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 180 OF 264 ·  Later Kibitzing> Dec-16-09    TheFocus: Part Two After this incident, my father’s friends were profuse in their declaration that I was a boy of unusual powers. Some of them went so far as to call me a prodigy, and to predict that I should undoubtedly develop into the geatest master of the world. Yet, as I hark back to those days, I feel positive that I could not qualify as a child wonder. I do not recall that I was particularly blessed with conventional accompaniments of genius, as commonly set forth in biographies – the precocious appreciation of the immensity of nature, of the beauty and complexities of the cosmos, and all that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, I cherish as one of my special accomplshments my more than ordinary ability in that mundane but good American game of baseball. Such a thing, surely, must be foreign to genius! The persuasion of my father’s friends finally caused him to take me to a brain specialist at Havana. While every one urged that my talents as a chessplayer should be developed by a course of special training, my father preferred that I should maintain the even tenor of the average boy’s way. To the many suggestions of my possible exploitation in the field of chess, he persistently lent a deaf ear. So to the brain specialist we went – a very odius task for me. The bespectacled and bewhiskered individual, after making an examination, announced in oracular manner that I was possessed of mental powers unusual for a boy of my age, and advised that I should be prohibited from playing chess. I was keenly disappointed, as my love for the game had become a passion. It was not until I was eight years of age that, upon the earnest solicitation of my father’s friends, he consented to take me to the Chess Club of Havana, which at that time numbered among its members several players of established reputation. Here I resumed playing, but only to a moderate degree; and I soon had the pleasure of matching myself against the club’s best players. The first game that I played with an opponent of world-wide reputation was when Taubenhaus, the famous Parisian expert, visited Havana. At that time I was just five years of age. Taubenhaus offered me a Queen, and when the first game was completed he played another with the same odds. Several years ago, when I was visiting Paris, after the San Sebastian tournament, I met Taubenhaus, and in our conversation he spoke of these two games, saying that he had been under the impression that he had lost both of them. The question has often been asked of me, to what do I attribute my precocious start in chess? Roughly I might say that it was due partly to a mastery of principles of the game, born of what I often felt to be a peculiar intuition, and partly to the possession of an abnormally developed memory – a memory far stronger than that of the average boy of four. I recall how the soldiers of the fort at Havana would find diversion in leading forth the clerk of the garrison – poor wretch! – and placing him opposite me. They would then read off large sums for us to add, divide, and multiply. I would invariably offer the correct answer before the clerk could get started. Furthermore, while I do not claim that my memory then was that of a Macauley or a John Stuart Mill, yet it is a fact that at school, after a second reading of seven pages of history, I could recire them verbatim. It is not correct to assume, however, that my chess ability depends upon an overdeveloped memory. In chess, memory may not be an aid. At the present time my memory is far from what it was in my early youth, yet my play is undoubtedly much stronger than it was then. Mastery of chess and brilliance of play do not depend so much upon the memory as upon the peculiar functioning of the brain – Capablanca in Munsey’s Magazine, October, 1916. Dec-16-09    TheFocus: This version is different from the version described in My Chess Career. There, Capablanca wrote: I was born in Havana, the capital of the Island of Cuba, the 19th of November, 1888. I was not yet five years old when by accident I came upon my father’s private office and found him playing with another gentleman. I had never seen a game of chess before; the pieces intriqued me, and I went to see them play again. The third day, as I looked on, my father, a very poor beginner, moved a Knight from a white square to a white square, His opponent, apparently, not a better player, did not notice it. My father won, and I proceeded to call him a cheat and to laugh. After a little wrangle, during which I was nearly put out of the room I showed my father what he had done. He asked me how and what I knew of chess? I answered that I could beat him; he said that was impossible, considering that I could not even set the pieces correctly. we tried conclusions, and I won. That was my beginning. A