|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-19-11 | | mojonera: good game capa ! |
|
| Mar-24-12 | | RookFile: lost in space - one small detail is that it is white's turn to move in your diagram. That's worth a lot, and Qd4 takes advantage. As it was, Reshevsky missed a miracle draw in the endgame. |
|
Apr-17-14
 | | maxi: After Sammy's 27...exd5?, the ending left on the board is one of B versus N with Pawns on both sides of the board, which is usually considered to favor the side with the Bishop. But in this case the Black d Pawn is so weak that it gives the White pieces a winning chance. |
|
Apr-17-14
 | | perfidious: Alekhine's note to 27....exd5 in the tournament book, cited on the first page by <Benzol>, is a propos. As noted by <lost in space>, merely several moves before, Reshevsky was not worse in this quiet middlegame. |
|
Apr-17-14
| | maxi: Well, Mr. <perfidious>, it depends what do you mean by "not worse". There is no forced win, and if Black keeps his cool he can certainly draw. But in practice Black has to be always nursing and worried about his feeble serf the d Pawn, and easily can lose the game, as it happened in this case. I used to play chess with this (rather unpleasant) German guy, and he was always saying "Chess is just tactics, just tactics". It is just easier to screw up... |
|
Apr-17-14
| | perfidious: <maxi> Did you even read the second paragraph/sentence before posting? It does not take a top-class GM to ascertain that the position after 27....exd5 is unpleasant for Black, but that is not germane to my statement which followed. |
|
| Apr-17-14 | | SChesshevsky: 27...exd5 does present the weakness but makes sense if Black is looking for a win. Black's probably good after 29. Qxe4 dxe4 and maybe even better after 31. exd4. Even in the text with control of the c-file and White's Rook not well placed on d4 Black still probably has a slight advantage. Maybe he keeps it with 32...Rb1 instead of the more natural text. It freezes both Qside pawns and still forces 33. Rd2 but appears to make 34...a4 much stronger with the exchange possibly forced then threatening ...a3 and/or ...Ba6 then Bc4. I didn't play it all out but I think Black definitely still had some interesting play after 27...exd5 |
|
Apr-18-14
| | maxi: <SChesshevsky> : It did occur to me that Reshevsky was playing for a win with 27...exd5, but perhaps it was more like "playing for a loss". I completely agree with you on that point. But I don't like 32...Rb1 because of 33.e4 where White's e Pawn cannot be taken. <perfidious> Sure I read the stuff in the previous pages. My comment on the technical aspects of the end game (B vs N & weak d Pawn) was addressed to the interested weaker player. |
|
Apr-18-14
| | maxi: In his notes to the game (that I found in E. Winter's book), Capablanca says that Black has to avoid at all costs the Rook exchange in this endgame. |
|
| Apr-19-14 | | SChesshevsky: <maxi: ...But I don't like 32...Rb1 because of 33.e4 where White's e Pawn cannot be taken...> I'm guessing Reshevsky's idea for the win was the exchange of the e pawn for an a-file passer. I didn't bother to calculate it all out but it looks like ...Rb2+ gives tempo so Black King can get to d7 and with Bishop at c6, after White's e6 after exd5, it might take awhile for White to advance the pawn. Especially tough if White has to defend against protected passed pawn on a4 with King and Knight not well positioned on 1st rank. If Black's blockade can hold for awhile, he's probably better and certainly more dominant. Black thinking maybe White ends up exchanging the e for a-pawn, might also be able to position for exchange of rooks with advantage giving Black end game chances with better King position and better placed pieces. Given Reshevsky had already beaten Capablanca, I think, and that he certainly saw that 27...Bxd5 likely draws but probably eliminates any winning chances tried to play out the Qside advantage but seems to me the two tempo loss with Rook and bad exchange gave White the pull combined with Capablanca's end game feel is really what did him in. |
|
Apr-19-14
| | maxi: It seems to me that the White d Pawn will advance very fast making the draw unlikely. It is interesting to take a look at Saidy vs Fischer, 1964 |
|
Feb-20-17
