Jose Raul Capablanca vs Emanuel Lasker (1921) '21 It Was a Very Good Year

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Jose Raul Capablanca vs Emanuel Lasker
"'21 It Was a Very Good Year" (game of the day Dec-31-2011)
Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921), Havana CUB, rd 11, Apr-13
Queen's Gambit Declined: Orthodox Defense. Main Line (D63) · 1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Given 63 times; par: 85 [what's this?]

Annotations by Jose Raul Capablanca. [26 more games annotated by Capablanca]

explore this opening	find similar games	23 more Capablanca/Lasker games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: To access more information about the players (more games, favorite openings, statistics, sometimes a biography and photograph), click their highlighted names at the top of this page.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE. [CLICK HERE]

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 · Later Kibitzing>
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.

Feb-23-24		jinkinson: Something about Capa's note "I do not consider the system adopted by Dr. Lasker in this game to be any good." always cracks me up.

Jan-10-25		FM David H. Levin: <<jinkinson>: Something about Capa's note "I do not consider the system adopted by Dr. Lasker in this game to be any good." always cracks me up.> I think I get what you mean: the note's bluntness being couched in formality.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.