|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 173 OF 173 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Sep-04-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: This is from the Capablanca vs Botvinnik, 1936 game page. laskereshevsky: After 18....Qb7 Botvinnik wrote that at a first sight the Black is in positional superiority, but playing against Capa require a deeply position's valutation, and: <...this game is another good lesson i got from Capablanca. > (!) After 26Bxg7 Bot said the correct line was 26...Kxg7 27.Qd1 Rxd3 28.Qxd3 Qc7 and draw. But he thought the position was absoluttly equal, and with carelessness he took the R. but <...in this way i gave the d8 square to my opponent.> After 28.Qd8 he propose draw, but <...with my great horror CAPA refused. in that moment i understood that the whiteQ is very activ...>, and CAPA was the best in exploiting the slighty's advantage positions...<...He can "squeeze" as he like this position without loosing risk...> after 28...Pa6
CAPA offered draw <after an extended reflection he offered draw..obviously he saw few victory's chances, and wasnt worth the trouble to be tired invane...nevertheless, the cuban tryied to demostrated for half an hour his winning chances, showing this and that move...I succesfully passed the examination>(!)< cause my opponent face became serene, and with a satisfactory mode shakes my hand, by my side i remained admirated for his deep knowledge of the Q's finals. "YES! its draw" CAPA says.."of course" i answered. "...Today U couldnt be able to overtake me"..."AND WHY?!"...The fierce Cuban's face became red rage..."Cause just today im to be 25 years old"....The conclusion was a friendly laugh by me and JOSE.> When I first read this, I had to smile. The dour and serious Botvinnik talks exactly like an awed young up-and-coming chessplayer meeting his awesome old idol. I do not think that Botvinnnik ever talked like this about any other chessplayer. |
 |
Sep-10-09
 |
| vonKrolock: A tribute with images (and sound) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJHv... |
|
| Sep-22-09 |
| The Rocket: regarding this game
Lasker vs Capablanca, 1921 and and the move c6 played by capa he writes:
"c5 is the proper move"
c6 bd3, dxc5 bxc5 nd5 is called the capablanca system!!!! and was played by him several times in the world-championship vs alekhine and yet he denounces his own system starting with c6 in his own annonations??? |
|
| Oct-01-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <scrambler: A person speaking fluently speaks fast, the same comparison can be found in chess. In Capablanca's case we have a report from Alekhine himself commenting of capa's ability in "quick games" <His real, incomparable gifts first began to make themselves known at the time of St. Petersburg, 1914, when I too came to know him personally. Neither before nor afterwards have I seen – and I cannot imagine as well – such a flabbergasting quickness of chess comprehension as that possessed by the Capablanca of that epoch.Enough to say that he gave all the St. Petersburg masters the odds of 5–1 in quick games – and won!> > Yes, they certainly could set a chess clock such that one side has 1 minute, and the other 5 minutes. Chess players all over the world do this all the time as it is very easy to do. I would be utterly surprised if they did not do it way back in the 1880s when chess clocks came into vogue. It seems that we are in good company with Alekhine. You find it unbelievable that any one can give such odds to 10 players and win all of the games, and so do I, but if these 10 players are patzers, then it is still quite believable. My take is that Alekhine would not make such a comment even if Capablanca's opponents were ordinary masters. AAA himself was known for his prowess in blitz and rapid games. However, the players Capa demolished were the world's strongest masters. <These are the masters Capablanca allegedly gave 5 to 1 odds to and beat all of them:Emanuel Lasker
Siegbert Tarrasch
Alexander Alekhine
Frank James Marshall
Ossip Bernstein
Akiba Rubinstein
Aron Nimzowitsch
Joseph Henry Blackburne
Dawid Janowski
Isidor Gunsberg>
If it were a one night demolition job, I would still not believe it; but by all accounts, Capablanca kept on demolishing all opposition whenever shorter time controls were used up until his death in 1942. Capablanca was CONSISTENTLY invincible when it came to what we now call today blitz and rapid chess. I think you are also right: The St. Petersburg masters, probably on a rest day, started with 5 minutes to Capa's equal 5 minutes; and they could not win a single game. Some proud master (and I would guess it was Nimzovich) must have declared - <OK you can best all of us on equal time but no way could you beat us all on time odds>. The relatively newbie Capablanca, just on his second international tournament exposure after San Sebastian 1911 and eager to demonstrate his abilities must have told them - <Oh I sure can take ALL of you!> It was the norm at that time (and even now) that these games would be played with stakes. So I am pretty sure all the masters did their darned best to beat Capablanca, in order to avoid losing money (a pretty strong motivation until today!). As I proposed, Capablanca must have had the rare ability to consistently see a chess board and pieces in terms of clear moving pictures flashing in and out of his mind's eye. If he were using the same areas of his brain to process much of chess information, playing chess very quickly must have been similar to listening and speaking a native language to him. He also must have had a photographic memory and visualization in order to see these chess pictures clearly in his mind's eye. I agree with <boomie> that Capablanca must also have placed some efforts on the analysis of openings and the games of his rivals, but probably not as much as the fanatically motivated Alekhine, who seems to have spent much of his days outside official tournaments analyzing games on his pocket chessboard. |
|
| Oct-01-09 |
| FHBradley: <probably not as much as the fanatically motivated Alekhine> Your wording, I take it, is unnecessarily cautious. It is known, I believe, that Capablanca took a deep study of end games in preparing for his encounter with Lasker. Apart from that, he did very little or nothing to improve his chess. That, in a way, is tragic, but perhaps it is too much to ask of any human being that he or she should combine unique talent with hard work. Too bad. |
|
Oct-07-09
 |
| timhortons: Jose Raul Capablanca beat Reginald Price Michell 2 to 0, with 1 draw. make it 3-, with 1 draw. i got one more game in my book which is not included in the database,Capablanca-Michell ramsgate 1929.it had an incomplete pgn since the book focus on mid game analysis of capa game. |
|
| Oct-07-09 |
| TheFocus: <timhortons> You are correct. I find that for many players in CG, the complete record is not given, and many games are not included. Capablanca's complete record for tournaments, matches, and team matches is +327=259-42. A lot of Capablanca's early biographers (?): Reinfeld, Golembek, etc. do not give the Cuba Championship 1902 where Capa finished with five losses in 4th place, yet they WILL include his match against Corzo.
