|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-31-11 | | Oceanlake: I wrote "...Capablanca at his best...."
I don't think he was at his best in 1927, nor, from later history, did Alekine. |
|
| Jan-03-12 | | kevin86: The fee for Qxf8 is immediate mate.Capa talks a good game as well as he plays it. |
|
| Mar-17-12 | | Norbi506: 25. Nxe8
"This Bishop had to be taken, since it threatened to go to h5, pinning the Knight."
The bishop is doing absolutely nothing... Pinning the night had to be a big plan in blacks counterplay = LOL |
|
| Mar-17-12 | | ephesians: If black can get the bishop to h5 and chop on f3, it undermines white's control of e5. White's control of e5 is his trump in this postion. |
|
| Mar-17-12 | | whithaw: This is a beautiful, beautiful game... Extremely clear play. |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | Norbi506: You are probably right. Maybe that tempo on the Q (23.Ndb) was the issue. The pin shouldnt be a problem for Capa. |
|
| Sep-05-15 | | SimplicityRichard: <FSR: ....six times to Alekhine as Lasker did in his life.> Well spotted.# |
|
Sep-05-15
 | | OhioChessFan: It's a shame to see the grammatical errors in the notes. On a chess note, I continue to believe Lasker is vastly underrated in chess history. A really strong case can be made he was the best ever, though few people rate him there. |
|
| Sep-05-15 | | TheFocus: <OhioChessFan> <It's a shame to see the grammatical errors in the notes.
On a chess note, I continue to believe Lasker is vastly underrated in chess history. A really strong case can be made he was the best ever, though few people rate him there.> I believe Lasker was the strongest chess player ever. He would have spanked Carlsen like a yard dog. |
|
| Sep-05-15 | | Howard: Why Fischer didn't include Lasker in his, very questionable, list of the top-ten players of all time, has always been a mystery. Granted, the two of them had very different styles, but Lasker's greatness is simply unquestionable. |
|
| Sep-05-15 | | RookFile: He gave a reason at the time, which is that Lasker was a coffeehouse player. However, Profile of a Prodigy reported that later Fischer changed his mind and saw Lasker's greatness. |
|
Sep-06-15
 | | offramp: <Howard: Why Fischer didn't include Lasker in his, very questionable, list of the top-ten players of all time, has always been a mystery. Granted, the two of them had very different styles, but Lasker's greatness is simply unquestionable.> The 1964 list was as follows:
Morphy
Staunton
Steinitz
Tarrasch
Chigorin
Alekhine
Capablanca
Spassky
Tal
Reshevsky
To Fischer's credit he did not do what most people do when asked for an all-time favourite list, which is to give a list of World Champions plus a few other players. He did nor include Petrosian (the WC), Smyslov, Rubinstein or Botvinnik. The inclusion of Staunton is an oddity, but if Fischer liked him then that's that, it's a fait accompli! And if Lasker wasn't one of Fischer's favourite players in 1964, then why should he go on the list? |
|
Sep-06-15
 | | MissScarlett: <Why Fischer didn't include Lasker in his, very questionable, list of the top-ten players of all time, has always been a mystery. > Because if he had, it would no longer have been 'very questionable'; it would have been slightly or somewhat questionable. Why not just cut to the chase and give us your unquestionable top 10 list for 1964? |
|
| Sep-06-15 | | RookFile: Miss Scarlett asks a good question. I asked myself: "If a time transporter took me back to 1964, what list would I come up with for the all time top 10?" This is the list I came up with, in alphabetical order: Alekhine
Botvinnik
Capa
Keres
Lasker
Morphy
Petrosian
Reshevsky
Smyslov
Tal |
|
Sep-08-15
| | offramp: In 1964 this might have been my top 10 list:
Alekhine
Mason
Capablanca
Lasker
Rubinstein
Chigorin
Tarrasch
Marshall
Zukertort
Tal |
|
Sep-08-15
 | | keypusher: < offramp: In 1964 this might have been my top 10 list:
Alekhine
Mason
Capablanca
Lasker
Rubinstein
Chigorin
Tarrasch
Marshall
Zukertort
Tal>
A nice, subtle Bobby tribute. He inexplicably slighted Lasker in favor of Tarrasch; you inexplicably slight Steinitz in favor of Zukertort. Mason is a charming bit of chauvinism, but where are Blackburne and Atkins? |
|
Sep-08-15
| | offramp: <keypusher: < offramp: In 1964 this might have been my top 10 list: Alekhine
Mason
Capablanca
Lasker
Rubinstein
Chigorin
Tarrasch
Marshall
Zukertort
Tal>
A nice, subtle Bobby tribute. He inexplicably slighted Lasker in favor of Tarrasch; you inexplicably slight Steinitz in favor of Zukertort. Mason is a charming bit of chauvinism, but where are Blackburne and Atkins?>That is the problem, isn't it?
The same problem Fischer had. If you are limited to 10 then many players are going to be left out. I like Steinitz. But I also like Zukertort. But which one is better? There's only one way to find out...
FIIIIGHT!! |
|
| Aug-01-18 | | EmanuelLasker: This would have been my top ten list in 1964, in alphabetical order: Alekhine
Botvinnik
Capablanca
Keres
Lasker
Petrosian
Rubinstein
Smyslov
Steinitz
Tal
Honorable mention for Morphy, who might be the best in terms of dominance and how far ahead of his time he was. But due to his era and short chess career, it feels impossible to compare him with the others which is why I left him out. |
|
| May-23-20 | | Saul Goodman: My top ten from 1964
Alekhine
Botvinnik
Capablanca
Fischer (It was already obvious)
Lasker
Morphy
Reshevsky
Smyslov
Steinitz
Tal
The only other players who really have an argument are Keres and Rubinstein, and they are pretty weak arguments. |
|
| Oct-17-21 | | RookFile: I look back on my list from 2015 and wonder about guys like Schlechter and Pillsbury. Oh well. |
|
| Dec-25-21 | | probabilitytheorist: Why not 25. g4? |
|
Dec-25-21
| | keypusher: <probabilitytheorist: Why not 25. g4?>
click for larger view<Why> 25.g4? |
|
| Dec-26-21 | | probabilitytheorist: To stop the bishop from going to h5 while keeping the strong knight on d6. |
|
Dec-26-21
 | | Honza Cervenka: 43.h5+! could win by force instantly. After 43...Kxh5 44.Qf7+ (or 44.Qg7 with threat 45.g4+ Kh4 46.Qxf6+ Kxg4 47.Re4+ with mate.) 44...Ng6 45.Qxh7+ Kg5 46.Be2 f5 47.Bh5 the game is over, and 43...Kh6 44.Qf7 Rxc4 45.Qxf6+ Ng6 (45...Kxh5 46.g4+ leads to mate in several moves) 46.hxg6 Qxd4 47.Re5 forces black to give up the Queen by 47...Qxe5 to avoid quick mate. |
|
Dec-26-21
| | keypusher: <probabilitytheorist: To stop the bishop from going to h5 while keeping the strong knight on d6.> I doubt that inflicting a gaping wound in your own kingside is worth preserving the knight. Stockfish and Capablanca agree. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 