|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-10-22 | | CapablancaDisciple: This game just clearly shows that Capa was just not in the right frame of mind for the match. What careless opening play! He sort of recovered in the end but it was not enough to salvage the game. Whether it was overconfidence or some sort of personal dilemma that disrupted him, it's clear Capa was not playing at his usual level. But still what a shame he had to lose due to out-of-the-board circumstances and not because his opponent was actually better than him. |
|
Jan-10-22
 | | keypusher: <CapablancaDisciple.> <...But still what a shame he had to lose due to out-of-the-board circumstances and not because his opponent was actually better than him.> Obviously clearing out my ignore list was a mistake. |
|
| Jan-11-22 | | CapablancaDisciple: <<Obviously clearing out my ignore list was a mistake.>> Lol. You want to ignore anyone who doesn't share your opinion? Go right ahead. |
|
Jan-11-22
 | | saffuna: <But still what a shame he had to lose due to out-of-the-board circumstances and not because his opponent was actually better than him.> Yes. When I lose it's due to out-of-the-board circumstances. I never lose just because my opponent played better. |
|
Jan-11-22
| | keypusher: < CapablancaDisciple: <<Obviously clearing out my ignore list was a mistake.>>
Lol. You want to ignore anyone who doesn't share your opinion? Go right ahead.> No, I don't ignore everyone who doesn't agree with me. However, I generally don't find it worthwhile to interact with religious hysterics who say things like <The truth is Capablanca was stronger than anyone he ever played. There may have been other more active players at the time, but that does not mean stronger.> Moscow (1936) (kibitz #18) |
|
Jan-11-22
| | keypusher: <fredthebear: Go figure... <KP> complains about taking the guy off his ignore list, then he goes and reads the guy's old posts. Maybe that ignore list isn't such a great tool after all.> He wasn't on my ignore list when I made that comment and never had been. I was saying that cleaning out my ignore list was, generally speaking, a mistake. I'm putting him on ignore now, because I've looked through his (few) posts, and they're pretty much all childish Capa hagiography. |
|
Jan-11-22
 | | moronovich: The ignore is sometimes the best tool to counter some of the fanatics.Be it "religious" or by other means.....Like in real life. But a fruitful conversation is clearly # 1. |
|
| Jan-12-22 | | CapablancaDisciple: Well your reaction is the one that's hysterical given I've only spoken facts, to which you just seem to be allergic to, and haven't even argued against. Because you can't. You can ignore someone you differ with or you can choose to be civil and engage in a <<fruitful conversation>> like a well-respected adult. It seems you've chosen the coward's way out. And what's wrong with showing admiration to a player, especially if that player is the greatest of all time? You don't agree with the aforementioned denomination? To each his own. |
|
Jan-12-22
| | saffuna: It's a "fact" that Capablanca lost because of "out-of-the-board circumstances"? It couldn't just be his opponent outplayed him that day? |
|
| Jan-12-22 | | George Wallace: <CapablancaDisciple: Well your reaction is the one that's hysterical ...> He gets like that when he's drunk-posting.
<kp> is one of the most disliked posters on this website. However, I urge tolerance. |
|
Jan-12-22
 | | perfidious: By that standard, it may be said that Alekhine trailed in this match, a few games on, also due to 'out-of-the-board circumstances', such as having six teeth extracted. |
|
| Jan-12-22 | | CapablancaDisciple: <<It's a "fact" that Capablanca lost because of "out-of-the-board circumstances"?>> More so than the fact that Alekhine was an overall better player than Capablanca, yes. Even Alekhine himself said that he never considered himself a superior player when he won the 1927 match, so, there. <<It couldn't just be his opponent outplayed him that day?>> Of course it could be. Alekhine won because of a great number of factors, including great preparation of all sorts and a clear will to win. Just not because Alekhine truly had surpassed Capablanca and was now a much superior player. I think it's pretty clear this was not the case. Even Alekhine himself said so. |
|
| Jan-12-22 | | CapablancaDisciple: <<He gets like that when he's drunk-posting.>> <kp> is one of the most disliked posters on this website.>> Oh I see, I see. How unfortunate for this website. I guess I'll add him to my ignore list as well. |
|
Jan-12-22
| | saffuna: <Alekhine won because of a great number of factors, including great preparation of all sorts and a clear will to win.> Kasparov's two greatest assets. |
|
Jan-12-22
| | saffuna: <<kp> is one of the most disliked posters on this website.>>> Simply not true. |
|
Jan-12-22
 | | MissScarlett: It's a crowded field. |
|
Jan-12-22
| | perfidious: Alekhine had to beat his redoubtable opponent at his own game to have any chance, and even then it took all he had. |
|
Jan-12-22
| | keypusher: < saffuna: <<kp> is one of the most disliked posters on this website.>>>
<Simply not true.> It probably isn't true. But I've tried, damnit! I'm up against tough competition, that's all. |
|
Jan-12-22
 | | Williebob: <keypusher> is undeniably a valuable contributor to CG, so, there. |
|
Jan-12-22
| | perfidious: <keypusher> you are a tough cookie and hard worker, but I fear that (dis)honour shall be denied you; after all, you are up against fierce competition. |
|
| Jan-27-22 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: Couldn't white have tried
22. Rd2 Qf3 23. Qe2
instead of giving up a second pawn? |
|
Feb-14-22
 | | plang: 8 Bxf5 was a new move that seems harmless; 8 Ng3 was the main line while 8 Bf4 was suggested. 10 Nd1?! looks a bit slow; 10 a3 and 10 Bf4 were alternatives. 16 Rac1? was careless overlooking Black's little combination. 23..Rc4? 24 Re5! would have thrown away much of Black's advantage. 30..Re6 was typical Alekhine giving back the pawn for the initiative; alternatively 30..d4 31 Qf3 would have given White active counterplay. 33 Rd7?! was an odd move allowing Black to gain a tempo and leaving the rook out of play. |
|
Aug-14-22
 | | offramp: This is game 1 and it reminds me of Game 1 of Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963. In both cases Black won the opening games. There is a small similarity. This is from 1927,
click for larger view
17...Qxf4!
In 1963:
click for larger view
Apparently Petrosian was very nervous, was thinking about playing...
12. Nf4
click for larger view
12....Qxf4 would have repeated history repeated history. |
|
Sep-04-22
 | | kingscrusher: I have just spotted with engine view that it seems on move 30 Qf3
click for larger viewIs about equal - because White has resources like h5 and Qa8 if the d pawn is pushed 83: Jose Raul Capablanca - Alexander Alekhine 0-1 1.0, Capablanca - Alekhine World Championship 1927
click for larger viewAnalysis by Stockfish 15 - 3 threads max:
1. = (-0.16): 30...c6 31.h5 Qb1+ 32.Kg2 Rf6 33.Qe2 b5 34.Re7 d4 35.g4 c5 36.g5 Rf4 37.Rxf7 Rxf7 38.g6+ Kg8 39.gxf7+ Kxf7 40.Qf3+ Kg8 41.Qd5+ Kh8 42.Qxc5 Qxa2 43.Qxd4 Qe6 44.Qxa7 Qd5+ 45.f3 Kh7 46.Qf2 Qxh5 47.Qd2 So it seems that Capablanca may have kind of lost this game twice - not just the initial pawn blunder but this opportunity too. |
|
Sep-28-23
| | perfidious: <saffuna: <But still what a shame he had to lose due to out-of-the-board circumstances and not because his opponent was actually better than him.> Yes. When I lose it's due to out-of-the-board circumstances. I never lose just because my opponent played better.> You have finally found the truth. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
