JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA (born Nov-19-1888, died Mar-08-1942, 53 years old) Cuba [what is this?] José Raúl Capablanca y Graupera was the third World Champion, reigning from 1921 until 1927. Renowned for the simplicity of his play, his legendary endgame prowess, accuracy, and the speed of his play, he earned the nickname of the "Human Chess Machine". Background Capablanca, the second son of a Spanish Army officer, was born in Havana. He learned to play at an early age by watching his father and defeated Cuban Champion Juan Corzo in an informal match in 1901 by 6.5-5.5 (+4 −3 =5), turning 13 years of age during the match. Despite this and despite taking 4th place in the first Cuban Championship in 1902, he did not focus on chess until 1908 when he left Columbia University where he had enrolled to study chemical engineering and play baseball. He did, however, join the Manhattan Chess Club in 1905, soon establishing his dominance in rapid chess. He won a rapid chess tournament in 1906 ahead of the World Champion Emanuel Lasker, and played many informal games against him. Within a year or two of dropping out of university and after playing simultaneous exhibitions in dozens of US cities, winning over 95% of his games, Capablanca had established himself as one of the top players in the world, especially after the Capablanca - Marshall (1909) New York match exhibition win 15-8 (+8 -1 =14). Tournaments Capablanca won the 1910 New York State Championship by defeating co-leader Charles Jaffe in a tiebreaker match. In 1911, he placed second in the National Tournament in New York, with 9½ out of 12, half a point behind Marshall, and half a point ahead of Jaffe and Oscar Chajes. There followed Capablanca's groundbreaking win at San Sebastian (1911) with 9½/14 (+6 -1 =7), ahead of Akiba Rubinstein and Milan Vidmar on 9, Marshall on 8.5, and other luminaries such as Carl Schlechter, Siegbert Tarrasch and Ossip Bernstein. Before the tournament, Aron Nimzowitsch protested the unknown Capablanca's involvement in the event, but the latter demonstrated his credentials by defeating Nimzowitsch in their game. Winning at San Sebastian was only the second time a player had won a major tournament at his first attempt since Harry Pillsbury 's triumph at Hastings in 1895, and it provided a powerful boost to his credibility to challenge for the world title. He did so, but the match did not take place for another 10 years. In early 1913, Capablanca won a tournament in New York with 11/13 (+10 -1 =2), half a point ahead of Marshall. Capablanca then finished second with 10/14 (+8 -2 =4), a half point behind Marshall in Havana, losing one of their individual games, rumour having it that he asked the mayor to clear the room so that no one would see him resign. Returning to New York, Capablanca won all thirteen games at the New York tournament of 1913, played at the Rice Chess Club. 1914 saw the <"tournament of champions"> played at St. Petersburg. Capablanca, with 13/18 (+10 -2 =6), came second behind Lasker and well ahead of Alexander Alekhine on 10, Tarrasch on 8.5 and Marshall on 8. After the outbreak of World War I, Capablanca stayed in New York and won tournaments held there in 1915 (13/14 (+12 -0 =2)), 1916 (14/17 (+12 -1 =4)) and 1918 (10.5/12 (+9 =3)). During the New York 1918 tournament, Marshall played his prepared Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez* against Capablanca, but Capablanca worked his way through the complications and won. Soon after the war, Capablanca crossed the Atlantic to decisively win the Hastings Victory Tournament 1919 with 10.5/11, a point ahead of Borislav Kostic. Capablanca did not play another tournament until 1922, the year after he won the title from Lasker. During his reign, he won London 1922 with 13/15 (no losses), 1.5 points ahead of Alekhine; placed second behind Lasker at New York 1924 (suffering his first loss in eight years – to Richard Reti – since his 1916 lost to Oscar Chajes); placed 3rd at Moscow in 1925 behind Efim Bogoljubov and Lasker respectively with +9 =9 -2; won at Lake Hopatcong (New York) 1926 with 6/8 (+4 =4), a point ahead of Abraham Kupchik and won at New York in 1927 with 14/20 (+10 -1 =9), 2.5 points clear of Alekhine, his last tournament before his title match with Alekhine. During the latter tournament, Capablanca, Alekhine, Rudolf Spielmann, Milan Vidmar, Nimzowitsch and Marshall played a quadruple round robin, wherein Capablanca finished undefeated, winning the mini-matches with each of his rivals, 2½ points ahead of second-placed Alekhine, and won the "best game" prize for a win over Spielmann. This result, plus the fact that Alekhine had never defeated him in a game, made him a strong favourite to retain his title in the upcoming match against Alekhine. However, Alekhine's superior preparation prevailed against Capablanca's native talent. After losing the title, Capablanca settled in Paris and engaged in a flurry of tournament competition aimed at improving his chances for a rematch with Alekhine. However the latter dodged him, refusing to finalise negotiations for a rematch, boycotting events that included Capablanca, and insisting that Capablanca not be invited to tournaments in which he participated. In 1928, Capablanca won at Budapest with 7/9 (+5 =4), a point ahead of Marshall, and at Berlin with 8.5/12 (+5 =7), 1.5 points ahead of Nimzowitsch; he also came second at Bad Kissingen with 7/11 (+4 -1 =6), after Bogoljubov. In 1929, Capablanca won at Ramsgate with 5.5/7 (+4 =3) ahead of Vera Menchik and Rubinstein, at Budapest with 10.5/13 (+8 =5), and at Barcelona with 13.5/14, two points clear of Savielly Tartakower he also came equal second with Spielmann and behind Nimzowitsch at Carlsbad with 14.5/21 (+10 -2 =9). He won at the 1929-30 Hastings tournament and came second at Hastings in 1930-31, behind Max Euwe, his only loss being to Sultan Khan. Several months later he won New York for the last time, this time with a score of 10/11 (+9 =2) ahead of Isaac Kashdan. Perhaps discouraged by his inability to secure a rematch with Alekhine, there followed a hiatus for over three years before he reentered the fray with a fourth placing at Hastings in 1934-35 with 5.5/9 (+4 -2 =3), behind Sir George Thomas, Euwe and Salomon Flohr but ahead of Mikhail Botvinnik and Andre Lilienthal. In 1935, he secured 4th place in Moscow with 12/19 (+7 -2 =10), a point behind Botvinnik and Flohr, and a half point behind the evergreen Lasker. Also in 1935, he came second at Margate with 7/9 (+6 -1 =2), half a point behind Samuel Reshevsky. 