|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-26-06 | | CapablancaFan: <jose manuel: Well i think it's a matter of personal judgments and opinnions after all i PERSONALLY think capa was the greatest simply because his mastery was all natural all of the other masters(great players nonetheless) have studied a lot of theory> I agree mostly with this statement. Obviously, from my username, Capablanca is my favorite chess player of all time. I have studied his games and read almost all relative material written about him. He did have "natural" talent and there is nothing wrong with that. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with working hard and developing your skills that way also. As much as I like Capa, the one thing that garnered him many praises (natural talent) also became his vice. In his book "Capablanca's Last Lectures" his wife Olga wrote a foreward in the book (after his passing) stating that " I can't ever remember Jose even having a chessboard at home". Now look at the games in Capa's database. Early in his career Capa was unstoppable. I mean, he did virtually "mow down all who came before him. In the mid-20's though we begin to see a shift. As chess theory becomes more prevelant and begin to catch up with the times we start to see more draws and Capa's chess battles are not as easily won as before. Let's look at the Capa/Alekhine battles for example. In 1914 to 1926 Capa had no trouble dealing with Alekhine. After about 1925 though when playing Alekhine continuations were to as straight forward. Some of Capa's trademark crystal clear clarity had diminished. Capa had once said later in his years he could not explain why the answers did not come to him as they did before. Many say the change was not Capa, but Alekhine! Alekhine studied intensively. Always searching for improvements on existing theory (he found some too) and he devoted a huge amount of time going over even his own losses to better himself. Capa rarely replayed a game unless he was commenting on it or annotating it. Capa wasn't even a good annotator. Often when asked why he made a particular move he would often answer "because I felt it was the best one". Guess that's where the natural talent comes in. So, what's my point? Natural talent is good, but it only goes so far without hard work to go with it. While other players were refining their game, Capa preferred the nightlife. He enjoyed purusing the city and enjoying his celebrity that be in a hotel room in the corner with a chessboard attemting to come up with some new novelty. Capa will always be my favorite player and until his death he was still one of the top 10 players in the world. Probably the last chess champion to be successful without using a chessbook or a program. (Yes, I know programs didn't exist then just making a point). Capablanca always. |
|
| Mar-26-06 | | THE pawn: <Capafan> You could have said instead: Talent alone is not enough ,as you get passed by sooner or later by hardwork. I heard that all the time at school. |
|
| Mar-26-06 | | Jim Bartle: Or, to quote Thomas Edison (or was it Einstein?): "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." |
|
| Mar-26-06 | | ughaibu: Edison, but he should have paid his respects to plagiarism too. |
|
| Apr-17-06 | | notyetagm: I love Seirawan's comment after 21 ♕a5!: <Nothing really exciting has happended but Black is completely lost>. |
|
| May-08-06 | | jamesmaskell: I played this game through earlier today and Im stunned by it. Its an incredible game by Capablanca. Capablanca for sure had Alekhines number at this time, claiming another win a little over a week later. I have a date for this game if <chessgames.com> wishes to amend the pgn (pretty please with a cherry on top!). The date given in "Complete Games of Alekhine (Volume 1, authors Kalendovsky and Fiana) is 14th December 1913. The ECO is given though as D10. |
|
| May-08-06 | | RookFile: This game shows how incisive, how tactically sharp Capablanca was in the early phase of his career. |
|
| May-08-06 | | panigma: Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical. - Yogi Berra |
|
| Jul-25-06 | | notyetagm: This game is full of Capablanca petite combinations. After Capablanca plays 27 ♘h4!, if Black saves the g6-pawn with 27 ... g5, then his e2-bishop is trapped and lost after 28 ♘f5+ and 29 ♘g3. 