few days after, my father took me to the Havana Chess Club, where the strongest players found it impossible to give me a Queen. About that time the Russian Master, Taubenhaus, visited Havana, and he declared it beyond him to give me such odds. Later, in Paris, in 1911, Mr. Taubenhaus would often say, “I am the only living master who has given Mr. Capablanca a Queen.” Then followed several years in which I only played occasionally at home. The medical men said that it would harm me to go on playing. When eight years old I frequented the club on Sundays, and soon Don Celso Golmayo, the strongest player there, was unable to give me a Rook. After two or three months I left Havana, and did not play chess again until I returned. I was eleven years old then, and H.N. Pillsbury had just visited and left everybody astounded at his enormous capacity and genius. Don Celso Golmayo was dead, but there still remained Vasquez and J. Corzo, the latter having just won the Championship from the former. In this atmosphere, in three months I advanced to the first rank. In order to test my strength a series of games was arranged, in which I was to play two games against each one of the first-class players. All the strong players took part in the contest except Vasquez, who had just died. The result proved that I stood next to the champion, J. Corzo, to whom I lost both games. <Of these two separate versions, we can see some discrepancies. I tend more to agree with the version in Munsey’s Magazine, but I also agree with Capablanca’s claim in My Chess Career that it happened on the third day that he won against his father. That it happened on the third day of watching is more believable than the ridiculous claim that he watched two games and then beat an experienced player.> Dec-16-09    maxi: <visayanbraindoctor> Pertaining the achievement of Capablanca and the other great pioneers of chess Steinitz and Lasker in having understood chess and established the principles of the openings, the middlegame and the endings, and having played very strongly at the same time, you give the example of the Greek mathematician Pythagoras. If one judges his contributions on the basis of what is known today in math, they are primitive, but, on the other hand, he was the creator of some important math, and his capacity for math must have been outstanding. If I say, on the basis that his contributions are primitive, that I am smarter, I will be guilty of naivety. I remember when I was kid and saw nineteenth century chess games, I thought, oh, these guys were not too good. Well, kids are naive, that is part of their appeal. Unfortunately adults are often naive, too, and they are not appealing in this. The chess example we are discussing aside, I remember a conversation I had a few years ago with this fellow that had taken a rather right-wing point of view on the subject of economic and social development. He was criticizing certain minorities in the US (but his arguments can be extended to people in underdeveloped countries), that have opportunity for development both at the personal level and as a class or a country, but don't take it. In my life I have had the chance to live in advanced countries like Germany and the US, and also in underdeveloped third-world countries. My point to him (that he never accepted, by the way) was that people in economically disadvantaged areas of the US, or in underdeveloped countries, do not have the necessary understanding or information, nor the necessary practical chances, to be able to overcome their situations. To him such people were basically lazy and to blame for their situation. In some cases some of this may be true, but more often than now, such thoughts cannot cross the minds of disadvantaged minorities and people in underdeveloped countries. I have seen people in such countries follow traditions or social and personal habits that are self-destructive, but they do not realize this. Sometimes they do this to the point that it causes the death of the individual. They, in general, are not being lazy, they are being ignorant. My point is that you are basically not aware of what you have known since childhood or for a long time. To you such knowledge is the Truth, and it is obvious and trivially correct. If you are lucky enough to belong to a well-to-do social class, then people in lower classes or in poor countries must either be stupid or too lazy to apply what is obvious. By the same token, people often do not question their knowledge and assume that everybody else knows it too, or knew it in the past. It may also be that this knowledge is incorrect and leads to self-destructive behavior on part of an individual, or to unnecessary violence. Dec-16-09    Mr. Bojangles: Whao! Excellent post Maxi.... Dec-16-09    visayanbraindoctor: <Focus: 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.> I am pleased that you pointed this out. I can accept that of course. Even a computer can place lower than humans in a tournament. If Capa won every quick games tournament in his life, he would have been better than a computer. However, you do say that Capa never lost a quick game match in his life. That indicates total domination over every one. <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.> I have read about the conjecture that it was money, not time. I do not adhere to this conjecture. Look at the way Alekhine narrates about what he saw. <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!> This is the tone of a man who cannot believe what he sees, and yet has to because it is happening in front of his eyes. I do think that Capa was giving one minute to five odds. But even granted that he was not, it was time odds that he was giving, not money odds, or AAA would not describe it the way he did. Perhaps Capa had 10 seconds per move to his opponent's 50 seconds. In case of time odds, my conclusion is quite valid: That Capablanca was thinking 5 times more rapidly than the other masters. Alekhine was certainly not one to be awed or flabbergasted by any other chess player. We see his combinations and attacks all the time here in CG.com and AAA himself was awesome. He not only is one of the strongest players in chess history, he had the brains to be the best blindfold chess player in history. A brain like AAA's was able to consistently follow without sight at least a dozen games, and still play strong chess; and that is unbelievably awesome itself. And as a pretty egoistic fellow, AAA was NOT the type to go about building up myths on his rivals. Also note Lasker's comment about Capa's quick games talent: <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)> Again this is the tone of man who can not believe what he sees, except that it was he himself that got demolished. Mind you, I have never heard of Lasker saying anything like this or even praising another chess player; if you can dig up documents describing him flabbergasted by another chess player, I would like to see them for myself. <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.> See the quotes above. Apparently, so did Lasker and Alekhine.(",) As for the two versions, these two tales agree that Capablanca as a child had developed extraordinary chess comprehension, WITHOUT BEING TAUGHT. I repeat, no other master past or present, except Morphy can lay claim to such early chess comprehension. And this brings us to another important point: CAPABLANCA WAS NO FREAK OF NATURE. My hypothesis is that he indeed was born with extraordinary natural talent; but it took the environment to nurture him into a human chess machine. <theagenbiteofinwit: It is more plausible that if his edge was cognitive, he was just using the same brain area everyone else did, just more efficiently.> Of course I have been thinking of this. However, it seems to me that it is simply not enough to explain his flabbergastingly proficient quick games skills. These were clearly way beyond any one else's. The simpler explanation is that Capa was probably using additional areas of his brain as mentioned above. The point is that these areas can probably be developed in an immature brain; etched with chess-playing circuits before brain circuitry in general gets fixed by the age of 5. And this is my point of course. I am proposing that if we can duplicate the environment in which Capa's brain got wired into that of a human <chess machine>, we could probably duplicate this environment today, and hopefully produce another (even better) human chess machine who could reasonably compete with computers. Dec-16-09    SetNoEscapeOn: <If I say, on the basis that his contributions are primitive, that I am smarter, I will be guilty of naivety. I remember when I was kid and saw nineteenth century chess games, I thought, oh, these guys were not too good. Well, kids are naive, that is part of their appeal.> Well, that confuses two completely separate concepts. If you saw some 19th century games, it is very possible (or, depending on the players, even likely) that they were poor quality. Of course, that means "poor quality by today's standards"; but that is always implied. When Lasker and Capablanca discussed 18th century players, they held them to the same type of standard, without any qualifications. The mistake (I will not call it naivety, as it is just an obvious error) would be to say that because the games are poor- or even because they were poor players- they lacked intelligence. I think just about everybody who knows anything about chess understands that they were simply playing according to what was understood at the time- though the greatest among them were constantly expanding those limits. As <nimh> said, chess, just like every other human endeavor, has advanced with time. This is not a big secret. And I suppose that's why we don't see anybody cautioning against the hero worship mentioning intelligence at all. Dec-16-09    TheFocus: <visayan> <As for the two versions, these two tales agree that Capablanca as a child had developed extraordinary chess comprehension, WITHOUT BEING TAUGHT. I repeat, no other master past or present, except Morphy can lay claim to such early chess comprehension.