|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-28-03 | | Lawrence: Bernstein had complained that Capa wasn't qualified to compete in San Sebastian (well it's true, he wasn't, but he had just smashed Marshall and got a special invitation) and here in the first round Bernstein got his comeuppance. While B. chewed away on White's pawns Capa got his Knights into position. Kasparov however in OMGP vol. 1 points out that Capa's plan was not waterproof and if B. had played 25.....g5 or 25.....Rg8 then Capa should not have won the game, maybe even lost it. 28.....Nc5?? (time trouble?) throws the game away. Bernstein should have played 28.....Rd8 (Gazza). Junior 8 on the other hand comes up with both 28.....Nxg7 and 28.....Reg8. For his efforts Capa won the Rothschild prize for most brilliant game. |
|
| Apr-20-04 | | TrueFiendish: As we all know, at this time Capa was still unknown. I remember reading in Capa's "My Chess Career" some years ago an anecdote about the blitz play that was going on during the tournment. Two tournament warriors, respected by all (dammit, can't remember names), were analysing a position after a blitz game. Capa stepped up to offer an idea and was basically insulted by one of them as ignorant and told to pipe down. Capa was so put out that he challenged his interjector to blitz play for a healthy wager and proceeded to win all the games "with ridiculous ease". His opponent ate humble pie and went so far as to declare Capa "without equal" at blitz play. I can't remember who he was--does anyone else know? |
|
| Apr-20-04 | | Lawrence: "...stepped up to offer an idea and was basically insulted by one of them as ignorant and told to pipe down." Golly, sounds like some of the kibitzers on the Fischer page. |
|
| Apr-20-04 | | aulero: <TrueFiendish>, I'm not sure because I cannot check, but Nimzowitsch and Bernstein himself (if I remember correctly) were the warriors analyzing the blitz game.. |
|
| Apr-20-04 | | Pterodactylus: “Nimzowitch, who considered himself very superior to me and others in the tournament, became very arrogant during the course of one of his lightning games against Bernstein, saying, because of a remark that I made, that I should not interfere in their game, as they were reputed masters and I had yet to become one. The outcome of his discourteous remark was a series of quick games for a side bet, which I won with ridiculous ease, and ended by his retracting the statement he had previously made. Many more of these games were played, until all the masters agreed that I had no equal at this kind of chess.” – J.R.C., “My Chess Career” |
|
| Apr-20-04 | | Calli: <Lawrence> Actually, all those improvements were suggested years ago. For some reason, the game remained badly annotated. Golembek gave Bernstein a lot of "?" moves and THEN mentioned that 25...g5 might equalize! Nunn pointed out the incredible inconsistency in his revised edition of a "100 games". Capablanca didn't play this game as well as it generally thought and Bernstein didn't play badly as it is usually annotated. |
|
| Apr-20-04 | | TrueFiendish: Pterodactylus: thanks for that, it seems my memory was reasonably accurate on this occasion. |
|
| Jun-28-04 | | chessfather: Perhaps this suggestion is naive, but instead of 21...Ne6, consider 21...d5. I thought of this in accordance with the idea of active defense (reaction) in the center. It sure seems that 22. Nxg7 does not work after 22...Kxg7 23. Nf5+ Bxf5. I thought 22.e5 is white's best, but maybe then black is ok? For example, 22.e5 f6 23. f4 fxe5 24. fxe5 Ne4. It looks to me like white's structure is ruined and he has little chance of attack. However, 21...d5 is not suggested in any book I can find. Maybe I am too dogmatic. |
|
| Apr-17-05 | | whatthefat: <“Nimzowitch, who considered himself very superior to me and others in the tournament, became very arrogant during the course of one of his lightning games against Bernstein, saying, because of a remark that I made, that I should not interfere in their game, as they were reputed masters and I had yet to become one. The outcome of his discourteous remark was a series of quick games for a side bet, which I won with ridiculous ease, and ended by his retracting the statement he had previously made. Many more of these games were played, until all the masters agreed that I had no equal at this kind of chess.” – J.R.C>
Wow, almost as arrogant as:
"I don't play the old chess. But obviously if I did, I would be the best." - Bobby Fischer or "I was able to keep up with the new generation and beat them. I was able to stay on the cutting edge, stay on top of the ranking for twenty years. I would say that entitles me to be number one." - Garry Kasparov |
|
| Apr-18-05 | | RookFile: It was well known that you
DID NOT play a game for
money against Capblanca
when it was blitz. (Wagers
were very common.) The man
had an unrivalled fast
'sight of the board'. |
|
| Apr-18-05 | | Calli: "Wow, almost as arrogant"
I don't agree. Capablanca was just stating the facts. When the book was published, no one disagreed. |
|
| Apr-18-05 | | RookFile: Capa backed it up with results.
He and Alekhine were simply head
and shoulders above Nimzo in playing
strength, and would take turns throughout their careers at slapping
Nimzo silly. |
|
| Apr-18-05 | | Minor Piece Activity: None of the three above qualify as arrogance IMO, except maybe Fischer's, but I think that, in his mind, it's true and in that sense he's not boasting. The other two statements are just plain facts. |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | who: What's amazing to me is that this is the least magnificent of Capas wins over O. Bernstein. And it's still pretty nice. |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | RookFile: Except that I think Bernstein actually had a winning position just before the end, but you need to be a computer to find the moves. |
|
| Dec-09-05 | | ArturoRivera: “Nimzowitch, who considered himself very superior to me and others in the tournament, became very arrogant during the course of one of his lightning games against Bernstein, saying, because of a remark that I made, that I should not interfere in their game, as they were reputed masters and I had yet to become one. The outcome of his discourteous remark was a series of quick games for a side bet, which I won with ridiculous ease, and ended by his retracting the statement he had previously made. Many more of these games were played, until all the masters agreed that I had no equal at this kind of chess.”
José Raul Capablanca
This is not arrogant, its proudly, worthy and correct, is Capablanca, the quote itself is so great!!!!!! |
|
| Dec-09-05 | | you vs yourself: <chancho> You up for a game on yahoo? |
|
Dec-09-05
 | | chancho: <you vs yourself> By the time you read this, we would have played already. :) |
|
| Dec-11-05 | | rhenry: <chessfather> I agree that 21... d5 is a strong alternative; Black may already be better here. I think Capa lost his way with 20. g4. I see two possible improvements earlier: 20. Qh3!? with the idea of Qh4 and Re3-g3, and 19. Neg3, already threatening sacrifices on h6 and g7. 19... Bxf5 seems virtually forced, but White is clearly better after 20. Nxf5 Kh7 21. Qg3 Ne6 22. e5. I think 17... Qa5 was indeed weak, even though White misplayed the attack later on. |
|
| Aug-21-06 | | capablancakarpov: According to Rogelio Caparros, the score of this game is incomplete. The final moves were: 34...Kh4 35.Qg3+ 1-0 |
|
| Oct-08-06 | | syracrophy: 34...Kh4 35.Qg3+ Kg5 36.h4#
Charming! Bernstein just lost brilliantly to the player that he just said that shouldn't be accepted in the tournament! :-D |
|
| Oct-08-06 | | CapablancaFan: <syracrophy> It was actually Bernstein AND Nimzowitsch that tried to keep Capablanca out of the tournament because he hadn't met "previous tournament" requirements. It was Frank Marshall that successfully lobbied to allow Capa to participate. (Capa defeated Frank soundly in their previous encounter). |
|
| Oct-08-06 | | syracrophy: <CapablancaFan> Yes, I know. I have a book where comes some of chess history. And there appears that Capa won his entrance to the tournament by crushing Marshall 8-1 or something like that |
|
| Nov-24-07 | | Ulhumbrus: If Nimzovich objected to Capablanca "interfering" in his game, he gave the wrong reason, namely that Capablanca was not a master.If the real reason was that he objected to any outside comments at all, he could have said so. One commentator- possibly B H Wood -said that Capablanca "should have known" that he should not have interfered in Nimzovich's game, but that was wrong for two reasons (1) If there was no requirement of sllence, Capablanca's freedom of speech gave him a right to speak and (2) Capablanca had won against Marshall in a match. As for the idea of Capablanca relinquishing any part of his right to speak to Nimzovich, I suppose this could be a case of "give a man an inch of your civil liberty and he will take an ell".
The move 22 Ne2 offers what may be an unsound sacrifice, as on move 24 instead of 25..Rh8 Black can turn the tables by 25..g5!. Capablanca said in his book "my chess career" that "there was nothing better" than 25...Rh8 but on later years he appeared to have changed his opinion and suggested 25..g5!
Instead of 22 Ne2, 22 c4! setting up a Maroczy bind may be better |
|
| Feb-26-08 | | frank124c: After going over a few of Capa's games, would I be wrong to assume that Capa's style seems to be primarily an attack on the castled King? |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
