Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Jose Raul Capablanca vs Charles Jaffe
NYSCA ch (1910), New York, NY USA, rd 6, Mar-05
Semi-Slav Defense: Chigorin Defense (D46)  ·  1-0



Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 189 times; par: 27 [what's this?]

Annotations by Stockfish (Computer).      [21852 more games annotated by Stockfish]

Get this game explained with Decode Chess
explore this opening
find similar games 10 more Capablanca/C Jaffe games
sac: 19.Bxh6+ PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.


Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-17-05  ughaibu: In short, "because Sonas says so".
Premium Chessgames Member
  technical draw: Well at least Capa dominated the top US player, Frank Marshall 21-4.
Dec-18-05  Neurotic Patzer: <Ughaibu> I can't even diginify that with an answer as you are obviously talking out of your ass as you seem very prone to do.
Dec-18-05  ughaibu: Not the most convincing line of arguement.
Dec-18-05  Whitehat1963: If Capa wasn't number one in 1910 -- and I'd have to say that to argue on behalf of Lasker or Rubinstein at that time has merit -- then he was CERTAINLY in the top three in the world.
Dec-18-05  ughaibu: There's a big difference between being in the top three and "dominating".
Dec-18-05  Neurotic Patzer: <ughaibu: not the most convincing line of arguement> Arguement? After that statement you made I doubt if it's possible to reason with you and I'm not about to stress myself by trying to.
Dec-18-05  CapablancaFan: <ughaibu> Don't know why I keep trying to prove to you what the rest of us seems to already know , but here is ANOTHER source. This site is I have linked you directly to the page that has a chart graph chronicalling Capablanca's world ranking throughout his career. Now keep your eye on the bouncing ball! The BLUE dots represent the time period when Capablanca held the world rank was the #1 player. I'm starting to believe Neurotic Patzer that there is probably nothing I can say or do and that you will believe what you will, but here it is anyway.
Dec-18-05  Whitehat1963: I think even the chessmetrics links show Capablanca to take the occasional dip in his standing. Curiously, in fact, during the latter part of his championship reign his rank nose dives. It doesn't matter. We're arguing over something that will never be proven one way or another. What I think seems pretty clear, though, is that for 30 years, from about 1910 to 1940, Capablanca was consistently one of the three or four best players in the world, and usually he was the best during that period. I suspect if you were to ask Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Rubinstein, Euwe, Fine and Keres, they would all probably agree. Still, I wonder who they feared to play the most. I don't think Rubinstein, for instance, ever really "feared" Capablanca. And I doubt that was the case for Botvinnik or Keres either, though they only played him after his prime. Capablanca had a lot of confidence when he was young, but he really seemed to pulverize only players outside of the top five or so.

On the other hand, I think most players feared over-the-board encounters with the likes of Kasparov, Fischer and Tal. They might destroy anyone any time during their careers. And I bet Alekhine was a pretty scary prospect in the early 30s. Of course, Morphy must have been scary to play around 1858-9, after he had made his reputation.

Dec-18-05  ughaibu: CapablancaFan: Your other source is the same source! Sonas.

Whitehat1963: What I'm arguing about is whether or not Capablanca "dominated" and that is something that can eaily be proved false. In 1914 Capablanca came behind Lasker losing a game to him, there is no way that one can say that Capablanca was "dominating" at this point without degrading the term "domination". I disapprove of the tendency to journalistic style abuse of language for the very reason that it degrades terms. From 1914-1921 there wasn't much chess but what chess there was, played by Capablanca and Lasker, doesn't show significantly better results for either player. In 1921 Capablanca won the match with Lasker, the score was convincing but it was only one event, again it would be an exaggeration to claim "dominance" just from this. In 1922 Capablanca scored one of his best results at London, but Lasker was absent. In 1923 Lasker started his comeback with an almost equally impressive result at M-Ostrau, but Capablanca was absent. Again neither player is clearly better. We then have two tournaments in which Lasker finished ahead of Capablanca, New York 1924 and Moscow 1925. It is absurd to claim Capablanca was "dominant" unless it's allowed that Lasker also was "dominant". In fact, in tournaments with neither Capablanca no Lasker playing, during this period it could be argued that Alekhine was "dominant". What about if Alekhine also wasn't playing? Do people want to claim Marshall was "dominating" the 20s when the tournament was held in the USA and none of the above were present? There was no clearly dominant player between 1911 and 1946 by which time Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine were all dead, in short, Capablanca was never the dominant player, he had three outstanding results, Havana 1921, London 1922 and New York 1927, that's it.