> Morphy never made that claim. Paul was TAUGHT. His father and uncle were two of the strongest players in New Orleans, maybe even in the U.S. at that time. He had a library of books that was quite good for its time, and he had strong players to play against, probably stronger even than the opponents that Capa would have had to compete against. Now, Kasparov was not taught to play by anyone. He startled his parents by giving them the solution to chess problems in the newspapers. No one taught him, so that doesn't hold water either. As for Capablanca giving time odds of 10 seconds to 50 seconds, that has never appeared in print and cannot be accepted as fact. No biographer of his has ever made that faulty assumption. <I do think that Capa was giving one minute to five odds.> Again, never appeared in print, and it would have been commented upon if it had occurred like that. It was not until we had digital clocks that 1 minute could be measured accurately. And I repeat, Capablanca did not play 5-minute blitz, he played 10 seconds a move chess, also called "rapid-transit." Time was kept for the players by a referee or another player. Dec-16-09    visayanbraindoctor: <TheFocus> Other documents say that Kasparov was taught by his father before his death. There is ambiguity on this. In any case, Kasparov was not invincible in quick games. At his prime, I believe Karpov was probably a better quick-game player than Kaspy. Simply put, I disagree with your post above, and for the reasons I have already posted. You say Capa was giving money odds. I say based on a witness' narration (Alekhine), that Capa was giving time odds. Any kibitzers who would like to review my reasoning can read my post above. But there is a way to test my hypothesis. Do the experiment that I proposed. We obviously cannot do it given our present lack of logistics. However, the fact that you do not even discuss trying to test such a hypothesis probably means that you have made up your mind that it is untestable - that its falsehood is an axiom. As for my point of view, the reason why I describe it as a HYPOTHESIS is because it is; I do not claim it to be absolute truth. And this is why I am proposing an experiment to test it. Now if you believe that it is untestable, I respect your belief of course and I do not take offense. Dec-16-09    visayanbraindoctor: <maxi> If you have a forum, I could go there and discuss this <ignorance> thing in the <third-world>. I have to struggle with it every day in my real setting in real life. You might be surprised to know that there is still another level below the third world, a fourth world of captive peoples and internal colonialism. But this page is not meant for such a discussion. Dec-16-09    TheFocus: <visayan> Do not think I am ignoring your post. I am simply getting off work in a few minutes and will reserve my answer for tomorrow. Dec-16-09    maxi: <TheFocus> Why would you think that they were playing rapid-transit in St. Petersburg? Chess clocks had already been used in the London International Tournament of 1883, and St. Petersburg was a showcase city of Russian culture. Rapid-transit is unpleasant to play compared with blitz. They would certainly have had chess clocks in St. Petersburg by the twentieth century. Dec-16-09    MaxxLange: <maxi> nonetheless, rapid transit is what was popular among early 20th century masters, for "skittles" games . I've seen references to that in the memoirs of lots of old players. why they liked that, and how it went out of fashion in favor of our g/5 or g/3, would make a very interesting chess article Dec-16-09    MaxxLange: related is how material odds games ("pawn and move") vanished, in favor of time odds games Dec-16-09    whatthefat: <visayan: Simply put, I disagree with your post above, and for the reasons I have already posted. You say Capa was giving money odds. I say based on a witness' narration (Alekhine), that Capa was giving time odds. Any kibitzers who would like to review my reasoning can read my post above.