click for larger view |
|
| May-26-07 | | Capatin17: Great game by Capa this game is on Capablanca`s Best Games by Harry Golombek |
|
| May-26-07 | | paladin at large: <Capatin17> This is the game with the well known photograph of the two sitting at the board with the finishing position on the display board behind them, Alekhine in his uniform, looking dejected. |
|
| May-26-07 | | CapablancaFan: Alekhine has no answer to 36.Nf4. |
|
| Sep-12-07 | | PAWNTOEFOUR: alekine,capa,lasker,botvinnik,fischer,tal,kasparov,mor-
phy........ all i know is i'd be happy if i could play as good as they did |
|
| Sep-14-07 | | patzerboy: It seems that after move 17, Black is OK. 18...Bb5 doesn't seem to accomplish anything (the rook is going to e1 anyway), and his game steadily deteriorates from then on. Course, Ah ain't no Grandy's Chicken Master, neither. |
|
| Nov-15-07 | | zealouspawn: I've never seen Alekhine dominated so thoroughly as in this game. |
|
| Nov-26-07 | | Ulhumbrus: Capablanca comments on the move 18 Be4! in his book my chess career. To quote from his remarks " ...It would take many lines to explain this move properly and then I might not be clearly understood..." Apart from whatever else it may do, the move 18 Be4 appears to get ready to remove the Nd5 which guards the point c7, after which White's Q attacks and then invades the point c7. |
|
Mar-30-08
 | | chancho: The display board in this photo shows the final position of this game: http://www.pnte.cfnavarra.es/oronoz... |
|
| Mar-30-08 | | Calli: For the un-cropped photo, see our St Petersburg 1914 album http://picasaweb.google.com/Caissa1... |
|
| Mar-30-08 | | scholes: What was 34 ..kh3 35 Ng2 |
|
| Aug-02-08 | | Whitehat1963: People will never agree on whether Capablanca was better than Alekhine. But I ask a different question: Which Capablanca was better, the Capablanca of 1916-1924 or the Capablanca of 1936? And just how good was he already by 1911? |
|
Aug-02-08
 | | maxi: I'll contribute my two-bits worth.
As far as I can tell Capablanca till 1919 or 1920 was a creative genius of the first order, but somewhat careless and with a certain (possibly justified) tendency to underestimate his opponents, so he often makes mistakes. But usually he does not have to pay for them because he is so good he can still win and his opponents are often so much in awe of him that they do not make full use of the opportunities he allows them. Capablanca 1920-1924 is a creative genius with almost perfect play. He is at his strongest. He has brilliant conceptions, both tactical and strategic. He intuitively plays the best move. He is at is best. The later Capablanca is very strong and capable of subtle positional chess, but does he does have not the creativity and tactical sharpness of his youth. He also tries to keep his games simple, which is not a very good thing to do in many games. |
|
| Aug-02-08 | | Once: A great champion is also moulded by having strong opponents. In his early career, Capa was playing a kind of chess that his opponents could not understand or live with. Unfortunately, that kept him lazy - he could win without trying too hard. Had Capa been forced to struggle - who knows how strong he would have become? Which was better - Alekhine or Capablanca? Impossible to say, because they had different strengths and each hit their peak at different times. It is like trying to choose between malt whisky and a fine claret. I am just glad that I can enjoy both. |
|
Aug-02-08
 | | Bishoprick: The greatest player we have had has to have been Emanuel Lasker. No one else has held the world championship or dominated his peers for so long, 26 years I believe. Only Steinetz comes close. By the standards set by these two world champions all the others are relative flash-in-the-pan. Kasparov and Botvinik also held the championship for a long time, and have a claim to be right behind Lasker and Steinitz. All the others were very good, and I love some of their games, but they were around and in top form very briefly. |
|
| Aug-02-08 | | CapablancaFan: <Bishoprick> I find your assesment to be a little misleading. Although you are certainly correct that Lasker retained his title longer than any other, defensive technique wasn't totally refined as it is today. The strength of player skill and overall quality of the the game has been much more elevated since Lasker's time. Lasker's play later in his career grew much more inconsistent as the quality of his opponents grew exponentially. |
|
| Aug-02-08 | | Once: I'm with <CapablancaFan> on this one. Lasker did hold the world title for the longest, but he played infrequently and the quality of his opposition was not so strong. He was a great figher who excelled in complicated positions. He was also very good at just scraping the results he needed. But to claim that the others are a flash in the pan? Sorry, <Bishoprick>, can't agree with that one. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