Dec-18-05  Hesam7: <ughaibu: There was no clearly dominant player between 1911 and 1946>

I guess Alekhine was pretty dominant between 1929 and 1934.

Dec-18-05  ughaibu: Hesam7: Alekhine didn't play in tournaments with Capablanca during that period, dominance implies consistently and convincingly coming ahead of all serious rivals so it cant be claimed in situations in which the two strongest claimants never have a relative test. I think Alekhine's results during that period were better than Capablanca's so I wouldn't argue against a claim that he was the world's best player, however, I would argue that he was not clearly the world's best player and dominance implies clarity.
Dec-18-05  Hesam7: <ughaibu> I got your point.
May-20-06  THE pawn: <ughaibu> Capablanca dominated the field during 1914-1927, and was able to win a couple of tournaments over lasker. But he too, did dominate the field during the same period of time. So domination can be shared, can't it?
May-20-06  square dance: <the pawn> capa didnt come ahead of lasker in a tournament until moscow 1936.
May-20-06  THE pawn: <square dance> Nothing beats a good joke before the real post!

Capablanca dominated the field, Lasker excluded. Happy, <ughaibu>? After all, you can't say «capablanca didn't the dominate the field». That sounds weird...

May-20-06  ughaibu: Topzilla probably dominates his school tournaments, raising a fuss every time a player easily wins against less than best opposition makes nonsense of the term "dominate".
May-21-06  THE pawn: Then to what does it apply? You can't dominate against someone of equal strength after all. You can only dominate against less than best opposition. Otherwise «dominate» wouldn't even exist.
May-21-06  ughaibu: If a person is the dominant player of their era, they demonstrate this dominance precisely by domination over the best opposition.
May-22-06  THE pawn: I see your point.
May-22-06  panigma: Ughaibu, I don't know if you follow tennis, but try this. Roger Federer is the number one tennis player in the world, and has been for the last few years. He has won 7 major tournaments out of the last 11, including the last 3. Rafael Nadal has won "only" one major title in his career.

Yet, head to head, Nadal leads the career series 5 to 1.

Is Federer therefore not dominating his sport?

May-22-06  panigma:
May-22-06  ughaibu: Panigma: How does this relate to Capablanca?
May-22-06  panigma: According to you from a previous post, <dominance implies consistently and convincingly coming ahead of all serious rivals>. I am interested in your answer to my question as it relates to another genre. Is Federer "dominant," or would you argue that because of his record versus Nadal, this word would not apply to him? I am not intending to provoke, just discuss.
May-22-06  ughaibu: I dont know anything about tennis or how to rate the comparitive success of it's players, if you say Federer is the dominant player, I'll take your word for it.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·  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:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. 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.

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

Blow the Whistle

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, 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.

<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
from GM RAM Game Selection by takchess
Semi-Slav, Chigorin Defense (D46) 1-0 A favorite opening trap
from yFredthebear's Roundhouse RUUK Manuevers I by fredthebear
from GM RAM Game Selection by takking
from 70i_middlegame sacs on e6 (e3) by whiteshark
by obrit
Pure class
by ujjwalkislay
QGD - Semi-Slav
from Games to Memorize by starscream74
from Capablanca 100 Games by TerryBull
17.? (Monday, January 5 04)
from POTD Queen Gambit Declined + Accepted 1 by takchess
Semi-Slav, Chigorin Defense (D46) 1-0 Weak Kside crumbles
from yHammer the 6th Rank (Black hits 3rd Rank) by fredthebear
The King side gets some fresh air
from Capablanca's chess minuets by vishysurag
Capablanca structure
from Attacking Themes by KingG
Jose Raul Capablanca's Best Games
by bjamin74
Jose Raul Capablanca's Best Games
by alip
The Immortal Games of Capablanca
by LionHeart40
Capablanca structure
from Attacking Themes by trh6upsz
42# New York State Tournament. Finals. Game 2 (3/5/1910)
from Capablanca´s Official Games (1901-1939) Part I by capablancakarpov
Capablanca Structure
by KingG
20 moves
from Chess Miniatures, Collection I by PinkLedDoor

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC