|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-06-09 | | jon01: 30. Ba3!! is probably one of the most well known moves ever. |
|
| Feb-06-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Personally, I think 16. Rae1 is the best move of the game. Capa from there instituted a plan to win a pawn, but Botvinnik saw very deeply and understood that his kingside attack would be strong. |
|
| Feb-12-09 | | RandomVisitor: After the proposed improvement 29...h6 there is:
1: Mikhail Botvinnik - Jose Raul Capablanca, Netherlands It, Amsterdam (11) 1938
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 3 : <19-ply> <1. ± (1.17): 30.Qd6> Qf8 31.Qc7+ Kh8 32.h3 Ne8 33.Qb8 Qg8 34.Qe5+ Ng7 35.e7 Kh7 36.Nf1 Qf7 37.Ne3 Ne8 38.Nxd5 Qf5 39.Qxf5 gxf5 40.Ba3 Kg6 41.Kf2 Kf7 42.Kg3 Nd2 43.Kf4 Nb1 <2. ± (1.05): 30.Nf1> Na5 31.Qc7+ Kh8 32.Qd6 Nc6 33.Bc1 g5 34.Ne3 b5 35.e7 Kg7 36.Nf5+ Kg6 37.g4 Nxe7 38.Qxe7 Qxe7 39.Nxe7+ Kf7 40.Nc6 a6 41.Ba3 Nxg4 42.Bb4 Ke6 43.Nb8 a5 44.Bxa5 Kd6 45.Na6 |
|
| Feb-12-09 | | Al2009: OK RandomVisitor, but even if White should still win after 29...h6, it is clear that it is not so easy, and White wins in a difficult endgame, at least at 50th or 60th move. Whereas if White had played 21. Nf5! instead od 21. Qf2, it was possible to win before, in the center of game, and saving at least 20 moves. |
|
| Feb-12-09 | | RandomVisitor: <Al2009>Black certainly appears to have a tough game after your innovation 21.Nf5!, but in Gypsy's line above, 21.Nf5 g6 22.Nd6 Re6 23.g4 Black might try 23...Nf6! Best might be 23.f4, but the win would take additional work to demonstrate. |
|
| Feb-13-09 | | RandomVisitor: <Al2009>After 21.Nf5: 1: Mikhail Botvinnik - Jose Raul Capablanca, Netherlands It, Amsterdam (11) 1938
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 3 :
21...g6 <22.Ne3> Qc6 23.f4 Kh8 24.f5 Nbc5 25.fxg6 fxg6 26.Ba3 Nd3 27.Rb1 b5 28.Qd2 a5 29.Bd6 b4 30.Rf7 bxc3 31.Qxc3 Re6 32.Ng4 g5 33.Nf2
<(0.53) Depth: 21> 06:01:55 1139385kN |
|
| Feb-13-09 | | RandomVisitor: Deeper analysis, After 21.Nf5:
1: Mikhail Botvinnik - Jose Raul Capablanca, Netherlands It, Amsterdam (11) 1938
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 3 :
21...a5 22.Re3 Nf8
(0.51) Depth: 22 13:47:22 2566254kN
21...g6 22.Ne3 Qc6 23.f4 Kh8 24.f5 Nbc5 25.fxg6 fxg6 26.Ba3 Nd3 27.Rb1 b5 28.Qd2 a5 29.Bd6 Rg8 30.Ng4 Rg7 31.Nf2 Nxf2 32.Rxf2 Qb6 33.Ra1 Re8 34.Raf1
(0.64) Depth: 22 12:19:51 2264027kN
|
|
| Feb-14-09 | | Al2009: RandomVisitor, after 23...Nf6 as you suggested, White simply plays 24. Qg2 and then f4-f5 with a clear advantage
If 24...h5 25. g5, Nh7 (Nd7) 26. f4 etc. Rook in e6 has to dislodge very soon, after f4,f5, unless Black sac the exchange, but we have already analysed it, and White keeps its advantage.
Let's forget the suggestion by Rybka3 22.Ne3?
Why should White draw back the Knight?
The Knight is much more stronger in d6.
23. f4 is less precise than 23.g4, because after 23.f4 Black could block with 23...f5! |
|
| Feb-14-09 | | Al2009: Anyway, frankly speaking I don't understand why Rybka3 makes a useless Knight sac with 24...Nbc5 (?).
After 25. dxc5 (and not 25.fxg6?), Nxe5 (25...Rxe5 26. cxb6 Qxb6 27. Qf2! Rae8 28. Nxd5!  if 26...axb6 27. Bc1! and Qf2 ) 26. f6! Nd7 (26...Nd3 27. Re2 [with idea Qd2-h6 ] Nxc5 28. Ng4! and Black is just a piece down with no compensation at all. 26...Re6 27. cxb6 with idea Ra1) 27.Ng4! h5 28. Qd2! and game over for Black.