1936 was a very successful year, coming 2nd at Margate with 7/9 (+5 =4), a half point behind Flohr, but then he moved up a gear to take Moscow with 13/18 (+8 =10), a point ahead of Botvinnik who in turn was 2.5 points ahead of Flohr, and then came =1st with Botvinnik at the famous Nottingham tournament, with 10/14 (+7 -1 =6) ahead of Euwe, Reuben Fine and Reshevsky on 9.5, and Flohr and Lasker on 8.5. These latter two results were the only tournaments in which he finished ahead of Lasker, which enhanced his chances of challenging for the title, but a challenge to World Champion Euwe was out of the question until after the Euwe - Alekhine World Championship Rematch (1937) , which was won by Alekhine. In 1937, Capablanca came =3rd with Reshevsky at Semmering with 7.5/14 (+2 -1 =11) behind Paul Keres and Fine and in 1938 he won the Paris tournament with 8/10 (+6 =4) ahead of Nicolas Rossolimo. The worst result of his career occurred at the AVRO tournament which was played in several cities in the Netherlands in 1938, placing 7th out of 8 players with 6/14 (+2 -4 =8), the only time he ever had a negative score in a tournament. His health in this tournament was fragile as he had suffered severe hypertension, which affected his concentration towards the end of his games; he may have also suffered a slight stroke halfway through the tournament. Travelling between the numerous cities in which the tournament was played was also hard on the ageing master. In 1939 he played his last tournament at Margate, placing =2nd with Flohr on 6.5/9 (+4 =5) a point behind Keres. Shortly afterwards, he finished his playing career – albeit unknowingly - in a blaze of glory by winning gold with +7 =9 on board one for Cuba at the 8th Olympiad in Buenos Aires. Matches In addition to the informal match against Corzo in 1901 and the exhibition match against Marshall in 1909 (see above), Capablanca played a three-game match against Charles Jaffe in New York in 1912, winning two and drawing one, and won the first game of a match against Chajes before the latter withdrew from the match. In 1914, he defeated Ossip Bernstein 1.5-0.5, Tartakower by 1.5-0.5 and Andre Aurbach by 2-0. On his way to the 1914 tournament in St Petersburg, he played two-game matches against Richard Teichmann and Jacques Mieses in Berlin, winning all his games. Once he reached Saint Petersburg, he played similar matches against Alexander Alekhine, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky and Fyodor Duz-Khotimirsky, losing one game to Znosko-Borovsky and winning the rest. In 1919, Capablanca accepted a challenge to a match from Borislav Kostić who had come second at New York in 1918 without dropping a game. The match was to go to the first player to win eight games, but Kostić resigned from the match, played in Havana, after losing five straight games - Capablanca - Kostic (1919). In late 1931, just before his temporary retirement from top-level chess, Capablanca also won a match (+2 −0 =8) against Euwe - Capablanca - Euwe (1931). World Championship Capablanca's win at San Sebastian in 1911 provided the results and the impetus for Capablanca to negotiate with Lasker for a title match, but some of Lasker's conditions were unacceptable to Capablanca, especially one requiring the challenger to win by two points to take the title, while the advent of World War I delayed the match. In 1920, Lasker and Capablanca agreed to play the title match in 1921, but a few months later, the former was ready to surrender the title without a contest, saying, "You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery." A significant stake ($25,000, $13,000 guaranteed to Lasker) was raised that induced Lasker to play in Havana where Capablanca won the Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) - without losing a game - after Lasker resigned from the match when trailing by 4 games, the first time a World Champion had lost his title without winning a game until the victory by Vladimir Kramnik in the Kasparov - Kramnik Classical World Championship Match (2000). From 1921 to 1923, Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch all challenged Capablanca, but only Alekhine could raise the money stipulated in the so-called "London Rules", which these players had signed in 1921. A group of Argentinean businessmen, backed by a guarantee from the president of Argentina, promised the funds for a World Championship match between Capablanca and Alekhine, and once the deadline for Nimzowitsch to lodge a deposit for a title match had passed, the title match was agreed to, beginning in September 1927. Capablanca lost the Capablanca - Alekhine World Championship Match (1927) at Buenos Aires in 1927 by +3 -6 =25 in the longest title match ever, until it was surpassed by the legendary Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1984/85). The match lasted over ten weeks, taking place behind closed doors, thus precluding spectators and photographers. All but two of the 34 games opened with the Queen's Gambit Declined. Before Capablanca and Alekhine left Buenos Aires after the match, they agreed in principle to stage a rematch, with Alekhine essentially sticking with the conditions initially imposed by Capablanca. Despite on-again off-again negotiations over the next 13 years, the