| Feb-06-05 | | aw1988: This is an outstanding endgame. Bxe5 is a move one would need to be very sure of themselves before executing. |
|
| Feb-06-05 | | MoonlitKnight: I think 31...Bxe5 was just a way to calmly play for a win with absolutely no danger of losing. If black really needed to win, he should have tried 32.a5 or 32.h5. Or perhaps it was a miscalculation by Capablanca. |
|
| Feb-06-05 | | aw1988: Well, it's quite high on my list. I would be quite terrified to consider such a move. |
|
Feb-07-05
 | | beatgiant: On move 31, it's clear White's e-pawn will cost the bishop, so the question for Black is when to do it: on e5 as in the game, or on e7 The latter plan looks interesting too. For example, 31...a5 32. Nxf7 Bg1 33. e6 Bc5 34. Ne5+ Kb5 35. Kd5 a4 36. Nc6 h5 37. e7 Bxe7 38. Nxe7 h4 39. Ke4 g5 40. Kf3 Kc5 41. Kg4 b5 42. Nf5 b4 43. Kxg5 h3 44. Kg4 h2 45. Ng3 Kc4 46. Kh3 b3! looks winning for Black (47. axb3 Kxb3 48. Kxh2 Kxb2 queens the a-pawn, or 47. a3 Kd3 48. Kxh2 Kc2 acquires two advanced passers which beat the knight). This sample line is long and complicated and the outcome is closely decided, so obviously there is a lot of scope to look for improvements in it. So maybe Capa was looking for a simpler win with 31...Bxe5 and miscalculated some detail. |
|
| Feb-07-05 | | aw1988: <beatgiant> Well spotted! |
|
| Jul-16-13 | | Owl: Capablanca is up two pawns with a Bishop vs Knight ending and only manages a draw!
And Capa claims the Bishop is better than the knight in the endgame?? But cant win with two pawns ahead?? |
|
| Jul-16-13 | | JoergWalter: <Owl: Capablanca is up two pawns with a Bishop vs Knight ending and only manages a draw!> Where did he give the win away? was there one? Please, elucidate us all. |
|
| Jul-16-13 | | thomastonk: Mihail Marin wrote in Karl 4/2010 an article about Euwe's style, or "his character to change positions drastically and abruptly". I have to say that I don't like this article, because of the selection of examples. There is the nice tactical blow from Euwe vs Carls, 1928, the finish of the Pearl of Zaandvoort (what a surprise!), see Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935, and also the endgame of this game. Mahin begins at White's 25th move, and it is a nice endgame analysis, no doubt. However, it tells more about Mahin (and his engine) than about Euwe and Capablanca. But this drawback (only with respect to my expectations) is irrelevant, when the question of win or draw is asked. Mahin has 25.e4!, 28.♔e4? and 31.. ♗xe5?. He thinks, that White can hold the game, but 28.♘d4! was necessary. Instead of 31.. ♗xe5?, he suggests 31.. ♔c5. This is all supported by interesting lines, of course. |
|
| Oct-18-21 | | LoveThatJoker: In the New In Chess book <Max Euwe - The Biography> by Alexander Münninghoff, it is stated that Capablanca still had a -+ assessment should he had played 32...f5. I have yet to analyze this myself, but it is interesting to note how Capa just sacrifices his last remaining piece in a B vs N ending, and assesses the subsequent position as advantageous. It would have been nice to see how the game would have played itself out had Capablanca played the superior 32...f5. LTJ |
|
| Dec-31-24 | | andrea volponi: 31...Kc5!! -Nxf7 Kc6 -e6 h5!!-+ |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
icon.