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 1,253  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. J Corzo vs Capablanca 1-0 41 1901 Havana casual B01 Scandinavian 6. Capablanca vs A Fiol ½-½ 49 1901 Match-series C45 Scotch Game 7. A Gavilan vs Capablanca 0-1 39 1901 Match-series C45 Scotch Game 8. A K 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 Marquez 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 Marquez 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 1,253

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

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 76 OF 264 ·  Later Kibitzing> Jan-11-06    The Bloop: <Whitehat1963: ... Would Wilt Chamberlain average 50 points a game -- as he once did for an entire season -- against Jabbar, Walton, O'Neal, Olajuwon, Robinson, Parish, Wallace, etc., etc.? No way in hell! How would Oscar Robertson do against Allen Iverson? Again, watch the highlight reels. He would get embarrassed into leaving the gym! > One problems with trying to look at the highlight reels is that, when Wilt and Oscar were playing, there WERE no highlight reels... Wilt of course, wouldn't be only playing against the players you listed (who's collective careers spanned the last 35 years, from Jabbar to Wallace), he'd also have the luxury of playing against guys like Eddy Curry, Jason Collins, Mark Blount, you get the idea). It's not Wilt who'd be beggin for mercy after 5 minutes. Babe Ruth probably made more public appearances than any player before or since...players guard their time like crazy today, no great player today would sign autographs for a couple of hours after a game, as Ruth undoubtedly did many times...for free. The only way to get a player to do that today, you'd have to pay him $10,000 or so for a couple of hours "work". But that's a side point, and a fun one at that! You're absolutely right, debating sports (and chess) issues and comparing players from different eras is fun, and there's really no way to answer the question without bringing back players from the past in their prime... we can only make educated guesses about what players from the past would do today. It seems that in chess, each generation has the benefit of prior generations' experience. And since the rules of chess have not changed (at least in the last 200 years), common sense would tell you that even a GM-strength player from 50 or 100 years ago might have a tougher time holding their own against today's top players, unless of course the player from the past would be given an appropriate length of time to familiarize themselves with their opponents of today. Let the debates continue, and have fun!! Jan-11-06    Whitehat1963: <Babe Ruth probably made more public appearances than any player before or since...players guard their time like crazy today, no great player today would sign autographs for a couple of hours after a game, as Ruth undoubtedly did many times...for free. The only way to get a player to do that today, you'd have to pay him $10,000 or so for a couple of hours "work".> O.K., fair point. Ruth was one of a kind. And despite what I said, I still believe Ruth may have been the greatest baseball player of all time. Certainly he was the "most dominant hitter" of his generation by a long ways. Still, how would he have held up against Koufax, Gibson, Maddux, Martinez, Ryan, etc.? How would he do against fresh fireballing relief pitchers? I'm sure Ruth would have done fine, but I doubt he would have hit 714 home runs. (Now, put him on steroids and who knows? He might have hit 1,000!) I just don't think managers would allow their pitchers to give him a single pitch to hit. He would have walked 250-300 times a year! All that aside, everyone takes the best players from the past and brings them to the present. How about taking an average player from today and taking him to the past? He would dominate! Alvin Robertson or Charlie Ward, with their considerable athletic skill and speed would have dominated the NBA in the 50s even more than Chamberlain did in the early 60s. And I doubt either of them will ever make it into the Hall of Fame. But George Mikan would get cut today. Cousy would have gotten laughed out of the gym. Heck, John Havlicek (spelling?) and Jerry West would probably ride the pine on any of today's NBA squads. And Morphy, Philidor, Anderssen, Staunton, etc. would get trashed by today's best junior players! Jan-12-06    The Bloop: <Whitehat1963: O.K., fair point. Ruth was one of a kind. And despite what I said, I still believe Ruth may have been the greatest baseball player of all time. Certainly he was the "most dominant hitter" of his generation by a long ways. Still, how would he have held up against Koufax, Gibson, Maddux, Martinez, Ryan, etc.? How would he do against fresh fireballing relief pitchers? I'm sure Ruth would have done fine, but I doubt he would have hit 714 home runs. (Now, put him on steroids and who knows? He might have hit 1,000!) I just don't think managers would allow their pitchers to give him a single pitch to hit. He would have walked 250-300 times a year! All that aside, everyone takes the best players from the past and brings them to the present. How about taking an average player from today and taking him to the past? He would dominate! Alvin Robertson or Charlie Ward, with their considerable athletic skill and speed would have dominated the NBA in the 50s even more than Chamberlain did in the early 60s. And I doubt either of them will ever make it into the Hall of Fame. But George Mikan would get cut today. Cousy would have gotten laughed out of the gym. Heck, John Havlicek (spelling?) and Jerry West would probably ride the pine on any of today's NBA squads. And Morphy, Philidor, Anderssen, Staunton, etc. would get trashed by today's best junior players!