rematch never materialised, with Alekhine playing two title matches each against Bogolyubov and Euwe in the subsequent decade. While Capablanca and Alekhine were both representing their countries at the Buenos Aires Olympiad in 1939, an attempt was made by Augusto de Muro, the President of the Argentine Chess Federation, to arrange a World Championship match between the two. Alekhine declined, saying he was obliged to be available to defend his adopted homeland, France, as World War II had just broken out. A couple of days prior to this, Capablanca had declined to play when his Cuban team played France, headed by Alekhine, in the Olympiad. Simultaneous exhibitions Capablanca's legendary speed of play lent itself to the rigours of simultaneous play, and he achieved great success in his exhibitions. From December 1908 through February 1909, Capablanca toured the USA and in 10 exhibitions he won 168 games in a row before losing a game in Minneapolis; his final tally for that tour was 734 games, winning 96.7% (+703 =19 -12). In March and April 1911, Capablanca toured Europe for the first time, giving exhibitions in France and Germany scoring +234=33-19. Once completed, he proceeded to San Sebastian and his historic victory before again touring Europe via its cities of Rotterdam, Leiden, Middelburg, The Hague, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Berlin, Breslau, Allenstein, Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Stuttgart, Mannheim, Frankfurt, Paris, London and Birmingham at the end of which his tally was +532=66-54. After he received his job as a roving ambassador-at-large from the Cuban Foreign Office, Capablanca played a series of simuls in London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Riga, Moscow, Kyiv, and Vienna on his way to St Petersburg in 1914, tallying +769=91-86. In 1922, Capablanca gave a simultaneous exhibition in Cleveland against 103 opponents, the largest in history up to that time, winning 102 and drawing one – setting a record for the best winning percentage ever – 99.5% - in a large simultaneous exhibition. In 1925 Capablanca gave a simultaneous exhibition in Leningrad and won every game but one, a loss against 12-year-old Mikhail Botvinnik, whom he predicted would one day be champion. Capablanca still holds the record for the most games ever completed in simultaneous exhibitions, playing and completing 13545 games between 1901-1940.** Legacy, testimonials and life Soon after gaining the title, Capablanca married Gloria Simoni Betancourt in Havana. They had a son, José Raúl Jr., in 1923 and a daughter, Gloria, in 1925. His father died in 1923 and his mother in 1926. In 1937 he divorced Gloria and in 1938 married Olga Chagodayev, a Russian princess. Capablanca's famous "invincible" streak extended from February 10, 1916, when he lost to Oscar Chajes in the New York 1916 tournament, to March 21, 1924, when he lost to Richard Réti in the New York International tournament. During this time he played 63 games, winning 40 and drawing 23, including his successful title match against Lasker. Between 1914 and his World Championship match against Alekhine, Capablanca had only lost four games of the 158 match and tournament games he had played. In match, team match, and tournament play from 1909 to 1939 he scored +318=249-34. Only Spielmann held his own (+2 −2 =8) against Capablanca, apart from Keres who had a narrow plus score against him (+1 −0 =5) due to his win at the AVRO 1938 tournament, during which the ailing Capablanca turned 50, while Keres was 22. Capablanca played himself in Chess Fever http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015673/, a short film shot by V. Pudovkin at the 1925 Moscow tournament. The film can be seen at http://video.google.com/videoplay?d.... On 7 March 1942, Capablanca collapsed at the Manhattan Chess Club and he was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he died the next morning from "a cerebral haemorrhage provoked by hypertension". Emanuel Lasker had died in the same hospital the year before. Capablanca's body was given a public funeral in Havana's Colón Cemetery a week later, with President Batista taking personal charge of the funeral arrangements. Capablanca proposed a new chess variant, played on a 10x10 board or a 10x8 board. He introduced two new pieces. The chancellor had the combined moves of a rook and knight (the piece could move like a rook or a knight). The other piece was the archbishop which had the combined moves of a bishop and knight. Capablanca‘s style also heavily influenced the styles of later World Champions Botvinnik, Robert James Fischer and Anatoly Karpov. Botvinnik observed that Alekhine had received much schooling from Capablanca in positional play before their fight for the world title made them bitter enemies. While not a theoretician as such, he wrote several books including A Primer of Chess, Chess Fundamentals and My Chess Career. Alekhine: <…Capablanca was snatched from the chess world much too soon. With his death, we have lost a very great chess genius whose like we shall never see again.> Lasker: <I have known many chess players, but only one chess genius: Capablanca.> Notes Capablanca occasionally played consultation on the team consisting of Reti / Capablanca. Sources: Bill Wall's Chess Master Profiles - http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/a...; Edward Winter's article A Question of Credibiity: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...; Chess Corner's article on Capablanca: http://www.chesscorner.com/worldcha... and <kingcrusher>'s online article at http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/.... A list of books about Capablanca can be found at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/.... * Ruy Lopez, Marshall (C89) ** http://www.fide.com/component/conte... Wikipedia article: José Raúl Capablanca Last updated: 2025-03-16 04:08:07

Try our new games table.