Of course, if we were to add the exhibition matches Capa played before the Corzo match, the score there being +13=2-3, and Capa's record would then be +340=261-45, which is probably his most accurate record. |
|
| Oct-08-09 |
| James Demery: Out of approximately every 10 games 6 wins 4 draws and 1 loss. Not bad. Not bad at all. Kind of reminds me of myself. ;) |
|
| Oct-08-09 |
| James Demery: Reading Reinfelds book he states that later on Capa practically abandoned 1e4. Does anyone know why? |
|
| Oct-08-09 |
| Blunderdome: <James Demery: Out of approximately every 10 games 6 wins 4 draws and 1 loss.> Capa was so good he could get 11 results in just 10 games. |
|
| Oct-08-09 |
| nescio: <James Demery: Reading Reinfelds book he states that later on Capa practically abandoned 1e4. Does anyone know why?>
You want to know why Reinfeld stated it or why Capablanca abondoned 1.e4? Why did Karpov practically abandon 1.e4 at roughly the same age? Possibly because 1.d4 is easier to play on postional feeling and intuition and requires less study than 1.e4. |
|
| Oct-09-09 |
| James Demery: That was why I said approximately every 10 games. |
|
| Oct-09-09 |
| TheFocus: Capablanca's 45 losses give him a loss percentage of only 6.96%; the lowest of any player ever. |
|
| Oct-09-09 |
| WhiteRook48: it's 46 losses |
|
| Oct-09-09 |
| TheFocus: <WhiteRook48> The record at the top of biography here is not complete nor accurate. Some of the losses depicted here are unofficial games. Some of Capablanca's official losses are not included in this database. Capablanca's complete tournament, match and team match score is +340=261-45, no more no less. |
|
| Oct-10-09 |
| GrahamClayton: The October 2009 issue of "CHESS" has the following unusual Capablanca game: White: Capablanca
Black: Worthing
Simultaneous Exhbition, Hampstead, UK - 1930's?
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 e6 5. Nc3 Bc5 6. Be3 Qb6 
click for larger view7.Nc6 Draw offered - which Worthing promptly accepted. Why would Capa have offered a draw so early in the game? |
|
| Oct-10-09 |
| maxi: <James Demery>, <nescio>, on Capa playing the Queen Pawn, not the King one. In Tartakower vs Capablanca, 1914 this point came up in the thread, which you may wish to check out. |
|
| Oct-10-09 |
| drnooo: Probably the real test of any, and I do mean any chessplayer is random chess. Not fischer random, necessarily but any random opening set up. At that point they are all beginners again, and my hunch is this: Capa would beat them all, still. After that you can make up your own list, but would not be surprised if Fischer would only be in the lower top ten since his weakness was unclear positions. I wont bother with a list of my own in any order but Lasker would be up there since he did well in oddball positions, and Tal would thrive and after that twenty five names tumble in. But Capa stays at the top. |
|
| Oct-10-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: This may surprise you, but I believe that Samuel Reshevsky would be the king of random chess. Fischer wrote that he had the opening knowledge of a class B player, and yet chessmetrics had him listed as a multitude of times as the number one player in the world. Basically, Reshevsky playing any other GM was like a GM going in cold to a game, against one who had memorized a bunch of book lines. So Random Chess to Reshevsky would be nothing new to him, but it would be a new experience to those who relied upon opening preparation. |
|
Oct-11-09
 |
| HeMateMe: Sammy was certainly a fighter. But didn't Fischer also say that Lasker was a 'coffee house player'. all the KK match games were fixed, and that he could beat any female player with Knight odds? Love that Bob, but you have to take his comments with a grain of salt. |
|
| Oct-11-09 |
| maxi: I have seen comments by GM's on Sammy's limited opening knowledge. Yet he was a great player. He, like Capa, was extremely precocious. I have a suspicion that he would be good at modifications of chess. Was he very good at fast chessChessgames Home Page? |
|
Oct-27-09
 |
| grasser: Does "Capablanca" translate to "Whitehead" in english? |
|
Oct-27-09
 |
| SugarDom: Capa = Cape
Blanca = White
White Cape
Zorro wearing white |
|
Oct-27-09
 |
| parisattack: <AnalyzeThis: This may surprise you, but I believe that Samuel Reshevsky would be the king of random chess. Fischer wrote that he had the opening knowledge of a class B player, and yet chessmetrics had him listed as a multitude of times as the number one player in the world. > Chessmetrics shows him #1 in the late 30s, again early 40s. But I think his best games were in the 50s just before Fischer hit the scene. I suspect in a WC match against a Soviet of the era (Botvinnik, Smyslov, Bronstein) the combination of the Soviet machine and his tendency towards time-trouble would have been his undoing. His book, The Art of Positional Play, has quite a few of his own games and is a super read and study. Like, Capa he was a natural player, disdain for opening theory. |
|
Oct-27-09
 |
| veigaman: <parisattack> agree
<drnoo0> <Capa would beat them all, still. After that you can make up your own list...> the most natural random chess player all the time are, in my opnion would have been: Morphy, capablanca, pillsbury and spassky |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 173 OF 173 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