> And btw, I agree with you about Ruth...I think he was the greatest player ever, the mere thought of one man holding both the World Series records for home runs AND consecutive scoreless innings pitched for 30 or 40 years boggles the mind...(innings record not broken until 1960 or 61, HR record broken in '64)... But you're right, he played at a time when it was actually easier for the best players to dominate... and I think that your average player today would indeed dominate if sent back to 1910 or so... And yes, Mikan was as good as he needed to be for his day... he was really one of the first athletic big men, and he is similar to Shaq in the sense that nobody could physically deal with him in the low post. But taking him directly out of the early '50s and plopping him out there today, he'd have a tough time... I know he was physically stronger than any player of his day, but I honestly don't know how his strenght would stack up with players today...considering he'd have to be a power forward, it'd be real tough for him to make it... I haven't checked but I think you spelled Havlicek correctly. Thing about Hondo was that he never stopped RUNNING... both he and West would be great today, because their fundamentals were so good... West was a great shooter and scorer, and whatever his FG percentage was when he played, you'd have to compare it to 3 pt shooting pct of today, because that's where a good many of his shots came from (other than Laker fast breaks). NBA Players today are, for the most part, more athletic than their predecessors, but there are very few fundamentally sound players, which is why guys like Tim Duncan and Lebron James and Kobe stand out (along with a number of European players) the way they do. But I don't think there are 10 guys in the league who could consistently hit a 12 foot jumper from the baseline, the in-between shots... everything is either a dunk or a 3 pt shot, because THAT'S what gets you on Sportscenter! And that seems to be the goal of way too many players... To me, nothing tops the Laker/Celtic games of the 1980s...I have most of them on tape (soon to be transferred to DVD), and it was just incredible basketball. An awesome rivalry... The Knicks / Laker playoffs of the early 70s were great too, especially since is was NY against LA. I only saw Russell in his last two or three years, but I remember the '69 finals very well, I was 10 years old. I rooted for the Lakers in that one, but a fellow named Don Nelson came along and... aaaarrrrggghhhh, I can't talk about it!!! Oh yeah, and as far as chess goes, those guys would definitely get crushed today! Jan-13-06    Endgame: What is Capablanca's Immortal game? Jan-13-06    GoldenKnight: <All> Interesting comments. I'll just point out that Havlicek had an unusually large heart which is why he could run so much. For that reason alone he would do well today. I fully agree on the Laker/Celtic games of the 1980's. I would add the Bulls games of the 90's. <Whitehad1963> You make an interesting question which I'd like to alter a bit. What would it be like if you take the greatest players of today and put them in the 20's or 30's WITHOUT the benefit of any of today's knowledge, hindsight, training methods, opening theory, etc? In other words, make them truly products of that era, and not transplanted moderns. The only players I can be sure would be world-beater under those circumstances are Tal and Fischer. I don't name Kasparov (though I think he is rightly considered the best of all time) because I can't be sure how his genius would have developed without the stimulus of Botvinnik and the Soviet School. With Fischer and Tal it is not difficult to divine. Any other thoughts? Jan-13-06    paladin at large: Havlicek and West would be stars today, as would Russell and Chamberlain. Not Cousy and not Mikan. Havlicek and West were great defensive players, too. Russell commented on Havlicek's stamina in ca.1968 or 1969 when they were both the key players on the Celtics as they barely managed to win the championships (the last in an unprecedented string), noting that he, Russell played the entire 48 minutes sometimes, but occasionally caught his breath, whereas Havlicek ran like a demon the entire game. If memory serves, Havlicek was drafted by the Cleveland Browns as a potential tight end. A great athlete. And btw, Capablanca was very proud of his ability as a shortstop. Jan-13-06    willamsmart: Capablanca is really really powerful and he does not allow counter play. Jan-13-06    morpstau: He probly was the best ever save Paul Morphy. Jan-13-06    Whitehat1963: <GoldenKnight> You also make an interesting point. But I don't think you should sell Kasparov short. He may have been the king of homework (how do I know), but I don't think you can stay on top of the rankings for more than 20 years without having an enormous amount of raw talent. Fischer and Tal, yes, but I still think Kasparov might be king. Botvinnik and all of his chess schooling might have helped him quite a bit, but I suspect Kaspy is just as much of a natural talent as Capablanca or Morphy. <Basketball Fans> Regarding Havlicek and West, they might have been good shooters, even great shooters, but I don't think they would be able to get their shots off as much with the tight defenses that feature all of the tall and super athletic