24...Nbc5 seems more a blunder than a sac...
|
|
| Feb-14-09 | | RandomVisitor: <Al2009>We will have time to investigate all of your suggestions. I am going to let my machine do a deep "baseline" run to see if anything else is discovered. After 21.Nf5 <23-ply> Rybka3: <21...a5> 22.Re3 Nf8 23.f4 Nc5
<(0.65) Depth: 23> 21:10:41 3942418kN |
|
| Feb-14-09 | | RandomVisitor: After 21.Nf5 g6 22.Ne3 Qc6 23.f4 f5 <24.Ba3!> [+0.85] d=17 24...Qe6 25.h3 b5 26.g4 fxg4 27.hxg4 Kh8 28.Qg2 Nb6 29.f5 gxf5 30.Rxf5 Qg6 31.Bd6 Re6 32.Rf6 Qg8 33.Rf4 Rg6 34.Ref1 Qe6 35.Rf7 (1:15.55) 150834kN [+1.09] d=17 24...a5 25.g4 b5 26.gxf5 b4 27.Bb2 gxf5 28.Nxf5 Kh8 29.Nd6 Rf8 30.Kh1 a4 (1:07.45) 136683kN |
|
| Feb-14-09 | | slomarko: in this game the young Capablanca was still no match for the experienced Botvinnik. |
|
| Feb-14-09 | | Sularus: ^^
LOL |
|
| Feb-15-09 | | laskereshevsky: After 41.♔h5 Bot said: "Josevich Raulovich, this is a little mate for you..." And from that day the name of Botvinnik sounded like an offense to the Capablanca's ears.... |
|
| Feb-15-09 | | fich: <slomarko>
The year was 1938. Botvinnik was 27 years old. Capablanca was way older. |
|
| Feb-15-09 | | whiteshark: <laskereshevsky> lol
<fich>: <Capablanca was way older.> 49 years if I'm not mistaken. |
|
| Feb-15-09 | | Jim Bartle: "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." |
|
| Feb-15-09 | | AnalyzeThis: The Russians did a good job of making sure that this game was well known. Annoying details like Capablanca's win in another game weren't mentioned. |
|
| Feb-15-09 | | laskereshevsky: YES, he was 49 YO during the tournament, enjoyng (sic!) his 50th exactly the day this game Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1938 was played........... Maybe the ever worst Capa's birthday......
|
|
| Feb-16-09 | | fich: <The Russians did a good job of making sure that this game was well known. Annoying details like Capablanca's win in another game weren't mentioned.> Of course, the thought of their hero losing is too much to take. When Alekhine defeated Capablanca in 1927, what was the Russian celebration like? :) |
|
| Feb-16-09 | | laskereshevsky: <....When Alekhine defeated Capablanca in 1927, what was the Russian celebration like? :...> Not a big one. Alekhine at the time was a "persona non grata" to the comunist government. He was celebrated by the russians political refugiates in Paris, but not by the Stalinist nomenclatur... Later, after the war, ( when he was dead), sudendly all the sovietics accusations to be a nazist collaborator evanished like snow under the sun... Finally, in the 50th, the sovietics decided to totally "reabilitate" the cut off Moscovite player.... The Sovietics from that day considered only the fact that Alekhine was, ( in same way, ) the first "big son" (Inferior only to Botvinnik..) of the Sovietic chess school...(sic!) a posthumous sanctification for the comunist propaganda's use and abuse... |
|
| Feb-16-09 | | KingG: <AnalyzeThis> <The Russians did a good job of making sure that this game was well known. Annoying details like Capablanca's win in another game weren't mentioned.> Are you saying this game doesn't deserve to be well known on it's own merits? And since when are previous encounters taken into consideration when judging the quality of a game? |
|
| Feb-16-09 | | square dance: <KingG> to back up rookfile's point commies like burgess, nunn and emms rated this, along with karpov-kasparov, 1985 (g) 16 and kasparov-topalov, 1999 as a 15 out of 15 in their book entitled The World's Greatest Chess Games. |
|
| Feb-16-09 | | KingG: <square dance> Yeah, not to mention that almost anytime someone annotates a game with a similar pawn structure to this one in which a central advance is played, they quote this game. This is one of the few games that can be said to have really contributed something to the development of chess middlegame theory. |
|
| Feb-17-09 | | RandomVisitor: 21.Nf5! and now:
21...a5 22.Re3 Nf8 23.f4 Nc5 24.Qxa4 Nxa4 25.Ba3 Ne6 26.Ne7+ Rxe7 27.Bxe7 Nxc3 28.Rxc3 Nxd4 29.Kf2 Nc6 30.Bd6 b5 31.Rd1 d4 32.Rc2 Rc8 33.Rb1 d3 34.Rc3
<± (0.82) Depth: 24> 81:29:44 2352328kN, tb=3 21...g6 22.Ne3 is slightly better for black:
[+0.63] d=21 22...Qc6 23.f4 f6 24.g3 fxe5 (8:19.27) 1028756kN [+0.77] d=21 22...a5 23.Nxd5 Rac8 24.f4 Qc6 25.Ne3 b5 26.f5 Nbc5 27.dxc5 Nxe5 28.Rd1 Qxc5 29.d4 Rcd8 30.fxg6 hxg6 31.Qf2 Qa7 32.Qh4 Rd7 33.Kh1 Qb7 34.Bc1 Re6 (13:01.06) 1644036kN but after
21...g6 22.Ne3 Qc6 23.f4 f6 there is
[+0.84] d=20 4.g4 fxe5 5.fxe5 Rad8 (3:53.01) 523626kN [+0.70] d=20 4.g3 b5 5.Qg2 Nb6 6.Ng4 f5 7.Nf6 Kh8 8.Nxe8 Rxe8 9.g4 Qe6 10.gxf5 gxf5 11.Re3 Na4 12.Rg3 Nxb2 13.Qxb2 a5 14.Kh1 (4:42.34) 627140kN |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 30.Ba3