest with 10.5/13 (+8 =5), and at Barcelona with 13.5/14, two points clear of Savielly Tartakower; he also came equal 2nd alongside Spielmann and behind Nimzowitsch at Carlsbad with 14.5/21 (+10 -2 =9). He won at the 1929-30 Hastings tournament and came 2nd at Hastings in 1930-31 Hastings behind Max Euwe, his only loss being to Mir Sultan Khan. Several months later he won New York for the last time, this time with a score of 10/11 (+9 =2) ahead of Isaac Kashdan.

Perhaps discouraged by his inability to secure a rematch with Alekhine, there followed a hiatus for over three years before he reentered the fray with a fourth placing at Hastings in 1934-35 with 5.5/9 (+4 -2 =3), behind Sir George Alan Thomas, Euwe and Salomon Flohr but ahead of Mikhail Botvinnik and Andre Lilienthal. In 1935, he secured 4th place in Moscow with 12/19 (+7 -2 =10), a point behind Botvinnik and Flohr, and a half point behind the evergreen Lasker. Also in 1935, he came second at Margate with 7/9 (+6 -1 =2), half a point behind Samuel Reshevsky. 1936 was a very successful year, coming 2nd at Margate with 7/9 (+5 =4), a half point behind Flohr, but then he moved up a gear to take Moscow with 13/18 (+8 =10), a point ahead of Botvinnik who in turn was 2.5 points ahead of Flohr, and then came =1st with Botvinnik at the famous Nottingham tournament, with 10/14 (+7 -1 =6) ahead of Euwe, Reuben Fine and Reshevsky on 9.5, and Flohr and Lasker on 8.5. These latter two results were the only tournaments in which he finished ahead of Lasker, which enhanced his chances of challenging for the title, but a challenge to World Champion Euwe was out of the question until after the Euwe-Alekhine World Championship Rematch (1937) , which of course was won by Alekhine. In 1937, Capablanca came =3rd with Reshevsky at Semmering with 7.5/14 (+2 -1 =11) behind Paul Keres and Fine and in 1938 he won the Paris tournament with 8/10 (+6 =4) ahead of Nicolas Rossolimo. The worst result of his career occurred at the AVRO tournament which was played in several cities in the Netherlands in 1938, placing 7th out of 8 players with 6/14 (+2 -4 =8), the only time he ever had a negative score in a tournament. His health in this tournament was fragile as he had suffered severe hypertension, which affected his concentration towards the end of his games; he may have also suffered a slight stroke halfway through the tournament. Traveling between the numerous cities in which the tournament was played was also hard on the ageing master. In 1939 he played his last tournament at Margate, placing =2nd with Flohr on 6.5/9 (+4 =5) a point behind Keres. Shortly afterwards, he finished his playing career – albeit unknowingly - in a blaze of glory by winning gold with +7 =9 on board one for Cuba at the 8th Olympiad in Buenos Aires.

Matches

In addition to the informal match against Corzo in 1901 and the exhibition match against Marshall in 1909 (see above), Capablanca played a 3 game match against Charles Jaffe in New York in 1912, winning 2 and drawing one, and won the first game of a match against Chajes before the latter withdrew from the match. In 1914, he defeated Ossip Bernstein 1.5-0.5, Tartakower by 1.5-0.5 and Andre Aurbach by 2-0. On his way to the 1914 tournament in St Petersburg, he played two-game matches against Richard Teichmann and Jacques Mieses in Berlin, winning all his games. Once he reached Saint Petersburg, he played similar matches against Alexander Alekhine, Eugene Aleksandrovich Znosko-Borovsky and Fyodor Ivanovich Dus Chotimirsky, losing one game to Znosko-Borovsky and winning the rest. In 1919, Capablanca accepted a challenge to a match from Borislav Kostić who had come second at New York in 1918 without dropping a game. The match was to go to the first player to win eight games, but Kostić resigned the match, played in Havana, after losing five straight games. In late 1931, just before his temporary retirement from top level chess, Capablanca also won a match (+2 −0 =8) against Euwe.