guards in today's league, unless they are wide open. They might be relegated to the role of a Steve Kerr rather than the legends that they were in the 60s. Hard, also, to say what today's players would be like if they didn't get to palm the living daylights out of the ball! Iverson, Bryant, Jordan -- palmers all of them. Refs in the 60s would have called them on EVERY possession. Like many of you, I'm nostalgic for the basketball of the mid to late 80s, Bird, Magic, Thomas, Jordan, Erving, etc. I don't think the game has improved at all in the last 20 years. I might even say it has declined. BUT, given everything I've said about how humans tend to get better at everything we do, I certainly wouldn't want to bet on it! Also, given what you can see at any major city downtown basketball court on a saturday morning -- things you would NEVER see in NBA games of the 50s and 60s, I think we continue to improve. Perhaps what is declining is the team tactics. The Lakers and Celtics were TEAMS. Almost everyone who came after them, the Bulls included (and I was born in Chicago and am a huge Bulls fan) plays more like a collection of all stars than like a true team. Jan-13-06    Whitehat1963: And, by the way, <Endgame>, I'd say Capa has at least four immortal games and you can find them listed here at the top. My opinion, in chronological order: 1. v. Corzo 1901 2. v. Baca Arus 1912 3. v. Bernstein 1914 4. v. Marshall 1918 and some people think the ending against Tartakower 1924 is one of the greatest ever. Jan-13-06    Gypsy: Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1927 is another immortal. Jan-13-06    madlydeeply: When people say that Babe Ruth was the best player ever, they fail to observe that the major leagues were diluted when he played, as no black players were allowed to play in the major leagues at the time. Jan-14-06    square dance: babe ruth used to hit more home runs than whole teams. he also played in 154 game seasons. dont forget that he was also a great pitcher too. Jan-14-06    whiskeyrebel: I wouldn't be surprised if even Capa was a fan of Ruth's. Jan-14-06    square dance: <the Bulls included (and I was born in Chicago and am a huge Bulls fan) plays more like a collection of all stars than like a true team.> thats just so far from the truth. you dont get to be one of the all time great defensive teams, especially without a dominant big man, by playing as a collection of all stars. not to mention, the triangle offense is as much of a team oriented offense as there is in basketball. you dont win 72 and 69 games in back to back seasons, not to mention the championship both seasons, by being a collection of all stars. a good example of a collection of all stars would be the 03-04 lakers with shaq, kobe, malone, and payton. Jan-14-06    Whitehat1963: <madlydeeply> I didn't fail to observe that fact. Nevertheless, as <square dance> points out, Ruth, alone, hit more homers than a lot of TEAMS. In 1920 or 21 (can't remember) he hit more homers than every other (or maybe it was all but one) team in the American League. And before he started to play right field, he was generally considered the best lefthanded pitcher in the majors. His career home run record stood until Hank Aaron (who played much longer, walked less frequently, kept himself in much better condition, and never pitched an inning in his career) broke it about 40 years later. Ruth's career slugging percentage is still a major league record. And he did it all on hot dogs and beer and late-night parties. He was truly an American original. <square dance> I'll concede your point about the triangle offense and the team defense, but if you take Jordan and Pippen off that TEAM, the bulls probably would have ended up in last place. Whether they played like one or not, the bulls (especially when they won 72 games) WERE a collection of all stars except at the center position. Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Harper, Kukoc -- pretty formidable line up. And still, Jordan did far more than his share of the scoring, but who was dishing all the assists?? On the great Celtics and Lakers teams of the 60s and 80s you had a lot contributions from a variety of places. And TEAM passing, playmaking, defense and rebounding played a far more significant role than it did on the 90s era Bulls. Jan-14-06    square dance: <whitehat1963> <but who was dishing all the assists??> the triangle offense doesnt typically allow for one player to average a large number of assists. about 6 is a pretty good number of assists in that offense, and thats usually about what pippen, who ran the point, usually averaged. kukoc was also among the leaders in assists from the small forward position during those years as well. <...the bulls (especially when they won 72 games) WERE a collection of all stars...> yeah, but so were the celtics with their hall of fame front line and the lakers with three hall of famers(and four number one overall picks!!) as well. <And TEAM passing, playmaking, defense and rebounding played a far more significant role than it did on the 90s era Bulls.> i completely disagree. i think this is 80's era propaganda. the game had changed by the time the bulls were in the midst of three-peating for the second time. as far as the team passing and playmaking, what do you think the triangle was all about? you cant make sloppy passed in that offense. you have also have to make crisp cuts, and set good picks. that is the essence of team offense. remember, the triangle is based on plays and ideas from the 50-60s. i dont know how you can discount the bulls defense at all. they had three of the greatest defenders of all time on those teams in jordan, pippen and rodman. ron harper was also an excellent defender. now, you can say that they had some great players, but that didnt stop them from playing like a team. same with the lakers and celtics. you dont three-peat without being a great team period. Jan-14-06    Whitehat1963: <i dont know how you can discount the bulls defense at all.