Euwe vs Capablanca, 1931

So, the point is: in this previous
game, Euwe had set a cute trap for
Capablanca, and succeeded in winning
the exchange against the great Cuban.
But with his amazing defensive skill,
Capablanca had pulled out the draw.

So now we know why this was an
amazing game. The very next time
Capablanca had black, he repeated
the line! This is in effect, giving
Euwe, one of the world's leading
players, the odds of "exhange" and
move -- and still holding the draw!

<So now we know why this was an amazing game. The very next time Capablanca had black, he repeated the line!>

That's because he apparently felt the line gave Black adequate compensation to hold the draw, which is the exact same reason that he played the line the first time. The "Monticelli trap" had already been played in two master-level games in 1926, resulting in one win for white and one win for Black.

<This is in effect, giving Euwe, one of the world's leading players, the odds of "exhange" and move -- and still holding the draw!

This is comparable to Morphy's giving masters of his day the odds of knight>

First of all let's be very clear about this move-odds nonsense. Giving an opponent move-odds means that, when playing Black, you give him TWO free moves to start the game. If Capablanca gave Euwe move-odds in this game, then so does everyone when they play Black. As for "exchange-odds," that would be if one player gives the other player the odds of rook for minor piece <without any compensation.> Capablanca was not "giving" Euwe those odds. It's not "exchange-odds" when you get an extra pawn (as in this game) or two (as in the previous one), and certainly not when you also get some positional compensation to boot.

The most absurd statement in that comment, however, is comparing this to Morphy giving the masters of his day the odds of a knight. When Morphy started a game without his queen's knight, he obviously had no compensation for the lack of material (not to mention the fact that a knight is worth more than the exchange, but that's besides the point!). He did not receive material compensation (one or two pawns) nor positional compensation (strong initiative).

Apparently some world-class Grandmasters STILL don't know about the exact winning procedure! :P Read on:

This very line has been played for Black by such Grandmasters such as Kortchnoi, Andersson, Larsen, Azmaiparashvili, Seirawan, Christiansen and others ... including Postny, used it in his game at Aeroflot just last year against Aronian!

In another grandmaster battle from last year (Psakhis-Marin, 25th Ann Champions, 2005), Black went in for this line, and the Russian-Israeli GM playing White opted for 12.Nxe4 instead of 12.Qxe4, thus avoiding the win of the exchange!! Why do you think this was? Did he not see that he could win the exchange in one more move? Was he angry that Marin was attempting to give him "exchange and move odds" ?! Give me a break :P

Former Kasparov trainer GM Yuri Dokhoian also avoided the "free odds" when he played 10.Qxc3 at the USSR-ch in 1985. Psakhis played this move as well. As did Argentinian GM Ariel Sorin... I guess they all decided that they didn't want to get free "exchange and move odds," or maybe they weren't strong enough to see the two-move combination.

Excuse me? That website deals with a key ENDGAME position from move 45, in which Euwe could have won with 45.h4! instead of 45.Ra3. You use this "key position" as evidence that the "exact winning method" has been discovered for White ... Do you honestly think there were no alternatives for Black in the 30 moves between the opening (up to 15.Rd1) and move 45? The exact winning method that is demonstrated on that webpage is a winning method from the endgame; obviously Black can play differently before that point, which is why, as stated in my previous post, strong Grandmasters have played and continue to play this line even today.

<Never before, nor since, has a grandmaster ever deliberately given a world top 10 player <exchange and move odds> as Capablanca deliberately did in this game on MOVE 9!!!>

I'm getting tired of this drivel. First of all this exact same line, as noted above, was used by Ulf Andersson against Portisch in 1983 (according to chessmetrics.com, Portisch was a top-five player at the time). It was also used last year by GM Postny against none other than Aronian.

I have already explained in a previous post how this game doesn't amount to anything even close to giving an opponent such odds. And if it did, it would be very <odd> indeed that the line continues getting played by top GMs, and that some GMs avoid it altogether with <White>!