|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-24-21
 | | perfidious: <keypusher>, in the early 1980s, I won a game in this line in which my opponent (roughly 2100) also managed to get his knight to e4--not an easy thing to do and I never did, though I would go on to play Black in this variation numerous times through the 1990s. |
|
| Feb-24-21 | | BwanaVa: This may have been discussed, but why 27...Ng5-f3? Is it reasonable to think that Capa did not realize the knight would be trapped? Why not 27...Ng5 to either f7 or e4? Granted, Black has a bad game anyway... |
|
| Feb-24-21 | | Brenin: <BwanaVa>: I queried Black's 27 ... Nf3 earlier today, wondering why he didn't play Nf7 (Ne4 loses the exchange to 28 Be4 dxe4 29 Ng6). For what it's worth, the Engine gives 27 ... Nf3 +2.85 (preferring 28 Nxf3 gxf3+ 29 Kxf3 to the game line), 27 ... Ne4 28 Bxe4 +2.21, and 27 ... Nf7 28 Bd3 Nf8 29 Qe2 +4.15. |
|
Feb-24-21
 | | HeMateMe: One remembers good chess quotes. In Bobby Fischer's M60MG in the notes for one game an opponent gets a deeply posted Knight, I think at f6 during the endgame. In the game notes it reads (my paraphrasing) "A deeply posted Knight has much less scope after both pair of Rooks have been exchanged and is not always to be feared." So, if not part of a coordinated attack, the posted knight is not always a big asset. |
|
Feb-24-21
 | | Sargon: <keypusher:
[...]
<OhioChessFan: Alas, I thought they might actually run with [my pun].> They honored it in spirit!>
OCF had suggested <"A Great Game That Doesn't Lend Itself to a Good Pun">. Notwithstanding that assertion, when reviewing the game before appointing it as GOTD (which I generally try to do) I immediately noticed that Black moved several minor pieces more than once in the opening (<11...Nf8> & <13...Nd8>, for example). As a rule of thumb, of course, this is inadvisable. Additionally, the computer analysis seems to suggest that <15...Bxa4> for Black is preferable to retreating the Queen with <15...Qa7>. Therefore, in summary, many of Black's moves in the opening were <excessively> defensive—which ceded even <greater> initiative to White. As a result, White "beat" Black's "hasty retreat"—in less than 35 moves. So I thought my pun was at least <marginally> apropos! But then again, what do <I> know? |
|
| Dec-11-21 | | Mathematicar: Alekhine just outplayed Capa in this one, but part of the defeat is probably Capablanca's deteriorating health. |
|
Dec-11-21
 | | plang: ...dog ate his homework... |
|
| Dec-11-21 | | Mathematicar: Capablanca suffered mild stroke during AVRO 1938 turnament. I would say this is fine excuse for black. We all know that, overall, Capablanca was better player than Alekhine. |
|
Dec-11-21
 | | keypusher: <Mathematicar: Capablanca suffered mild stroke during AVRO 1938 turnament. > Nobody ever beat a healthy Capablanca. Jose Raul Capablanca (kibitz #3375) <We all know that, overall, Capablanca was better player than Alekhine.> We don't know that. At least I don't. They played a match for the World Championship and Alekhine won. That I know. |
|
| Dec-11-21 | | Mathematicar: He is probably the greatest player if we just look natural talent. Of course, he can't be compared with modern Super GM's because of all that theory and computer preparation, etc. That aside, I think Rubinstein defeated him in 1911, and he had two losses, from Lasker and Tarrasch, in 1914, and of course he had more lost games when in best shape, I am not denying this. I always "cheered" for Lasker and other players, but Capa just played this clear chess that still glows in my eyes and that's why he is what he is: Capablanca. P.S. How to quote comments here? |
|
| Feb-14-22 | | Margetic D: <Mathematicar: We all know that, overall, Capablanca was better player than Alekhine.> No. What we all know for sure, is that Alekhine defeated 1927 Capablaca in World Championship. What we also know , is that Capablanca congrated Alekhine in a letter. What i personally think is that both players were kings in their best years, no doubt. |
|
| Feb-14-22 | | George Wallace: <Mathematicar: He is probably the greatest player if we just look natural talent.> What does this <really> mean? How does one look only at natural talent? To me, this sounds like someone gushing about Capablanca and repeating cliches written about him from Chernev and other old authors. Is there any real substance to it? Explain the process of exactly how one excludes other aspects of a game so as to arrive at the perception of only the <natural talent> involved. Why wasn't Morphy, Reshevsky, Fischer or Steinitz considered just as, or more endowed with natural talent? How do you know Alekhine wasn't gifted with more <natural talent>, and how can you show this? I love Capablanca, but sometimes I think people gush because they've been taught to gush. |
|
Feb-14-22
 | | Williebob: <George Wallace: <Mathematicar: He is probably the greatest player if we just look natural talent.>
What does this <really> mean? How does one look only at natural talent?>
I like these questions!
Children who beat experienced adult players at chess are obvious examples of talent, but qualifying talent as part of an older professional's game is dodgy. All professional chess players must work hard to succeed. Perhaps some get by with less prep and more over-the-board ability (as we're taught to believe about Capa)? I guess that requires the same stuff that made you good when you were young.
Maybe the way Carlsen wins games is an example of being just a bit more talented than everybody else. |
|
Feb-15-22
| | perfidious: Talent, by its inherently amorphous nature, in no way lends itself to easy classification. The man who beat Capablanca obviously possessed great talent, but only hard work brought Alekhine to the pinnacle, just as Kasparov was tremendously gifted, but had to work very hard to raise his game to its zenith. |
|
| Feb-15-22 | | FM David H. Levin: <Mathematicar: [...snip...]
P.S. How to quote comments here?>
Any comment text enclosed in angle brackets is depicted in a font color other than black. |
|
| Jul-13-23 | | Albion 1959: A shocker of a game by Capablanca ! It was not often he got into position like this. Also a loss on time, even rarer ! Credit though to Alekhine for getting Capablanca into this cramped and passive position: |
|
Feb-05-25
 | | Open Defence: According to the cg.com DB, Capablanca used the French Defence 19 times as Black Though 1...e5 was his more usual response
-7 =3 +9 |
|
| Feb-05-25 | | sudoplatov: Two comments on this game. Most interesting was that I read somewhere that Alekhine thought Capablanca had a stroke during the game; he said Capa's skin color paled, his breathing changed, and he didn't play well afterward. Second, I wish I had seen Fisher's comments on advanced Knights being less dangerous after Rooks were gone. I had a few of these rules built into LACHEX. These were things like adjustments for Opposite Color Bishops, Bad Bishops blocked against Knights, and three Minor Pieces getting a bonus vs two Rooks (because the possibility of an Exchange Sacrifice is very small.) I'll have to see if any 3 Minors vs 2 Rooks involve a non-losing Exchange sac. |
|
Feb-05-25
| | perfidious: There are numerous posts about on the state of Capablanca's health in his later years: Search Kibitzing Also beginning below:
Jose Raul Capablanca (kibitz #6088) |
|
Feb-05-25
 | | chrisowen: Already posted x
[Event "Play vs Bot"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2025.01.17"]
[Round "-"]
[White "GrdM2K"]
[Black "capablanca-BOT"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[CurrentPosition " 
click for larger view"]
[Timezone "UTC"]
[ECO "C53"]
[ECOUrl "https://www.chess.com/openings/Giuo..."]
[UTCDate "2025.01.17"]
[UTCTime "16:49:55"]
[WhiteElo "1300"]
[BlackElo "2725"]
[TimeControl "-"]
[Termination "Game drawn by 50-move rule"]
[StartTime "16:49:55"]
[EndDate "2025.01.17"]
[EndTime "17:25:15"]
[Link "https://www.chess.com/analysis/game..."]
[WhiteUrl "https://www.chess.com/bundles/web/i..."]
[WhiteCountry "164"]
[WhiteTitle ""]
[BlackUrl "https://images.chesscomfiles.com/up..."]
[BlackCountry "37"]
[BlackTitle ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. h3 d5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. O-O
Bf5 9. d4 exd4 10. cxd4 Nb6 11. dxc5 Nxc4 12. Nc3 Re8 13. Re1 Rxe1+ 14. Qxe1 Nd4
15. Nxd4 Qxd4 16. Be3 Nxe3 17. Qxe3 Qxe3 18. fxe3 Rd8 19. Rd1 Rxd1+ 20. Nxd1 Kf8
21. a3 Bc2 22. Nc3 Ke7 23. b4 c6 24. Kf2 Ke6 25. h4 Ke5 26. Kf3 f5 27. g3 g6 28.
Kf2 Bb3 29. Kf3 h6 30. Kf2 Bf7 31. Kf3 g5 32. hxg5 Bh5+ 33. Kf2 hxg5 34. Ke1 Bg4
35. Kd2 Bh3 36. Kd3 Bf1+ 37. Kd2 Bc4 38. Ke1 Be6 39. Kd2 Bc4 40. Ke1 Bd3 41. Kd2
Bf1 42. Ke1 Bd3 43. Kd2 Bf1 44. Ke1 Bg2 45. Kd2 g4 46. Ke1 Bd5 47. Kd2 Bc4 48.