> I have to say, I had the same thought as <TheFocus> (i.e., that it could mean money odds) on reading Alekhine's quote. The fact is, what he said is completely ambiguous. Dec-16-09    maxi: It is an interesting subject, <MaxxLange>. Probably it would have been impossible to find chess clocks in backwater places in the early twentieth century. But St. Petersburg was avant-garde, same as London, Paris, Vienna, and possibly also Havana and New Orleans, among other cities. (Remember the Cubans had many of the world top players of the late nineteenth century visit La Habana. Cuba was a trade center of the Caribbean. Possibly young Capa had access to chess clocks.) Dec-16-09    whatthefat: I'm sure this issue has been solved by a chess historian at some point. Dec-16-09    Kaspablanca: Capablanca historians say he was an oustanding blitz player, so what Alekhine said was probably true, and as visayan wrote, AAA was not the type of man who like to be awed. Dec-16-09    visayanbraindoctor: <maxi, Kaspablanca> Chess clocks by the 1890s had become standard equipment in international tournaments and chess clubs. It is the easiest thing in the world to set up a clock such that one guy has 5 minutes, and the other 5 minutes, or even just 1 minute; or both with say 15 or 30 minutes. We call this today as blitz or bullet or rapid, but they probably referred to it as 'quick' games before WW2. What do chess players do in their free time in chess clubs? They play off-hand games at faster time controls. I would be utterly surprised if chess players did not play blitz games way back in the 1880s. That is the nature of human chess players; and given the equipment to do it, it is perfectly logical that they would. <whatthefat: I have to say, I had the same thought as <TheFocus> (i.e., that it could mean money odds)> Because you find it unbelievable. I would myself if told about it in an offhand manner. My first impression would be: No one can play that fast, absolutely no one! Then I examined Alekhine's passage well. Alekhine clearly found it as unbelievable as we did, and he forthrightly states so. More than unbelievable, Alekhine says he cannot even imagine such a thing. Then in effect he proceeds to say that he has to believe it because he saw Capa in fact demolishing every one, including himself. Dec-16-09    maxi: It seems to me you have a strong argument, doc. It is extremely unlikely that Alekhine would say he cannot imagine somebody winning bets at a rate 5:1. Dec-16-09    ughaibu: It's not "winning bets", it's making a profit over a sequence! Dec-16-09    mysql: I'm sorry but I'm not aware of the history of this. But if Capablanca was playing very accurately during those times, how come he was defeated by Alekhine in their WCH match? Dec-16-09    whatthefat: <Because you find it unbelievable.> Well, no, I already spelled out that I find it quite believable given most masters would have played next to no blitz back then (remember Botvinnik saying he had played one blitz game in his life). <Enough to say that he gave all the St. Petersburg masters the odds of 5–1 in quick games – and won!> To me, <odds of 5-1> seemed to be referring to money the first time I read it, but I agree odds of time is another possible interpretation, e.g., 10 sec/move for the opponents, 2 sec/move for Capablanca. Unless there's another source it's impossible to conclude one way or the other. Alekhine's disbelief seems to me to be in reference to the fact that Capablanca demolished all the other players and was clearly superior to them at short time controls; I don't think it's referring explicitly to any differences in the time control between players. Dec-16-09    maxi: Sorry, I was careless. Still, it would be unlikely for Alekhine to say he cannot imagine such a thing. Fine said he could hold his own against Alekhine, but Capa beat him "mercilessly". Hard to imagine coming from one of the fastest blitz players of the period! Dec-16-09    theagenbiteofinwit: <we could probably duplicate this environment today, and hopefully produce another (even better) human chess machine who could reasonably compete with computers.> I dispute this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't think there is any way to "wire" someone into becoming a great chess player aside from developing pattern recognition. The only way to do that is to constantly play and/or study, which is what I believe Capablanca did his entire life up until around the time Alekhine beat him. In short, I don't think Capablanca's success is the result of a mental anomaly. The more logical explanation is that he constantly drilled the moves to the point that his decision-making process OTB was much faster than anyone else. If this hypothesis is true, it would not only explain why he was so good at rapid chess, but why he was so good at chess in general: to constant practice and study. Secondly, a semantic issue. I would never even remotely consider Capablana remotely like a machine. The games are too beautiful, and his touch was much too delicate for a machine to ever come close to reproducing. Dec-16-09    whatthefat: <theagenbiteofinwit> The fact that machines cannot appreciate beauty (although even that could be debated), does not preclude them from creating beautiful things. Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 264) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 180 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