click for larger view

Rybka 4.1 x64:

1) The computer agrees with Fischer's own observation that the plan Bg4xe2 was weak. It was better to position the light-squared bishop on e6, either move 12 or move 13. Prior to the exchange, Stockfish thought Fischer had close to a one-pawn advantage (-0.96).

2) Instead of 20...Qc7, Stockfish prefers to open the a-file with 20...a6.

3) 22. Nh2? was a mistake, for reasons too arcane to reproduce here, but note that this knight ends up blocking the Bb2. The computer prefers 22. Ng3.

4) 30. Nxd4? was a bad mistake, increasing Black's advantage from half a pawn to 1.25 pawns. It could have been refuted by 30...Qd8! After the White knight moves, Black plays Nc2-d4, White exchanges knights on that square, and Black's queen recaptures with check (and an attack). Fischer's 30...Bxe5? gave the advantage to White.

5) White's plan of moving his king to the h-file was weak. After 39. Kh2? the advantage shifted back to Black - until he played 39...Rf4?

6) Much stronger than 40. Qe7+? was 40. Qe5+! Kh7 41. Ng5+.

7) The position was dead equal for many moves until 53. Kg3?

8) 56...Rh3+? gave up most of the advantage, as Fischer noted. Better was 56...Rf3! 57. Kg1 Rf4 58. Qe5+ Qxe5 59. dxe5 Rf5 60. d6 Re6, with two strong passed pawns.

9) After 58. d5, best was 58...Rf3, with advantage to Black.

click for larger view

and a great finish; 72... g1=Q 73. Bf5+ Qxf5

click for larger view

74. Qg7+

click for larger view

"Capa was a perfect example of the intuitive type of master, who sees that a move is good, but cannot explain why. I recall a story told me by a strong amateur in Mexico, whom Capa once offered to teach. The gentleman was overjoyed and promptly appeared the next day for his lesson. “In the Sicilian Defense”, Capa explained, “after 1 e4 c5 the best move is 2 Ne2.” “Why?” “No importa, it does not matter; it is the best move.” And that was about all that the poor amateur could find out; it was the best move and that was all there was to it. Capa’s judgement was usually right, so this absolute certainty in himself was an invaluable asset."

When he did play 2.Ne2, he was playing a sort of Chameleon Sicilian: keeping Black guessing over whether he would play an Open Sicilian with 3.d4, a Closed Sicilian with 3.g3, or postpone the choice further with 3.Nbc3. 2.Ne2 has one drawback that Capablanca's opponents didn't exploit: 2...Nf6 3.Nbc3 d5! with a good game. Note that 4.e5 is well met by 4...Ng4!, when Stockfish 17 says that Black is a little better after 5.d4 Nc6 6.Bf4 f6 7.exf6 Nxf6, or much better after 5.f4?! e6! (which no one has played!), one line being 6.Ng3 Qh4! This variation is probably why Chameleon Sicilian advocate Andrew Soltis plays 2.Nc3 first.

Note that in CG's database Capablanca never played 2.g3. That allows the immediate 2...d5!, which more or less equalizes straightaway. I have responded to 2.Ne2 with 2...Nc6, allowing 3.g3 d5!, but Fischer couldn't play 2...Nc6 because it allows 3.d4! No Najdorf! After 2.Ne2 d6 3.g3, Pachman in <Semi-Open Games> recommended playing 3...d5!? anyway! If instead 3.Nbc3, the unusual 3...Nd4!? is one of Black's best moves, e.g. G Jacewicz vs F Rhine, 2024. Note the comical variation 4.g3?? Nf3#! C F Heng vs B Oh, 2017.

Capablanca's opponents responded to his 2.Ne2 with either 2...Nc6 or 2...d6. After 2...Nc6, Capablanca indeed played all three moves: 3.Nbc3, 3.d4, and 3.g3 Repertoire Explorer: Jose Raul Capablanca (white). After 2...d6, he chose between 3.d4 and 3.g3. Repertoire Explorer: Jose Raul Capablanca (white). Note that after 2.Ne2 d6 3.g3, White doesn't have to transpose to Closed Sicilian lines with a later Nbc3. Having left c3 open, he can later play c3 followed by d4, as in Capablanca vs G Wheatcroft, 1939. I once saw IM Robert Gruchacz asphyxiate Albert Charles Chow in this line.