Ke1 b6 49. cxb6 axb6 50. Kd2 b5 51. Kc2 Bd5 52. Kd2 Bc4 53. Kc2 Bf7 54. Kd2 Bd5
55. Kd3 Bb3 56. Kd2 Bd5 57. Kd3 Bg8 58. Kd2 Bb3 59. Kd3 Bd5 60. Kd2 Bf3 61. Kd3
Bh1 62. Kd2 Bf3 63. Kd3 Bg2 64. Kd2 Be4 65. Ke2 Kd6 66. Kd2 Ke6 67. Ke2 Kd7 68.
Kd2 Ke6 69. Ke2 Ke5 70. Kd2 Kd6 71. Ke2 Bc2 72. Kd2 Be4 73. Ke2 Ke5 74. Kd2 Kf6
75. Ke2 Bf3+ 76. Kd2 Be4 77. Ke2 Ke6 78. Kd2 Ke5 79. Ke2 Bg2 80. Kd2 Bf1 81. Ke1
Bc4 82. Kd2 Kd6 83. Kc2 c5 84. bxc5+ Kxc5 85. Kd2 b4 86. axb4+ Kxb4 87. Nd1 Bd5
88. Nc3 Be4 89. Nd1 Kc4 90. Nc3 Bf3 91. Na4 Kd5 92. Nc3+ Ke5 93. Ke1 Be4 94. Kd2
Bf3 95. Ke1 Bb7 96. Kd2 Ba6 97. Ke1 Bc4 98. Kd2 Bd5 99. Ke1 Bf3 100. Kd2 Bc6
101. Ke1 Be4 102. Kd2 Bc6 103. Ke1 Bf3 104. Kd2 Bb7 105. Ke1 Bd5 106. Kd2 Bc4
107. Ke1 Ke6 108. Kd2 Ke5 109. Ke1 Bd5 110. Kd2 Be4 111. Ke1 Kd6 112. Kd2 Ke5
113. Ke1 Bc6 114. Kd2 Be8 115. Ke1 Bc6 116. Kd2 Be8 117. Ke1 Kf6 118. Kd2 Bf7
119. Ke1 Bc4 120. Kd2 Kg5 121. Ke1 Kf6 122. Kd2 Bg8 123. Ke1 Bb3 124. Kd2 Bf7
125. Ke1 Ke5 126. Kd2 Bg8 127. Ke1 Bc4 128. Kd2 Ba6 129. Ke1 Bb7 130. Kd2 Bd5
131. Ke1 Bg2 132. Kd2 Bb7 133. Ke1 Ke6 134. Kd2 Be4 135. Ke1 Bf3 136. Kd2 Kf7
1/2-1/2 |
|
| Feb-06-25 | | Petrosianic: <perfidious: There are numerous posts about on the state of Capablanca's health in his later years:> The turning point seems to be 1937. Capablanca had really good years in both 1935 and 1936, and tied for first at Nottingham. Then in 1937 he scored +2-1=11 at Semmering. At AVRO he was on the same sort of pace when he fell ill. Without the illness, maybe he would have broken even, or even +1. But his play in the first half doesn't suggest that he was on pace to win the tournament. In this game, most of Capa's problems stem from 10... Be7 and 11... Nf8. He seems to have played pretty well after that, but the damage was already done. Black needs to play f6 and hit back at the center. This wasn't caused by illness, it was caused by poor opening knowledge (although the illness certainly didn't help). |
|
Feb-06-25
| | Open Defence: <Petrosianic> <...it was caused by poor opening knowledge...> that was my sense too which is why I started looking at his French Defence games I wonder if he gave getting an advantage out of the opening less priority |
|
Feb-06-25
| | perfidious: <Petrosianic....Black needs to play f6 and hit back at the center. This wasn't caused by illness, it was caused by poor opening knowledge> Theory in this subvariation was in its infancy during the 1930s, so I am not so sure it makes sense to ascribe 'poor opening knowledge' to Black's play--not, of course, that Capablanca was ever a devotee of opening theory in the mould of his great adversary here. |
|
| Feb-06-25 | | Petrosianic: <perfidious>: <Theory in this subvariation was in its infancy during the 1930s, so I am not so sure it makes sense to ascribe 'poor opening knowledge' to Black's play--not, of course, that Capablanca was ever a devotee of opening theory in the mould of his great adversary here.> All right, inadequate theory, then. But Capa seems in big trouble very early in this game for reasons that don't seem related to illness. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