World Championship

Capablanca’s win at San Sebastian in 1911 provided the results and the impetus for Capablanca to negotiate with Lasker for a title match, but some of Lasker’s conditions were unacceptable to Capablanca, especially one requiring the challenger to win by 2 points to take the title, while the advent of World War I delayed the match. In 1920, Lasker and Capablanca agreed to play the title match in 1921, but a few months later, former was ready to surrender the title without a contest, saying, "You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery." A significant stake ($25,000, $13,000 guaranteed to Lasker) was raised that induced Lasker to play in Havana where Capablanca won the Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) - without losing a game - after Lasker resigned from the match when trailing by 4 games, the first time a World Champion had lost his title without winning a game until the victory by Vladimir Kramnik in the Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship Match (2000). Between 1921 and 1923 Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch all challenged Capablanca, but only Alekhine could raise the money stipulated in the so-called “London Rules”, which these players had signed in 1921. A group of Argentinean businessmen, backed by a guarantee from the president of Argentina, promised the funds for a World Championship match between Capablanca and Alekhine, and once the deadline for Nimzowitsch to lodge a deposit for a title match had passed, the title match was agreed to, and began in September 1927. Capablanca lost the Capablanca-Alekhine World Championship Match (1927) at Buenos Aires in 1927 by +3 -6 =25 in the longest title match ever, until it was surpassed by the legendary Karpov-Kasparov World Championship Match (1984) . The match lasted over ten weeks, taking place behind closed doors precluding spectators and photographers. 32 of the 34 games opened with the Queen's Gambit Declined. Before Capablanca and Alekhine left Buenos Aires after the match, they agreed in principle to stage a rematch, with Alekhine essentially sticking with the conditions initially imposed by Capablanca. Despite on-again off-again negotiations over the next 13 years, the rematch never materialised, with Alekhine playing two title matches each against Bogolyubov and Euwe in the subsequent decade. While Capablanca and Alekhine were both representing their countries at the Buenos Aires Olympiad in 1939, an attempt was made by Augusto de Muro, the President of the Argentine Chess Federation, to arrange a World Championship match between the two. Alekhine declined, saying he was obliged to be available to defend his adopted homeland, France, as World War II had just broken out. A couple of days prior to this, Capablanca had declined to play when his Cuban team played France, headed by Alekhine, in the Olympiad.

Simultaneous exhibitions

Capablanca’s legendary speed of play lent itself to the rigours of simultaneous play, and he achieved great success in his exhibitions. From December 1908 through February 1909, Capablanca toured the USA and in 10 exhibitions he won 168 games in a row before losing a game in Minneapolis; his final tally for that tour was 734 games, winning 96.7% (+703 =19 -12). In March and April 1911, Capablanca toured Europe for the first time, giving exhibitions in France and Germany scoring +234=33-19. Once completed, he proceeded to San Sebastian and his historic victory before again touring Europe via its cities of Rotterdam, Liden, Middleburg, Hauge, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Berlin, Breslau, Allenstein, Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Stuttgart, Mannheim, Frankfurt, Paris, London and Birmingham at the end of which his tally was +532=66-54. After he received his job as a roving ambassador-at-large from the Cuban Foreign Office, Capablanca played a series of simuls in London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Riga, Lenningrad, Moscow, Kiev, and Vienna on his way to St Petersburg in 1914, tallying +769=91-86. In 1922, Capablanca gave a simultaneous exhibition in Cleveland against 103 opponents, the largest in history up to that time, winning 102 and drawing one – setting a record for the best winning percentage ever – 99.5% - in a large simultaneous exhibition. In 1925 Capablanca gave a simultaneous exhibition in Leningrad and won every game but one, a loss against 12 year old Mikhail Botvinnik, whom he predicted would one day be champion. Capablanca still holds the record for the most games ever completed in simultaneous exhibitions, playing and completing 13545 games between 1901-1940.**

Legacy, testimonials and life

Soon after gaining the title, Capablanca married Gloria Simoni Betancourt in Havana. They had a son, José Raúl Jr., in 1923 and a daughter, Gloria, in 1925. His father died in 1923 and mother in 1926. In 1937 he divorced Gloria and in 1938 married Olga Chagodayev, a Russian princess.

