Interesting sequences.

In Capablanca's book, Chess Fundamentals, Nick de Firmian comments that more modern attacking players such as Tal would consider the pawn center to be compensation for the exchange sac. However, he criticizes Black's way of going about continuing the attack. He says, after Black's 23rd and subsequent moves, that he should play his attack slower, developing his pieces with ...Bb7, ...Qf6, and ...Re8. Only then would Black's powerful center make a difference in the long run. It also brings up another idea, I'd love to see Tal play this position!

It is possible that the attack would have succeeded against a lesser master. [I wonder how GM de Firmian himself would fare if he got himself into a similar position on the defending side of a hypothetical game played with Janowski himself doing the attacking. (",)] But it was Capablanca who was doing the defense, spewing out one computer-like move after the another. If the attack was unsound in the first place, it would almost never succeed against a Capablanca at his prime. The way I see it, this game was a typical Janowski attack and also a typically brilliant Capablanca middlegame that he proficiently steered into an advantageous endgame that only required precise mopping-up operations to win.

To be honest, I don't see why the exchange sac should be praised. It looks to me like it's virtually forced. What exactly is he meant to do instead? Once he the sacrifice was made and he aquired his compensation, it looks like he didn't really know how to make best use of it, and maybe didn't really believe in his compensation that much, otherwise he might have played more patiently.

So one more time, let me say that if you do this stuff again, I shall consider myself free to troll you back.

As for who is right or wrong, I'll leave it for others to decide. I'm always ready to change my views if presented with some convincing evidence. Maybe some strong player will come to this page and tell me I'm an idiot, and that Janowski's play was brilliant. I didn't exactly do an in-depth analysis of this game, so it's entirely possible.

DrGridlock: Black's 12 ... g6 is the move which initiates the "exchange sac" flavor of this game. Capablanca's analysis is, "without considering at all whether or not such a course was justified on the part of black, it is evident that as far as white is concerned there is only one thing to do, viz., to win the exchange and then prepare to weather the storm."

Computer analysis suggests that the exchange sac was not black's best way of dealing with his position at move 13, but not a horrible option either. His position is cramped and requires something, but the computer likes sacrificing one of his doubled c-pawns as a way of continuing:

12 ... f6
13 Bc1 g6
14 Qc4+ Qf7
15 Qxc6 Nb6

Jose Raul Capablanca - David Janowski

click for larger view

at which point play may continue with good chances for both sides.

The ending is certainly more than a "mopping up" operation for White. Capablanca writes (after black's move 40), "The ending is very difficult to win." And later, "After an uneventful opening - a Ruy Lopez - in one of its normal variations, my opponent suddenly made things interesting by offering the exchange; an offer which, of course, I accepted. Then followed a very hard, arduous struggle, in which I had to defend myself against a very dangerous attack made possible by the excellent manouevring of my adversary. Finally, there came the time when I could give back the material and change off most of the pieces, and come to and ending in which I clearly had the advantage. But yet the ending itself was nto as simple as it first appeared, and finally - perhaps through one weak move on my part - it became a very difficult matter to win. Had I been a weak end-game player the game would hprobably have ended in a draw, and all my previous efforts would have been in vain."

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.