Now 18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Qf5>

According to <Calli> on page 1, Breyer's main line was indeed <17.Bxf6 Bxf6! 18. Bxd5 exd5 19. Qf5>, but according to Cecil Purdy, in an article, <The Steinitz-Lasker "Law" Exploded> (reprinted in the compilation, <The Search For Chess Perfection>), Breyer preferred 19.Ng4 with the line 19...Bg5 20.f4 Bxf4 21.Qf5 Bc7 22.Nxd5 Kh8 23.Nxh6 gxh6 24.Nf6 and wins. Purdy notes: <Breyer did not analyze 21...Bg5 22.Qxd5 a6 23.Qxb7 Qb4; however after 24.Nxb5 axb5 25.Re2 Black has a pawn - and virtually no compensation.>, which, frankly, I can't make sense of, but Purdy thinks White is winning.

Suffice to say that both Breyer and Purdy's analysis is shown by the computer to be incorrect; Black has equality after 19.Ng4 Bg5 20.f4 Bxf4 21.Qf5 Bg5.

2. = (0.00): 17.Rc1 Rc7 18.Bxf6 Nxf6 19.Re3 Bc6

3. = (-0.14): 17.Qb1 Rxc3 18.Bxd5 Rc7 19.Bf3 Rd8

4. = (-0.18): 17.Bxd5 Nxd5 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Qe4 Bc6

5. = (-0.24): 17.h3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Rxc3 19.Qb1 Qb4

click for larger view

Nobody has commented on 43.Nd1, but it seems to deactivate the knight and unprotect d4 (unlike, say, 43.Nb5). It then gets reinforced(?) by another weak move, 44.Ke2, putting the king on a forking square.

I believe the position I meant to display was just before the knight first was moved to d1, on move 40:

(White to move after 39...Ra2-c2)

click for larger view

Now, Black is better according to the engines, but 40.Nb5 is -1.06/36 whereas 40.Nd1 is about ~1/2-pawn worse. Not much, but without that move you don't get 44.Ke2 either.

Capablanca's superior technique likely would have won, but I'd be interested in a SF8-SF8 shootout from that position.

His games pretty much serve the same purpose in chess as theorems serve in mathematics. His games are the concepts, simple, clear and amazingly powerful.

He showed that chess is not something complicated, you just need to understand it. It is very easy to complicate a game of chess. It is when you simplify something, that you come closest to the truth and your work is of real substance. Isaac Newton said something similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9A...

There was this comment about the general conditions of the match etc:

"Oissev Onos
1 year ago
For the record, everyone, Lasker and Capablanca were playing in the hot Havana climate, where Lasker was an older German accustomed to cooler climates. Lasker was also dissatisfied about playing in a casino, but the agreed upon rules meant he had to endure the experience, all the while Capablanca was in his element.

Not to say Capablanca didn’t work hard and play great chess, but Lasker was not in the right mood for the match. Lasker also planned on retiring the chess crown whether he won or lost to Capablanca anyway (yes, technically he had already given it up but officially no one considered Capablanca the Champion until the official match) so younger players could aim for it. Lasker and Capablanca drew 10 games, and Capablanca only won four where Lasker either blundered due to time trouble or made inaccuracies.

Their lifetime score was 6 Capablanca, 2 Lasker. Of Capablanca’s six wins, four were here in their 1921 match, one was in New York 1924 (though it is argued whether it counts as legitimate because it is believed Capablanca had a broken chess clock which ran slowly and thus gave him more time; the only loss Lasker took in that near-perfect tournament of his was during that round), and one in Moscow 1936, where Lasker played his second-to-last tournament ever, and it was the first time Capablanca came ahead of Lasker in a tournament.

Lasker’s wins were in St. Petersburg 1914 and Moscow 1935.

May we hopefully see more Lasker games by KC, soon! Lasker has had so few games and the ones listed in his game section aren’t even all his wins- some are his losses and others are either games by friends/ family or quotes. KC does well, but more winning Lasker games, please!

Thanks."

My own thoughts on revisiting this game and doing modern analysis .....

And it seems on technical analysis, White missed a major opportunity for an early Bxf6 at move 17. Okay it would involve giving black the bishop pair, but there was some dynamic compensation. Bb5 did weaken e6 and in some variations that becomes a dynamic factor.

As an example of being ground down without counterplay from the mismanagement of the IQP - it is a great game. But it can't be used to advertise the QGD as a killer weapon of choice especially when White has the IQP in my view. Chess just is too dynamic.

I enjoyed watching your video annotation of this game and reading your comments. Thank you for sharing them. I am actually a longtime fan of yours and often watch your streams on Twitch. Keep up the great work!

My own personal analysis seems to concur with your thoughts regarding the possibility of 17.Bxf6. Perhaps something like, 17...Bxf6 18.Bxe5 dxe5 19.f4 could follow and now black has to contend with his own IQP.

The match was held at the best tourist time for Cuba, when the temperatures are not that hot and are quite pleasant:

After Senor Capablanca had unsealed his sixty-fourth move from Saturday evening’s play, Dr. Lasker admitted that had lost the game. Dr. Lasker, however, did not resign, explaining that he and the chess public were anxious to know how Senor Capablanca would force the pieces, inasmuch as the position was very intricate. Dr. Lasker took. nearly fifty minutes before replying to Senor Capablanca’s sixty-fourth move.— Reuter."

I've always viewed ...c6...Nbd7 without...h6 type lines as the Orthodox Capablanca version and anything related to ...Nf6 ...c5 as more in the Semi-Tarrasch realm. Though these characterizations may be incorrect officially.

Related to this game, what I would call a semi-tarrasch, feels like white went slightly wrong somewhere. Seems strangely down on tempo and gets hit with tempo loss a lot more than he should. In the semi-tarrasch, black can inflict the IQP but often white gets plenty of compensation with activity sometimes using the e4 light square. Here, Lasker gets the IQP but gets or goes for little activity.