 | | plang: The game started as a Queen's Gambit Accepted but transposed into the Catalan; 6..a6 was a new move and led to Black getting an easy equality. 19..Bd5 would have been more active with a slight edge for Black. There was no reason to allow exchanges with 21..Nd7; 21..f6 was an alternative. By the time Reshevsky played 27..dxe? any advantage he had was gone; for the rest of the game he was fighting for a draw. Reshevsky did not have toexchange queens with 30..Qxd4?; his subpar play from moves 19-31 was very out of character. Alekhine commented (and Fine agreed in Basic Chess Endings) that passive defense with 37..Kf7 would have been hopeless but Timman provided extensive analysis to show that Black had defensive resources with this approach and may, in fact, have had better practical drawing chances than in the approach chosen in the game. The alternative 50 Nf7..Bxf5 51 Kxf5..Kf3 52 Nd5..g3 53 Nf4..Kxe3 54 Ke5..b4 would have resulted in a draw. |
|
| Jun-18-18 | | Omnipotent00001: 56. Kd5 is mate in 23 moves. |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | sudoplatov: The local version of Stockfish prefers 27... ed5 to 27... Bd5 (to which it likes 28.f3 rather than 28.e4.) |
|
| Jan-30-20 | | Jovindsouzagreat: 53... Bf7 would have drawn, e.g. 54.e6 Bg8 55.e7 Bf7 56.f6 Kf4 and holds. |
|
| May-13-20 | | Albion 1959: Irving Chernev's book was not only entertaining, but also instructive. I have learned a great deal from this appraisal of Capablanca's best endgames. This book was published in 1978. I do not know just good an annotator Chernev was, he did tend to use analysis and notes from others. Looking back in 21st century hindsight and with the use of computers search engines and databases, there are flaws with his analysis. Information that would never have been uncovered without the forensic analysis that is used today. Still a great book though ! |
|
| May-13-20 | | Olavi: Chernev's book wasn't very tight by the analytical standards of 1978 either, in this game e.g. he doesn't mention Bondarevsky's 51.f6! and 53...Bf7!, see acirce here in June 2006. But the instruction value of the book doesn't much suffer from such things. |
|
| May-02-21 | | Messiah: Very well played, excellent job! |
|
| Aug-27-21 | | Messiah: Just revisited this game, and it is still very interesting how Capablanca punished Reshevsky's inaccuracies. Worth replayin'! |
|
| Nov-20-23 | | Morpheu Torre Petto: Could 27.♗xd5!! be the most instructive move ever? |
|
| Nov-20-23 | | goodevans: I found the SF annotations towards the end of the game, showing that Capa erred to give Reshevsky a drawing opportunity which the latter then let slip, most interesting. Reshevsky's miss is by far the easier to understand as <53...Bf7 54.e6 Bg8> would have brought up this position: 
click for larger viewEven a patzer like me can see that White can't force home the promotion without abandoning his N and allowing Black's. As for Capa's error, here's what we would have arrived at after SF's <51.f6 Kf3 52.Nf4 g3 53.Kf5>: 
click for larger viewThis time it's clear Black's B is no position to halt those pawns, so <53...Bd7+ 54.Kg5 Be6> instead. This draws unless White takes the B, <55.Nxe6!>, allowing Black to promote with check! After <55...g2 56.f7 g1=Q+ 57.Kf6 Kxe4 58.f8=Q> White is up a piece. 
click for larger viewHere I wondered if trading Qs would allow Black to hunt down White's last pawn so I played it through a couple of times and, no, White gets to save it every time, e.g. 58...Qf1+ 59.Ke7 Qxf8+ 60.Kxf8 Kd3 61.Ke7 Kc3 62.Nc5 Kb4 63.Kd6 and wins. I see <acirce> also picked up on these in his 2006 post where he attributes the 51.f6 line to Bondarevsky. Nice to know a human got there before the engine as calculating that line was no mean feat. |
|
| Nov-20-23 | | Messiah: One of the most important lessons in the history of chess. Superb game. |
|
| Nov-07-24 | | Whitehat1963: Excellent game! One of those exceptions to the rule in B v. N endgames. |
|
| Nov-29-24 | | Mathematicar: Nottinghem 1936 is arguably Capa's best tournament. He finally managed to finish ahead of his teacher, one and only: Dr. Emanuel Lasker! |
|
| Nov-30-24 | | FM David H. Levin: <<Mathematicar>: Nottinghem 1936 is arguably Capa's best tournament. He finally managed to finish ahead of his teacher, one and only: Dr. Emanuel Lasker!> I don't recall reading of a teacher/student relationship between Lasker and Capablanca. Did either of them mention it? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