page 1 of 51; games 1-25 of 1,252  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. R Iglesias vs Capablanca 0-1 38 1893 Odds game 000 Chess variants 2. Capablanca vs E Delmonte 1-0 18 1901 Match-series B21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4 3. L Paredes vs Capablanca 0-1 45 1901 Match-series C44 King's Pawn Game 4. Capablanca vs E Corzo 1-0 35 1901 Match-series C67 Ruy Lopez 5. Capablanca vs A Fiol ½-½ 49 1901 Match-series C45 Scotch Game 6. J Corzo vs Capablanca 1-0 41 1901 Havana casual B01 Scandinavian 7. A Gavilan vs Capablanca 0-1 39 1901 Match-series C45 Scotch Game 8. A Ettlinger vs Capablanca 0-1 53 1901 Casual game C45 Scotch Game 9. Capablanca vs M Marceau 1-0 31 1901 Match-series C45 Scotch Game 10. M Sterling vs Capablanca ½-½ 50 1901 Havana C77 Ruy Lopez 11. Capablanca vs J A Blanco 1-0 49 1901 Match-series C45 Scotch Game 12. E Delmonte vs Capablanca 0-1 32 1901 Match-series D00 Queen's Pawn Game 13. Capablanca vs L Paredes 1-0 29 1901 Match-series C02 French, Advance 14. E Corzo vs Capablanca 1-0 32 1901 Match-series C11 French 15. Capablanca vs J Corzo 0-1 60 1901 Havana casual C45 Scotch Game 16. A Fiol vs Capablanca 0-1 36 1901 Havana C55 Two Knights Defense 17. Capablanca vs A Gavilan 1-0 77 1901 Match-series C01 French, Exchange 18. Capablanca vs M Sterling 1-0 30 1901 Havana C01 French, Exchange 19. Capablanca vs E Corzo 0-1 30 1901 Havana casual C40 King's Knight Opening 20. Capablanca vs E Corzo 1-0 42 1901 Havana casual C40 King's Knight Opening 21. J A Blanco vs Capablanca 0-1 77 1901 Havana C55 Two Knights Defense 22. Capablanca vs C Echevarria 1-0 49 1901 Simul, 8b C44 King's Pawn Game 23. Capablanca vs J Corzo 0-1 29 1901 Capablanca - Corzo C45 Scotch Game 24. J Corzo vs Capablanca 1-0 27 1901 Capablanca - Corzo C52 Evans Gambit 25. Capablanca vs J Corzo ½-½ 61 1901 Capablanca - Corzo A80 Dutch  page 1 of 51; games 1-25 of 1,252

REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Capablanca wins | Capablanca loses

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 179 OF 264 ·  Later Kibitzing> Dec-15-09    visayanbraindoctor: <gruvawn> You mentioned nature vs nurture and I am glad that you did. There is an important point to be made here. But first things first. Both human and computer analysis in general agree that Capablanca was the human chess player who played the most accurate chess in history. (It's one of the main reasons if not the main reason why he so rarely lost; you can't beat some one who does not make a mistake.) First things first as I said. We should take this as an empirical fact, and a valid datum for further experiments. If we ridicule this datum as mere romanticism and wishful thinking or junk it because we believe in the axiom past players always play weaker chess, we are not only being unscientific, we lose the possible benefits the exploration of ideas based on this datum can bring to us. So let us start: Capa played the most accurate chess in human history. In particular he seemed to have had no difficulty in producing human play as accurate as computer play, in games wherein a human probably would not be expected to do so. (See for example the analysis in Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918 and Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924) What is left is to explain properly such empirical fact. How did Capa manage to play with computer accuracy? If we can recreate the conditions that allowed Capablanca to become such a rapidly accurate chess calculator, then IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO DUPLICATE THEM TODAY, and in so doing produce future players who could think like Capablanca. I have previously proposed that Capablanca, in order to play so rapidly and accurately, may have been using additional parts of his brain (possibly the areas related to processing speech). The idea is that parts of our brain are 'silent'. The frontal lobes are the ones traditionally said to be associated with analytical planning, and perhaps for most of chess analysis. But what if is is possible for additional circuits and connections to be recruited in processing chess-related info? Given Capa's almost unbelievable speed and accuracy, was he using additional brain circuitry in areas normally not used in playing chess? If so, Capa was playing with a decided advantage over the normal human being; HE WAS USING MORE PARTS OF THE BRAIN TO PLAY CHESS. I would like to emphasize this because it is possible that this is the only way for humans to step over normal human chess playing limits; and begin to approach computer accuracy in playing chess. If Capa managed to have more of his brain used other than the areas normally used for chess-playing, then it is possible that he had stepped over the limiting stonewall of human chess-playing ability. He had become an <exception to the rule> (to paraphrase Kramnik). Next step is to explore ways how circuits in the brain not normally used in playing chess can be recruited and hard-wired into playing chess. There are two obvious ways. One is through genuine genetic changes that allow areas of the brain not normally used in chess-playing to be recruited and hard-wired into chess playing. The second is via rare environmental events. <Nature vs. Nurture> Unless Capablanca was the product of 1880s genetic experiments, which is quite implausible, we will have to assume that his brain as a growing child developed similarly as the brains of other normal children in its fundamental circuitry. That is, his frontal lobes started to developed circuits for analytical planning that could be used in chess-playing. If he already had a genetic talent for chess, then he probably would have ended up as a 'normal' top Grandmaster, but not as a virtually invincible, accurate, and rapidly playing chess machine. We then go to the second option: the environment. So what made Capablanca's environment unique? And here we come to the crux. HE LEARNED CHESS AT THE AGE OF 4 WITHOUT BEING TAUGHT. Who among the top masters of history (beside Morphy) from the invention of western chess in the 16th century until today can lay claim to such early chess comprehension? At that age, the brain is still not fully mature, and very plastic; and Capa, while watching his father play, may well have developed additional brain circuitry in order to handle chess info. Additional parts of his brain got recruited and hard-wired into playing chess. Thus an obvious test of the above hypothesis immediately suggests itself. Expose millions of kids aged 4 to chess. The ones who end up learning the game without being taught should be closely observed and if possible trained. If some of these begin exhibiting extra-ordinarily fast chess comprehension, the hypothesis is