> I'm not saying they didn't play great defense. They did. No doubt about it. But I think even you'll concede that Jordan did far more than his share on offense when compared to Bird in the 80s or any Celtic of the 60s. Only Chambelain in the 60s and Magic touched the ball as much as Jordan did, and Magic nearly tripled the number of assists Jordan typically had. Yet Magic would still manage to put up about 20 points a night. Much as I HATED, HATED, HATED the Lakers and Magic especially, he really made that team and has a legitimate claim to being the best offensive weapon in the game -- yes, even above Jordan. No one can touch Jordan as an individual scorer, but Magic could score and put up the assists and get the rebounds too. How many point guards could get as many rebounds as Magic did night after night. The triple double was his signature. Late in his career, he even became a phenomenal free throw shooter, and a better than average three-point shooter as well. Magic's downfall, of course, when compared to Jordan, was his defense. All that said, it's pretty clear that Jordan was the complete package. Offense, defense, probably the greatest player of all time. I guess if I were than good, I'd probably want the ball in my hands on every possession, too. Nevertheless, you defend the Bulls team play well. Jan-14-06    Whitehat1963: Besides, <square dance> in general, I'm referring to the style of play today more than anything else. Find a mismatch, clear everyone out and let Kobe, Shaq, Iverson, etc. drive the lane one on one. Basketball in the 60s and 80s featured a lot more ball movement and playmaking than it does today. Jan-14-06    paladin at large: <WhiskyRebel><I wouldn't be surprised if even Capa was a fan of Ruth's.> He most probably was. Capa loved baseball and New York was his second home for many years, including the 1920s. I recall a reference about him going to Yankee Stadium but, I don't remember the details. Jan-15-06    The Bloop: <paladin at large>: If memory serves, Havlicek was drafted by the Cleveland Browns as a potential tight end. A great athlete. Yes, Havlicek was drafted by the Browns, even though he didn't play football in college. Jan-15-06    square dance: < Besides, <square dance> in general, I'm referring to the style of play today more than anything else. Find a mismatch, clear everyone out and let Kobe, Shaq, Iverson, etc. drive the lane one on one. Basketball in the 60s and 80s featured a lot more ball movement and playmaking than it does today.> ok, but im not sure if i see the difference between giving the ball to wilt or kareem in the post all day long or letting kobe or iverson isolate; they're both one on one plays. also, with the isolation plays the other team will often double the ball handler leaving a shooter wide open. to me this is just an easy, high percentage play. could you imagine kobe driving and dishing to jerry west for an open three pointer? not that kobe would ever drive and then dish. ;-) Jan-15-06    The Bloop: Although I've been a Laker fan for over 35 years (also liked the Knicks growing up), I do think the 90s Bulls were a great team. Not in the sense that they'd get 5 or 6 guys in double figures every night, but that each player knew exactly what their role was, and they played it well. And they did play great defense, the fact that their championship centers were Bill Cartwright and Luc Longley/Bill Wennington, just shows what great defenders Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Harper were... And I think one of their first 3-peat teams won 67 games, almost matching the 69 and 72 win teams. I did enjoy watching those Bulls teams, especially the 2nd set of 3-peaters (i.e. after they got Rodman). btw, all you fans, a great and fun read is "Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball" by Elliot Kalb. He ranks HIS top 50 players of all time, in order. Jordan was not #1, he was #3, and he makes interesting arguments. His # 1 pick would surprise a lot of people, but I won't spoil it...but I highly recommend it. Jan-15-06    square dance: <And I think one of their first 3-peat teams won 67 games> the 1991-2 bulls. they were the second championship team. they beat portland 4-2. if you recall, game six was the game where the bulls made a big run to come back from behind with jordan on the bench! btw, feel free to spoil the top 5-10 list on my forum if you'd like. im very curious. i'll delete right after i read it, so it wont be spoiled for everyone else. only person i can see being ranked ahead of jordan is wilt btw. i personally would have it 1. jordan 2. wilt after that there are quite a few toss ups. kareem, larry, magic, big O, russel, etc. shaq too, even though statistically speaking, he was an underachiever. one ppg title, no rpg titles, no bpg titles and only one regular season mvp. Jan-15-06    Whitehat1963: <Who's the Best in Basketball?> Find out here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20... Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 264) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 76 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