Capablanca's famous “invincible” streak extended from February 10, 1916, when he lost to Oscar Chajes in the New York 1916 tournament, to March 21, 1924, when he lost to Richard Réti in the New York International tournament. During this time he played 63 games, winning 40 and drawing 23, including his successful title match against Lasker. Between 1914 and his World Championship match against Alekhine, Capablanca had only lost 4 games of the 158 match and tournament games he had played. In match, team match, and tournament play from 1909 to 1939 he scored +318=249-34. Only Spielmann held his own (+2 −2 =8) against Capablanca, apart from Keres who had a narrow plus score against him (+1 −0 =5) due to his win at the AVRO 1938 tournament, during which the ailing Capablanca turned 50, while Keres was 22.

Capablanca played himself in Chess Fever http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015673/, a short film shot by V. Pudovkin at the 1925 Moscow tournament. The film can be seen at http://video.google.com/videoplay?d....

On 7 March 1942, Capablanca collapsed at the Manhattan Chess Club and he was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he died the next morning from "a cerebral haemorrhage provoked by hypertension". Emanuel Lasker had died in the same hospital the year before. Capablanca's body was given a public funeral in Havana's Colón Cemetery a week later, with President Batista taking personal charge of the funeral arrangements.

Capablanca proposed a new chess variant, played on a 10x10 board or a 10x8 board. He introduced two new pieces. The chancellor had the combined moves of a rook and knight (the piece could move like a rook or a knight). The other piece was the archbishop that had the combined moves of a bishop and knight.

Capablanca‘s style also heavily influenced the styles of later World Champions Botvinnik, Robert James Fischer and Anatoly Karpov. Botvinnik observed that Alekhine had received much schooling from Capablanca in positional play, before their fight for the world title made them bitter enemies. While not a theoretician as such, he wrote several books including A Primer of Chess, Chess Fundamentals and My Chess Career.

Alekhine: <…Capablanca was snatched from the chess world much too soon. With his death, we have lost a very great chess genius whose like we shall never see again.>

Lasker: <I have known many chess players, but only one chess genius: Capablanca.>

Notes

Jose Capablanca occasionally played consultation on the team consisting of Reti / Capablanca.

Sources:

Bill Wall's Chess Master Profiles - http://www.geocities.com/siliconval...; Bill Winter's article A Question of Credibiity: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...; Chess Corner's article on Capablanca: http://www.chesscorner.com/worldcha... and <kingcrusher>'s online article at http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/.... A list of books about Capablanca can be found at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/....

* Ruy Lopez, Marshall (C89) ** http://www.fide.com/component/conte...

Wikipedia article: Capablanca

page 1 of 32; games 1-25 of 794

Game	Result	Moves	Year	Event/Locale	Opening
1. R Iglesias vs Capablanca	0-1	38	1893	Odds game	000 Chess variants
2. J Corzo vs Capablanca	1-0	41	1901	Havana casual	B01 Scandinavian
3. Capablanca vs J Corzo	0-1	60	1901	Havana casual	C45 Scotch Game
4. J A Blanco vs Capablanca	0-1	77	1901	Habana (Cuba)	C55 Two Knights Defense
5. Capablanca vs J Corzo	½-½	28	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	A83 Dutch, Staunton Gambit
6. J Corzo vs Capablanca	0-1	26	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	C25 Vienna
7. Capablanca vs E Corzo	1-0	42	1901	Havana casual	C40 King's Knight Opening
8. J Corzo vs Capablanca	½-½	40	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	C67 Ruy Lopez
9. A Fiol vs Capablanca	0-1	36	1901	Habana (Cuba)	C55 Two Knights Defense
10. Capablanca vs J Corzo	½-½	49	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	D00 Queen's Pawn Game
11. J Corzo vs Capablanca	½-½	20	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	C25 Vienna
12. Capablanca vs J Corzo	1-0	60	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	D02 Queen's Pawn Game
13. J Corzo vs Capablanca	½-½	41	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	C42 Petrov Defense
14. A Ettlinger vs Capablanca	0-1	53	1901	Havana casual	C45 Scotch Game
15. Capablanca vs J Corzo	½-½	61	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	A80 Dutch
16. Capablanca vs J Corzo	1-0	59	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	A83 Dutch, Staunton Gambit
17. J Corzo vs Capablanca	0-1	68	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	C49 Four Knights
18. Capablanca vs J Corzo	0-1	29	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	C47 Four Knights
19. J Corzo vs Capablanca	1-0	27	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	C52 Evans Gambit
20. Capablanca vs E Corzo	0-1	30	1901	Havana casual	C40 King's Knight Opening
21. Capablanca vs J Corzo	0-1	46	1901	Capablanca - Corzo	A80 Dutch
22. Capablanca vs E Corzo	1-0	33	1902	Havana	C60 Ruy Lopez
23. E Corzo vs Capablanca	0-1	37	1902	Havana,	C39 King's Gambit Accepted
24. E Corzo vs Capablanca	0-1	36	1902	Havana casual	C10 French
25. R Blanco Estera vs Capablanca	0-1	31	1902	Habana (Cuba)	C55 Two Knights Defense


page 1 of 32; games 1-25 of 794

REFINE SEARCH: White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Capablanca wins | Capablanca loses

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 230 OF 230 · Later Kibitzing>
Apr-04-13		The Rocket: <Benzol: > Ok, strange should be able to get the exact figures from tournament records, since this was during the war, meaning that capablanca did not play very much offical games.

Apr-04-13		Benzol: <The Rocket> I think my quick method of calculation is questionable. I'll see if I can do some more research and try and give you a more accurate answer.

Apr-04-13		Benzol: <The Rocket> If my calculations are correct then there are 63 games between Capablanca's loss to Chajes in Round 15 of New York 1916 and his loss to Reti in Round 5 of New York 1924. This figure is made up by : NY 1916 - 2 games NY 1918 - 12 games Kostic Match - 5 games Hastings 1919 - 11 games WCC Match Lasker 1921 - 14 games London 1922 - 15 games NY 1924 - 4 games.

Apr-04-13		The Rocket: Good job. 63 games in 8 years is very little, as I expected. Kramniks unbeaten streak for those interested, was somewhere around 86 games and he played against much higher level opposition. It was somewhere around 1999-2000.

Apr-04-13		maxi: <The Rocket> You write: "...and he played against much higher level opposition." Does this phrase have any real meaning? Capa lived back then with the limited access and resources of those years, and played his contemporaries. His merits pertain to his time and cannot be diminished by that fact. Are you going to compare Kramnik's with somebody next century and thus dismiss his merits, too?

Apr-04-13		The Rocket: Taken all of your factors into account, I would still say Kramniks feat was more difficult, he knew more about theory, but so did the opponents, it evens out.

Apr-04-13		The Rocket: Furthermore, chess was not much of a profession in Capablancas days, aloth of his opponents where amateurs. Kramniks opponents were professionals and can be easily compared to future generations. Chess has been established for some time now, with professionals and not national masters/amateurs thrown in the mix.

Apr-04-13		Benzol: A few things to consider. From 1916 the First World War still had two years to run. International chess tournaments were much rarer then. You would be lucky to to get more than one or two major tournaments in a year unlike today. Also was anyone really a chess professional before the Soviets came along?

Apr-04-13		The Rocket: No, and Capablanca can't help that, But the opponents were MUCH weaker. Remember for every advantage Kramnik has over Capa, the same goes for the opponent, they are stronger calculators/ defenders and plays chess for a profession, and Kramnik managed 86(cirka) games without a loss. This was pre- "petrov, berlin every single time days" from Kramnik, which makes it even more impressive.

Apr-04-13		Phony Benoni: This doesn't really affect the question, but an odd little tidbit is that the loss against Chajes at Rice Memorial (1916) should never have taken place. Originally the Finals section was to consist of the top four from the Preliminary. Chajes finished fifth, but there were extenuaring circumstances in the last round. Chajes, believing he needed a win to qualify, refused a draw offer and went on to lose. There was also the point that Capablanca led by 3½ points with only three games scheduled. The result was that all the players--including Capablanca--agreed to admit Chajes to the final section. Had he not played--and other results been the same--Capablanca's unbeaten streak would have been 93 games over ten years, adding two from St. Petersburg 1914, 14 from New York 1915, and 14 from New York 1916 to <Benzol>'s totals from above.

Apr-04-13		Benzol: <PB> Dave that sounds like Tal's two runs in the early 70's. There are certainly more World class players these days. Btw I was happy that my thoughts about Carlsen and Kramnik mirroring Tal and Keres in 1959 turned out to be not too far short of the mark. :)

Apr-17-13		chancho: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-POYAA7ESc...

Apr-28-13		Capabal: <nimh: I don't understand why it is so hard for certain people to comprehend that chess and training methods associated with it, like any other phenomenon, has been under the constant flux of improvement throughout the ages.> What people fail to understand is why you keep supposing that Capablanca’s inherent strength at his peak around 1919 (excluding openings, of course) would not be that remarkable today, when computer evaluations of inherent strength, which you accept as a valid method, keep suggesting the opposite, and when there are endless quotes by GMs from his days to the modern period also indicating he had a phenomenal chess strength. We already know that in the 2006-2008 studies, he came up on top or in the top 2 with Kramnik in the most relevant categories. In the recent work by Regan analizing IPS in matches, his performance during his match with Kostic in 1919 has the second highest IPS of all matches examined there. Certainly there seems to be some contradiction in your approval of IPS evaluations by computer on the one hand, and your insistence that his peak would not be something remarkable today. Further, you have thoroughly failed to show why the inherent chess skills of a given player in 1920 would necessarily have to be inferior to today’s top players. The only thing you have shown is that you believe in a certain all-encompassing notion of progress in all fronts that includes human intelligence and skills and that proceeds at a speed that is detectable in such relatively short spans. This is a common superstition that pervades many fields. There are many people convinced that guys like Tilden, Gonzalez, Hoad or Laver absolutely had to have inferior inherent skills in the art of striking a tennis balls than current players, as if somehow inherent coordination skills in homo sapiens had improved in a few decades. None of this makes the slightest bit of sense. Evolution does not proceed at that pace as far as we know, and the skills acquired by Carlsen or Kramnik or Karpov or anyone else are not transmissible to their offspring, who may be hopeless patzers for life. One could argue, and many bioloists and anthropologists would agree, that the Cro-Magnon brain was already the same as ours, and that if you select their brightest babies and put them through Cambridge or Oxford, there is no reason why a Newton or an Einstein might not everge from their ranks. You are confusing progress understood as mass technological improvements, which have occurred at a quick pace in the last two hundred years (thanks in great part to abundant supply of cheap energy and accumulation of knowledge) with progress in areas where no change can be demonstrated, such as human intelligence. I can only tell you this: if you believe that people today are born inherently smarter than 100 or even 10,000 years ago, you should provide some evidence that goes beyond repeating some faith-based mantra like: "progress is an undeniable fact in all fronts” or some such notion. It goes without saying of course that we are not considering opening theory, because it is not an inherent chess skill but merely erudition-memory based. There is no question that enormous knowledge in opening theory has accumulated since the 1920s. Let’s go on a dreamy mental exercise. Imagine chess had always been a team sport where every game is played by a team of, say 5-7 players, but only one can sit at the board at a time, anc cannot consult with the others. Specialization might occur as follows. In each team there would be a player for the opening. Then another player player takes over for the middle game. And then, depending on the kind of endgame that ensues, you may have a few players to choose from specializing in different endgames. Here is the point. Of all those different specialists, there is one that would not strictly have to be a good chess player, and could be in fact a total patzer. That player is the opening specialist. You would find the best opening specialists in people endowed with elephantine memory, who could just memorize thousands of openings and choose lines as previously instructed by the middle game player, Without himself having the slightest idea why he is moving the pieces the way he is. I concede that there has been a lot of progress in that part of the game, and of course a player from 90 years ago like Capablanca would be a suicidal choice in that kind of team chess today. But in middle and end game he would be a coveted asset for any team. Someone suggested that in an imaginary competition between a ressucitated Capablanca and today’s players, the best and easiest way to measure his skills would be 960 chess. I am pretty sure he would not have many rivals in that kind of game.

Apr-28-13		nimh: Looks like we have another user here who misunderstands what I have posted here. <What people fail to understand is why you keep supposing that Capablanca’s inherent strength at his peak around 1919 (excluding openings, of course) would not be that remarkable today,> What does "inherent strength" mean? Is it the same as "natural ability"? <when computer evaluations of inherent strength> Whatever the meaning of the term, computers only measure the accuracy of play and nothing else. <You are confusing progress understood as mass technological improvements, which have occurred at a quick pace in the last two hundred years (thanks in great part to abundant supply of cheap energy and accumulation of knowledge) with progress in areas where no change can be demonstrated, such as human intelligence.> I don't remeber making such confusion... The same can be said about the following statement: <if you believe that people today are born inherently smarter than 100 or even 10,000 years ago>

Apr-28-13		Capabal: <nimh: Looks like we have another user here who misunderstands what I have posted here <What people fail to understand is why you keep supposing that Capablanca’s inherent strength at his peak around 1919 (excluding openings, of course) would not be that remarkable today,> What does "inherent strength" mean? Is it the same as "natural ability"? <when computer evaluations of inherent strength> Whatever the meaning of the term, computers only measure the accuracy of play and nothing else.> Inherent (or intrinsic) strength (or rating) as described by the authors of these studies. The same strength, or rating, that you have been saying Capablanca could not have among current players, because the unstoppable force of “progress” apparently forbids it. <The idea of Intrinsic Performance Ratings (IPR’s) is to judge skill based on the quality of decisions made rather than the outcomes of contests. Aside from the issue that the outcome depends on the skill of opponents and on factors variously called “luck,” there is a simple sample-size motivation. A chess professional may play 50 games in a given year and call that a lot, but as a statistical sample this is scant. However, those games may average 30 important move decisions, yielding a healthy sample of 1,500 moves . Analysis of those moves by computer programs to sufficient depth to be stronger than the player can then provide both an objective measure of skill, and reasonably informative confidence intervals on the assessment.> http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/p... The notion that intrinsic skill has necessarily improved with professionalized modern training methods to the point of overrriding any superiority in innate talent by a given player of 90 years ago can be further questioned when you consider that the enormous and ever increasing amount of time players need to dedicate to keeping up with opening theory (mostly memorization) is time they cannot use for sharpening their skills in the middle game and the endgame. The computer analysis, if you believe in their value, leave no doubt that Capablanca in his peak years had one of the highest intrinsic performance ratings in the history of the game. The fact that this agrees with the assessment of many of the best players to ever play the game, does not hurt the credibility of the assessment. As for the notion of “complexity adjustments” in these studies, I should say I find it increasingly comical. A fudge factor that the analyzer can manipulate at will. If a player has a skill that allows him to simplify positions to his advantage (or prevent muddy positions from arising), this somehow is NOT considered a skill, but rather a defect for which he must be penalized. On the other hand, if a player likes to strive for positions as muddy as possible, this is considered a virtuous skill for which he must be rewarded. It’s as if they thought that simplifying positions to your advantage is an easier skill than complicating them. The very act of determining where the simplification needs to be effected and <how> to carry it out in a way that is to your advantage, is in itself a complex and delicate task that in no way requires less skill than the knack for creating complications.

Apr-28-13		maxi: Interesting posts, <Capabal>. I would like to add that Capablanca's openings were never weak. That is a myth. He simply tried to win in the middlegame or the endgame, like Petrosian, and not force the issue. For excellent tacticians like Fischer, Capablanca, Kasparov or Petrosian, it is possible against all but the strongest opposition to get into dubious lines and still win on tactics alone. In Capa's case that was not, in general, to his taste. His openings were solid and active. Often his lines and ideas have become the canonical way to handle certain openings. He just didn't go for complexity for complexity's sake, knowing he could probably outcalculate his opponent.

Apr-28-13		nimh: From your explanation I understand intrinsic strength is the same as the level (strength) of play or chess skill. But it cannot be measured directly from comparing the moves played and moves suggested by the engine. One must take into account that other factors than chess skill also have an effect on the accuracy of play. Regan clearly has not understood it and that makes his study by far inconclusive and unreliable. There are three ways to adjudge one's performance: 1) achievements, superiority over one's contemporaries; 2) legacy, influence on subsequent generations, new ideas; 3) absolute level of performance; I've never questioned Capa's greatness on the first two points, although it may seem so. People often mix up these. To say that Capa was a weaker player than Carlsen is essentially the same as to say that Owens was a slower runner than Bolt. There's nothing denigrating about that.

Apr-29-13		Capabal: The comparison with runners is woefully inappropriate. Chronometers tell us precisely who ran faster and exactly how much faster. We don’t have anything comparable to a chronometer to measure chess skill. If we did, these discussions would not exist. The closest thing we have is measuring the average distance between player moves and engine preferences (as evaluated by the engine) over a <large enough amount of data> so that misevaluations are averaged out or affect every one more or less equally. Accuracy of play is not <exclusively> dependent on chess skill. But it is <overwhelmingly> dependent on chess skill, provided other factors are kept roughly similar. That’s why we don’t compare the accuracy of moves in a blindfold simul with a real game. Any introduction of adjusting parameters based on subjective assessment of the effect of slight variations in conditions of play renders these studies immediately useless, as it puts them at the mercy of the evaluator’s bias. It is a thorough and total waste of time. An exercise in analytical onanism. It would be like adjusting the chronometer measurements in running races based on meteorological conditions, the shoe brand being used, or even the arrangement of celestial bodies at the time of the race. You either let the chips fall where they may and go by what the chronometer/engine tells you, or you shrug, toss them out, and make your assessment on purely personal evaluations. The engine evaluations do show Carlsen had very high IPRs in his recent games at the Candidate’s tournament, considerably higher than most of his competitors at the same event. They also show Capablanca had comparably high IPRs around the time of his prime in the late teens and early 20s of the past century.

Apr-29-13		nimh: Honestly, I don't have energy right now to do this. Was it really necessary to dig out a quote from a 4 year old post and attack me with lengthy posts and intelligence-insulting arguments? I have already explained why it's necessary to take into account all things involved and avoid simplistic approach.

Apr-29-13		maxi: Is it possible that people are smarter today? Much is known now about the psychological advantages of early mental stimulation in children. And there is the mystery of the rapidly increasing IQ scores, with tests that are supposedly conceived so that the environment is taken out of the picture.

Apr-29-13		Capabal: <nimh: Honestly, I don't have energy right now to do this. Was it really necessary to dig out a quote from a 4 year old post and attack me with lengthy posts and intelligence-insulting arguments? I have already explained why it's necessary to take into account all things involved and avoid simplistic approach.> Sounds like you get annoyed very quickly, though that was not my intention. I was simply reading old posts, as I sometimes do when one thing leads to another. First, I’ve noticed that you keep using the “progress” notion as some kind of proof of the superiority of <specific> players of one era over another. I can accept someone saying that the top 30 players today, as a whole, are stronger than the same group in 1910. But if you use the same argument to tell me that a specific player of a certain period, say Korchnoi in the 70s, had to be stronger than Lasker in 1910 and weaker than, say Topalov in 2013 or whatever – then the appeal to “progress” alone no longer works for me, no matter how often you repeat that it should be obvious because "progress is a universal force" or some such notion. And don't be surprised if lots of people demand other kinds of proof. Computer analysis of a good sample of games strikes me as a valid method to settle the question, at least if the differences appear to be clear and systematic. So if I see a well conducted study showing that the engines systematically find Korchnoi to play “better” or more “error-free” chess than Lasker, but worse than Topalov, then I will probably go along with the finding (provided I don’t see any of those dubious adjustments for “complexity” and time controls and whatnot). But if you just tell me it just <has> to be so because of “progress” then I will most certainly not take you seriously. Then, regarding the many adjustments that you propose need to be made to these analysis to account for different conditions, things that Regan and others have not though of, I have not seen which specific differences you are referring to (I imagine it has to do mostly with different time controls) and most importantly I haven’t seen how you propose to quantify those differences. What I strongly suspect is that any attempt to account for those kinds of differences – to quantify them -- would almost certainly do more harm than good, because it would be necessarily arbitrary, a huge contamination of subjectivity into an otherwise reasonably objective method. As long as the games in consideration are played in what are considered standard time controls at the time, it seems to me that attempts to tinker with this can only mess up things even more.

Apr-30-13		nimh: You're reading too much into what others say. When I said that there is a progress, its purpose was to remind to those people who thought that Capa's play was as good as today's WC candidates, that it's an illogical opinion. It wasn't to be understood as a proof of some kind. You are right that computer analysis is a valid method, and I am aware of it since 2007 at least, but before we can take such analyses seriously, they must include methods for ascertaining how much other factors besides chess skill have affected the accuracy of play. If we left out them, we'd be uncertain about how big part of the accuracy of play responds to chess skills and the reliability of our conclusions would suffer. <and most importantly I haven’t seen how you propose to quantify those differences.> Here are some studies where the issue has been at least partially addressed. http://www.ailab.si/matej/doc/Compu... http://www.truechess.com/web/champs... http://www.chessanalysis.ee/summary... http://www.chessanalysis.ee/a%20stu... <would almost certainly do more harm than good, because it would be necessarily arbitrary, a huge contamination of subjectivity into an otherwise reasonably objective method. > Speaking of demanding proof, how about proving your claims? Don't be surprised if I demand a kind of proof. :)

Apr-30-13		RookFile: I don't think folks today calculate as well as they did in the past. Too much reliance on computers for help.

Apr-30-13		Shams: <RookFile> <I don't think folks today calculate as well as they did in the past. Too much reliance on computers for help.> I guess I don't really understand this. Players calculate when they are playing, and they aren't relying on engines at all when they do so.

Apr-30-13		RookFile: Yes, but do they calculate when they are not playing. There is a lot of analysis that goes on where they preparing for games. The players in the past did, of course. Calculation is calculation, and the more you do of something, the better you get at it. Today's players do less.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 230)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 230 OF 230 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!

If you already have an account, you should login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
No personal attacks against other users.
Nothing in violation of United States law.

See something which violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!