supported. And we humans might even eventually produce a player who can be competitive with computers. Dec-15-09    scrambler: <gezafan: I believe that the great players of yesteryear would be great players today. it would just take a little time for them to adjust> Of course they would, I can see Alekhines house crammed with computers, dvd's, modern opening monographs, magzines ...you name it and of course a cat. Oh I forgot he like the older ladies. Capablanca might just need a strong computer as sparring partner, he was photpgraphed alot so I think he would really be into digital camcorders, baseball and of course women. Morphy with his ability to scan and remember information would certainly be one of hardest player to beat. He'd probably give all his chess material away after absorbing the information keeping just his computer...but his heart was never fully into chess, Morphy would become some a priced lawer if brought back then a Judge. Lasker would probably still play chess using his pyschological approach to perfection in todays chess. Although he would have to smoke his cigars outside he would still be very hard to beat, with all the improvements in the openings he play he play them all at different times depending on the opponent. Young Lasker was especially dangerous. Dec-15-09    Lambda: It does seem rather surprising that the best players the early 20th century could produce would be at a comparable level to the best players that the late 20th century could produce. But all the evidence seems to point to this being the case, modulo opening theory. Computers like the old top-level games just as much as the new ones. There's no point at which a new generation of players comes through and starts playing obviously better than the old one, no innovations in the way the game is played to point at which aren't tied to opening theory. And the greatest masters can grow old into their 50's, lose their edge, and still remain competitive with the next generation. If Lasker can compete well in tournaments aging into his 60's when Botvinnik was becoming prominent, if Botvinnik can then take world titles back from Smyslov and Tal despite not being the player he was in the 40's, where is this improvement supposed to be happening? If deep middlegame and endgame play really has improved significantly from the game played by Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine, surely there should be some convincing evidence for it? Dec-15-09    scrambler: <Or perhaps while Capa was still at his prime, there was a Chinese farmer who had the brains to out-calculate him, but who took up Chinese chess instead.> This happens all the time, here are two interesting example where the talent for calculation got channeled into another sport I believe a checker champion by the name of Marion Tinsley had the talent to become a world class chessplayer. http://www.checkerschest.com/checke... And a professional gambler by the name of Stu Ungar with the same ability to calculate and retain information would have also become world class. They both seemed to have that extra mental capacity that makes it easier to become a world champion but for them it was not applied to chess. http://www.thegoodgamblingguide.co.... Dec-15-09    nimh: <But all the evidence seems to point to this being the case, modulo opening theory. Computers like the old top-level games just as much as the new ones. > On the contrary, computer analysis doesn't like older games as much as modern ones. <If deep middlegame and endgame play really has improved significantly from the game played by Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine, surely there should be some convincing evidence for it?> There are a lot of evidence. Do some research. Dec-15-09    scrambler: Chess 960 would probably be the best test of raw talent between present players and those of the past. Capablanca probably would dominate every player that ever lived from Phildor to Carsen. By dominate I mean winning matches say involving a 4 game match from all 960 postions and coming out with a higher total of wins. Granted he might lose one or two games in some the starting points but his total in wins would be higher. And if it's a blitz format his score would be even higher still. Dec-15-09    scrambler: In retrospect maybe a 4 game match from 10 different possible starting points for a totalof 40 games. Dec-15-09    visayanbraindoctor: <Lambda, scrambler, gruvawn> I don't believe that we have met. If you all are interested in seeing top masters in 1910 play the middlgame and endgame as well as present-day ones, please see Bridgeburner chessforum for intensive computer analysis on the Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) Dec-15-09    mysql: What would happen if Capablanca-with updated opening knowledge and in his prime and Carlsen-with Kasparov as coach have a match? Dec-16-09    ughaibu: The decisive question seems to me to be; would Capablanca have had a life time minus score against Geller? Dec-16-09    FHBradley: <ughaibu> Based on objective evidence and scientific calculation, my educated conjecture is that, most probably, Capablanca would have score approximately 53-55% against Geller. On the other hand, if Geller had not pursued all sorts of worthless projects like basketball and a doctorate in "physical education", he might have been a better chess player; in which case, I believe, the percentage would have been incredibly close to 50. Of course, here I make the idealizing assumption that Jose and Efim would have met sufficiently many times at the chessboard, where "sufficiently many" is at least 10-12. Anything less than that, and there will be too much "chance" involved to undermine the possibility of objective judgment, imo. Dec-16-09    visayanbraindoctor: Topic: A (Probably Nearly Impossible But Hopeful) Way to Develop Humans Competitive with Computers One of the reasons why Capablanca's unique talent in quick games should be investigated is related to the pursuit of improving human play to the extent that a human being (of the future) can become nearly competitive with computers. First let us collect some data about Capa's play on classical games, starting with what the World Champions had to say about him. This is from a previous post of mine: Dec-16-09    visayanbraindoctor: It seems that with Capablanca and only with Capablanca do we get a curious phenomenon. The stronger a player gets, the more he appreciates Capa. Who are the strongest players in history? The World Champions and Almost World Champions of course. Capablanca is probably the only player of whom they almost all have a unanimous opinion (and mind you, World Champions were never the type to become fanboys, yet what they say of Capablanca looks straight out of a fanboy magazine): (From Game Collection: Jose Raul Capablanca's Best Games by User: KingG) Young man, you play remarkable chess! You never make a mistake! – Emanuel Lasker (after losing most of the games in a 10 game rapid transit match against a very young Capablanca) Learn carefully to work out strategic plans like Capablanca, and you will laugh at the plans told to you in ridiculous stories. – Emanuel Lasker I have known many chess players, but only one chess genius, Capablanca. – Emanuel Lasker I did not believe I was superior to him. Perhaps the chief reason for his defeat was the overestimation of his own powers arising out of his overwhelming victory in New York, 1927, and his underestimation of mine. – Alexander Alekhine With his death, we have lost a very great chess genius whose like we shall never see again. – Alexander Alekhine It is astonishing how carefully Capablanca's combinations are calculated. Turn and twist as you will, search the variations in every way possible, you come to the inevitable conclusion that the moves all fit in with the utmost precision. – Max Euwe I honestly feel very humble when I study Capablanca's games. – Max Euwe Whether this advantage is theoretically sufficient to win or not does not worry Capablanca. He simply wins the ending. That is why he is Capablanca! – Max Euwe (on a Capablanca game) Poor Capablanca! Thou wert a brilliant technician, but no philosopher. Thou wert not capable of believing that in chess, another style could be victorious than the absolutely correct one. – Max Euwe What others could not see in a month's study, he saw at a glance. – Reuben Fine It was impossible to win against Capablanca; against Alekhine it was impossible to play. – Paul Keres Capablanca didn’t make separate moves - he was creating a chess picture. Nobody could compare with him in this. – Mikhail Botvinnik Capablanca's play produced and still produces an irresistible artistic effect. In his games a tendency towards simplicity predominated, and in this simplicity there was a unique beauty of genuine depth. - Mikhail Botvinnik You cannot play chess unless you have studied his games. – Mikhail Botvinnik I think Capablanca had the greatest natural talent. – Mikhail Botvinnik Without technique it is impossible to reach the top in chess, and therefore we all try to borrow from Capablanca his wonderful, subtle technique. - Mikhail Tal I was brought up on the games of Capablanca and Nimzowitsch, and they became part of my chess flesh and blood. - Tigran Petrosian Capablanca was possibly the greatest player in the entire history of chess. – Bobby Fischer. Capablanca was among the greatest of chess players, but not because of his endgame. His trick was to keep his openings simple, and then play with such brilliance in the middlegame that the game was decided - even though his opponent didn't always know it - before they arrived at the ending. - Robert Fischer Capablanca never really devoted himself to chess, seldom made match preperations. His simplicity is a myth. His almost complete lack of book knowledge forced him to push harder to squeeze the utmost out of every position. Every move he made had to be super-sharp so as to make something out of nothing. His player was forced. He had to try harder than anybody else because he had so little to begin with. - Robert Fischer The ideal in chess can only be a collective image, but in my opinion it is Capablanca who most closely approaches this... His book was the first chess book that I studied from cover to cover. Of course, his ideas influenced me. - Anatoly Karpov Capablanca invariably chose the right option, no matter how intricate the position. – Garry Kasparov. Capablanca possessed an amazing ability to quickly see into a position and intuitively grasp its main features. His style, one of the purest, most crystal-clear in the entire history of chess, astonishes one with it's logic. - Garry Kasparov Capablanca was a genius. He was an exception that did not obey any rule. - Vladimir Kramnik We can compare Capablanca with Mozart, whose charming music appeared to have been a smooth flow. I get the impression that Capablanca did not even know why he preferred this or that move, he just moved the pieces with his hand. If he had worked a lot on chess, he might have played worse because he would have started to try to comprehend things. But Capablanca did not have to comprehend anything, he just had to move the pieces! - Vladimir Kramnik Dec-16-09    visayanbraindoctor: The above datum firmly establishes the extraordinary chess strength of Capablanca in the minds of chess history's world champions, in classical chess. (Let us assume that they are talking about the middlegame and endgame of course.) I do not even know if Lasker, Alekhine, Euwe, and Botvinnik (World Champions who actually played him) actually praised any World Champion other than Capablanca, and bear in mind that one of them, Botvinnik, lived to see every post WW2 World Champion in action, or trained them himself (including Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik). The second datum has as its content Capa's accuracy. In general both human and computer analysis always place the accuracy of his games high up or at the top, among history's chess masters. Related to this datum is a rough 'survey' of present-day GMs on which chess player in history would they regard as having the best chances against computers, even assuming that he would lose. The popular answer it seems is 'Capablanca.' Thus even non-World Champion GMs are generally quite aware of Capa's accuracy, since to compete with a computer, a player has to be super-accurate. Dec-16-09    visayanbraindoctor: Having established Capa's general play in classical chess as probably the most accurate in history (although some kibitzers would still disagree with this), let us take it further to blitz and rapid games, hereon to be described as 'quick' games. Datum: Apparently, Capablanca never lost a quick game competition from the 1900s to the 1940s. NO ONE IN NEARLY HALF A CENTURY COULD EVEN GET CLOSE TO HIS LEVEL OF PLAY IN QUICK GAMES. Every documented description of his quick game play keeps confirming his invincibility in this genre. In particular this narration by an incredulous Alekhine deserves some scrutiny. <His real, incomparable gifts first began to make themselves known at the time of St. Petersburg, 1914, when I too came to know him personally. Neither before nor afterwards have I seen – and I cannot imagine as well – such a flabbergasting quickness of chess comprehension as that possessed by the Capablanca of that epoch. Enough to say that he gave all the St. Petersburg masters the odds of 5–1 in quick games – and won!>> These are the masters of St. Petersburg that Capablanca gave 5 to 1 odds to and whitewashed: Emanuel Lasker Siegbert Tarrasch Alexander Alekhine Frank James Marshall Ossip Bernstein Akiba Rubinstein Aron Nimzowitsch Joseph Henry Blackburne Dawid Janowski Isidor Gunsberg As one can see from the narration of Alekhine, a victim himself, Capablanca's performance defied belief. What AAA was saying is that he could NOT EVEN IMAGINE SUCH A PHENOMENON had it not happened in front of him, and in fact included himself as one of the victims. In brief, Capablanca was capable of playing bullet to blitz, one minute to five, and still demolish all of the world's top masters. In effect, he could calculate at least 5 TIMES FASTER THAN THE WORLD'S TOP MASTERS. Dec-16-09    visayanbraindoctor: Now let us go to the all-important question. HOW THE H_LL DID CAPABLANCA MANAGE TO PLAY SO FAST? One reasonable hypothesis is that CAPABLANCA MUST HAVE BEEN USING ADDITIONAL BRAIN AREAS, SYNAPSES, AND CIRCUITRY THAT IN NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT USED IN CHESS-PLAYING. In brief, Capa could calculate at least 5 times more rapidly than the talented, but still normally 'wired', top masters because he was 'abnormally' using extra brain hardware and wiring in his computation. (In a sense, Capablanca was cheating, using extra organic calculators unavailable to the normally wired master.) At least in the genre of quick games, Capablanca seemed to have clearly stepped over the normal human chess-playing stonewall limit. Even a maxed-out but normally 'wired' master could not beat him in quick games for the simple reason that Capa was using more wiring. (Capa you cheat!) This is the same hypothesis I have posed earlier, but this time from the angle of Capa's unsurpassed ability in quick games. From this quick game genre angle, this hypothesis looks stronger. As with the previous line of reasoning, a possible explanation is that Capa may have developed 'abnormal' extra hardware and wiring (neurons and synapses) in his brain when he got exposed to chess at the age of 4, an age when the CNS has not yet been completely myelinated and thus regarded as still immature and still very plastic. For older children, the brain's 'wiring' tends to get permanently fixed. As far as I know, only Capablanca and Morphy have been clearly documented as having developed such early chess comprehension. Even today, every chess player, from amateurs to masters, had to be taught chess as a child (notwithstanding the increase in the mass base of chess players). It logically follows that if we could expose millions of kids aged 4 to chess and choose for professional training the ones who end up LEARNING CHESS WITHOUT BEING TAUGHT, then perhaps humanity could begin producing chess players with sufficient 'hardware' to be competitive with computers, even without genetically altering our brains. This could be A (Probably Nearly Impossible But Hopeful) Way to Develop Humans Competitive with Computers. Dec-16-09    TheFocus: <Visayanbraindoctor><Even a maxed-out but normally 'wired' master could not beat him in quick games for the simple reason that Capa was using more wiring. (Capa you cheat!)> For being such a great blitz player, it is remarkable that we have only two intact blitz games of Capablanca's, the scores of which I posted earlier here. Also, other masters did beat Capablanca, although he never lost a blitz match. He did not however win every blitz tournament he ever entered, although I don't think he ever finished worse than 3rd. Dec-16-09    whatthefat: <visayan> You can't base such an argument on quotations. I can find similarly gushing quotations for Kasparov, Tal, Morphy, etc. <One reasonable hypothesis is that CAPABLANCA MUST HAVE BEEN USING ADDITIONAL BRAIN AREAS, SYNAPSES, AND CIRCUITRY THAT IN NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT USED IN CHESS-PLAYING.> I think you're drawing a very long bow here. So Capablanca was considerably better at fast chess than the other masters? That doesn't really surprise me, since blitz has only come into vogue with internet chess. It probably mostly reflects Capablanca having had more blitz experience than the other players. I wouldn't be surprised if any 2700+ player today would whitewash the likes of Alekhine in blitz, simply because Alekhine would have played very few blitz games. I don't understand why you've decided that Capablanca was doing anything remarkably different to other players. Because Capablanca made a couple of boastful remarks about intuiting moves rather than calculating (as though this is a foreign concept to any strong chess player)? It seems like you've bought the Capablanca mythology hook, line and sinker. <As far as I know, only Capablanca and Morphy have been clearly documented as having developed such early chess comprehension.> There have been many child prodigies, Capablanca and Morphy are not special in this regard. Dec-16-09    TheFocus: <visayan> Perhaps you, and others, do not realize that Capablanca was NOT playing 5-minute blitz games, but rather 10 seconds a move. 5-minute chess did not become the norm until after his death. 10 seconds a move was still being played up into the 1960's. <In brief, Capablanca was capable of playing bullet to blitz, one minute to five, and still demolish all of the world's top masters.> Wrong again. When Alekhine says that Capablanca was giving 5 to 1 odds, that was not bullet versus 5 minutes, but MONEY stakes. The majority of Capablanca's blitz matches were for money stakes. Dec-16-09    TheFocus: <visayan> <Datum: Apparently, Capablanca never lost a quick game competition from the 1900s to the 1940s. NO ONE IN NEARLY HALF A CENTURY COULD EVEN GET CLOSE TO HIS LEVEL OF PLAY IN QUICK GAMES. Every documented description of his quick game play keeps confirming his invincibility in this genre.> Your information is wrong. As I stated above, Capablanca did not win every "rapid transit" (10 second a move) tournament he played in. We can read in American Chess Bulletin and Chess Weekly where Capablanca finished in 2nd or 3rd place in some of these. Dec-16-09    theagenbiteofinwit: <One reasonable hypothesis is that CAPABLANCA MUST HAVE BEEN USING ADDITIONAL BRAIN AREAS, SYNAPSES, AND CIRCUITRY THAT IN NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT USED IN CHESS-PLAYING.> It is more plausible that if his edge was cognitive, he was just using the same brain area everyone else did, just more efficiently. Personally, I never bought into the whole "freak of nature" hypothesis. I think the anecdote of learning by only watching his father is a case of J.R. building his own myth. I think that actually he put as much time into practice and analysis of the game as Alekhine, although whereas Alekhine made a point to let everyone know how hard he worked, Capablanca concealed the fact. Although there is no doubt that Capablanca had natural talent, it is a dubious assertion that natural talent alone is the reason he dominated the field. If that were the case, I think he would have finished school. After all, one would become tired of effortlessly demolishing every opponent and would want an intellectual challenge. Dec-16-09    rogge: <One reasonable hypothesis is that CAPABLANCA MUST HAVE BEEN USING ADDITIONAL BRAIN AREAS, SYNAPSES, AND CIRCUITRY THAT IN NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT USED IN CHESS-PLAYING.> LMAO. This worshipping, either it's So, Nakamura or Capablanca. Hilarious! Dec-16-09    AnalyzeThis: Chess was Capa's mother tongue, as it was for Morphy. A guy like Pillsbury or Rubinstein was a genius, but didn't learn the game until later. Dec-16-09    TheFocus: The Capablanca myth will never die. Some parts of it: <Capa won the Cuban championship at the age of 12.> Wrong. He beat the Cuban champion Juan Corzo in a match but the Championship was not at stake, and he was 13 at the time. In fact, the Cuban championship tournament was held a few months after this match and Capablanca did poorly, finishing with a +4=1-5 MINUS score, in 4th place. Prior to his match against Corzo, Capablanca lost a two game match against Corzo, who won both the games. Corzo had an over-all plus score against Capablanca of +7=6-6. You don't find that mentioned too often, do you. Kinda blows the myth away. I also don't believe in the "I learned from watching my Father play a couple of games, and then I beat him." A little far-fetched, don't you think? More than likely, this was just family legend, but it reads good. Dec-16-09    TheFocus: Part One How I Learned To Play Chess Jose Capablanca in Munsey’s Magazine, October, 1916. I remember clearly my first game of chess. I had just passed my fourth birthday – twenty-three years ago. Depressed with a feeling of ennui, which a hot Havana day oft-times induces, and having failed in my search for something interesting in the actions or stories of Morro Castle, where it was my wont to spend the greater part of my day, I directed my footsteps to one of the towers of the fort, in order to discuss with my father ways and means for routing this childish ennui of mine. It might be well for me to explain that my father, though a poor chess player, was a good soldier. He was then serving as a lieutenant in the cavalry division of the Spanish army stationed in Havana, in Morro Castle. As a consequence, my companions were soldiers; my playground a military fort. Here I delighted to listen to the stories of war, of strategic battles, of military heroes. Here the glamour of military life made its appeal to me. And here I was made to understand, young as I was, the importance to the soldier of a well-planned attack or defense. As I entered my father’s quarters, the scene that greeted my eyes at once aroused my interest. In the center of the room sat my father, his head cupped in the palms of his hands, his eyes staring intently at the table. Oppsite him sat a brother officer, in the same attitude. Both seemed to be thinking deeply. Neither uttered a word. (According to Olga Capablanca Clark, in Chessworld, May-June, 1964, the opponent was General Lono, to whom the elder Capablanca was aide-de-camp.) I approached closer, and obtained my first view of a chessboard. Without disturbing the silence that prevailed, I took a position at the table, where I could view the proceedings comfortably. My boyish curiosity soon grew to wonder; and very shortly, after observing how my father was moving those peculiarly shaped figures from square to square of the board, I felt a sudden fascination for the game. The impression came upon me that this curious game must have a military significance, judging from the interest the two soldiers manifested. I then began to concentrate my mind on discovering how the pieces should be moved; and at the conclusion of the first game I felt sure that I had learned the rules for the movement of chessmen. A second game was played. By this time the wonder of an “Arabian Nights” tale could not have held me more. I followed each move eagerly. Having solved the first mystery of chess – the movement of the pieces – I sought to find out the principles that underlie the game. Although I was only four years old at the time, I could soon appreciate the fact that a game of chess may be compared to a military battle – something that involves an attack on the part of one player, and a defense of another. Action of this nature always made a deep impression upon me. I recall with what delight I used to listen to a soldier’s story of the capture of a redoubt or the trapping of an army. I believe, therefore, that my early and very strong attraction to the game of chess was due to the peculiar set of mind that I had developed as a result of my military environment, and also to a peculiar intuition. On that particular afternoon there occurred an incident which launched me upon my chess career. During the second game that my father played, I noticed that he had moved one of his Knights not in the prescribed way – a move that was overlooked by his opponent. I maintained a dutiful silence till the close of the game, when I called my father’s attention to what he had done. At first he was inclined to dismiss my statement with characteristic tolerance of a father who hears something foolish issue from the mouth of his offspring. My earnest protestations, arising from the exhultation of having acquired some new and interesting knowledge, and the doubtful look of his opponent, caused him to believe that he might, after all, have been guilty of deceiving the other player. He knew, however, that I had never seen a game of chess before, and he felt safe in informing very politely that he doubted very much whether I knew anything of what I was saying. My reply was to challenge him to a game of chess. Whether he felt that I had suddenly contracted dementia, or whether he wanted to save himself from further embarrassment in the presence of his friend, I do not know; but he sat down to play me, evidently foreseeing an early capitulation on my part. When he saw that I knew how to handle the pieces, he became visibly disconcerted. When the game reached its close, I cannot say whether it was amazement, mortification, or pleasure that affected him most; for I had beaten him in my first game of chess. Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 264) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 179 OF 264 ·  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 player 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.

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC