chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Jose Raul Capablanca vs Emanuel Lasker
"'21 It Was a Very Good Year" (game of the day Dec-31-2011)
Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921), Havana CUB, rd 11, Apr-13
Queen's Gambit Declined: Orthodox Defense. Main Line (D63)  ·  1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 61 times; par: 86 [what's this?]

Annotations by Jose Raul Capablanca.      [26 more games annotated by Capablanca]

Get this game explained with Decode Chess
explore this opening
find similar games 23 more Capablanca/Lasker games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: Premium members can see a list of all games that they have seen recently at their Game History Page.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-31-11  MyDogPlaysChess: <danderie>, when <perfidious> wrote his remark, he didn't have <DrMal>'s supporting evidence. The Rybka analysis followed his not very diplomatic remark.

Second, the methodology - presenting a starting and ending point in a game, 28 moves is large gap, gives room for possibilities in between. I found the games strategic ideas instructive. This is a battle between two classical giants. They were making theory at the time, some of which we feed today to Rybka in it's opening book.

As a weaker player than many, <DrMal> included, I find comments like <16. To prevent c5, either now or a later stage. There is no Black bishop and White’s whole plan is based on that fact. He will attempt, in due time, to place a knight on d6.> instructive. It is something that a tool like RYbka won't ever help me understand.

I couldn't help to notice that <DrMal> statements that <very little was accomplished during the next 28 moves>, on a game with 48 moves, and <Capa's annotation at move 13 may not be charming but it is certainly accurate. It is one of the few that is> contrasts with you statement that <This the 11th game is an absolute gem in every way>

The fact that Rybka and other engines exists have changed chess preparation forever. In spite of their many uses, we won't ever remember all of their advise and play them over the board. At the end, we have to integrate their analysis into theory and abstraction that we can remember and use. It is not simply "egos" or "human stupidity"; it is chess at the very top as expressed by Anand, Kramnik and many other GMs. I expect Rybka and lesser engines to find mistakes in both book analysis (I love to run engines against older book analysis!) and game played by the cream of chess - the Kasparov, Botvinnik, Karpov, Fischer, Tal, Korchnoi, etc. It often gets me lost too, specially when learning from a pragmatic Lasker, or understanding a move within the context of a tournament or match development, where the player goal plays a large role.

I wouldn't dare to analyze one of my games without an engine. One last remark: in response to several after the game analysis Fischer used to remark, "yeah, but could you have found it over the board?"

Best regards.

Dec-31-11  AVRO38: Great game, great match! It's easy to get drawn into the "who was better" debate, but such a debate is pointless in my opinion.

To me, Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine are equal in strength and in a class by themselves. When they faced each other in 1921 and 1927 the younger man won, as is natural in a long match between two equal talents.

Rather than bemoan all the "what if" matches in chess history, like Fischer-Karpov for example, I'm just extremely grateful that the two ultimate dream matches actually DID happen! i.e. Lasker-Capablanca, and Capablanca-Alekhine. Those two matches not only represent chess at the highest level, but chess at the highest level possible.

Happy New Year!

Dec-31-11  nathanschulz: <arnaud> that's what I thought too! Got a feeling '21 is gonna be a good year.
Dec-31-11  King Death: <MyDogPlaysChess> If you read what <perfidious> said, he might have been taking issue with <DrMAL>'s comment at the end that "Morphy would have clobbered them both." Maybe he or she got a little hot about the rest, but I don't agree with the Morphy statement either even though I respect <DrMAL>'s analysis and contributions a whole lot.

You say that you wouldn't dare to analyze one of your games without an engine. I have to admit I don't have one but what's the fun in relying on the engine for all of its input? It seems like it would take away from the process of learning unless you had enough understanding of the game.

Dec-31-11  AlphaMale: Clobber is a vernacular English term for clothes, so I like to think pretty boy Morphy would indeed have pawned Capa and Lasker in the sartorial stakes.
Dec-31-11  Oceanlake: I wrote "...Capablanca at his best...."

I don't think he was at his best in 1927, nor, from later history, did Alekine.

Jan-03-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  kevin86: The fee for Qxf8 is immediate mate.Capa talks a good game as well as he plays it.
Mar-17-12  Norbi506: 25. Nxe8
"This Bishop had to be taken, since it threatened to go to h5, pinning the Knight." The bishop is doing absolutely nothing... Pinning the night had to be a big plan in blacks counterplay = LOL
Mar-17-12  ephesians: If black can get the bishop to h5 and chop on f3, it undermines white's control of e5. White's control of e5 is his trump in this postion.
Mar-17-12  whithaw: This is a beautiful, beautiful game... Extremely clear play.
Mar-18-12  Norbi506: You are probably right. Maybe that tempo on the Q (23.Ndb) was the issue. The pin shouldnt be a problem for Capa.
Sep-05-15  SimplicityRichard: <FSR: ....six times to Alekhine as Lasker did in his life.>

Well spotted.#

Sep-05-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: It's a shame to see the grammatical errors in the notes.

On a chess note, I continue to believe Lasker is vastly underrated in chess history. A really strong case can be made he was the best ever, though few people rate him there.

Sep-05-15  TheFocus: <OhioChessFan> <It's a shame to see the grammatical errors in the notes. On a chess note, I continue to believe Lasker is vastly underrated in chess history. A really strong case can be made he was the best ever, though few people rate him there.>

I believe Lasker was the strongest chess player ever. He would have spanked Carlsen like a yard dog.

Sep-05-15  Howard: Why Fischer didn't include Lasker in his, very questionable, list of the top-ten players of all time, has always been a mystery. Granted, the two of them had very different styles, but Lasker's greatness is simply unquestionable.
Sep-05-15  RookFile: He gave a reason at the time, which is that Lasker was a coffeehouse player. However, Profile of a Prodigy reported that later Fischer changed his mind and saw Lasker's greatness.
Sep-06-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: <Howard: Why Fischer didn't include Lasker in his, very questionable, list of the top-ten players of all time, has always been a mystery. Granted, the two of them had very different styles, but Lasker's greatness is simply unquestionable.>

The 1964 list was as follows:
Morphy
Staunton
Steinitz
Tarrasch
Chigorin
Alekhine
Capablanca
Spassky
Tal
Reshevsky

To Fischer's credit he did not do what most people do when asked for an all-time favourite list, which is to give a list of World Champions plus a few other players. He did nor include Petrosian (the WC), Smyslov, Rubinstein or Botvinnik.

The inclusion of Staunton is an oddity, but if Fischer liked him then that's that, it's a fait accompli!

And if Lasker wasn't one of Fischer's favourite players in 1964, then why should he go on the list?

Sep-06-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: <Why Fischer didn't include Lasker in his, very questionable, list of the top-ten players of all time, has always been a mystery. >

Because if he had, it would no longer have been 'very questionable'; it would have been slightly or somewhat questionable. Why not just cut to the chase and give us your unquestionable top 10 list for 1964?

Sep-06-15  RookFile: Miss Scarlett asks a good question. I asked myself: "If a time transporter took me back to 1964, what list would I come up with for the all time top 10?"

This is the list I came up with, in alphabetical order:

Alekhine
Botvinnik
Capa
Keres
Lasker
Morphy
Petrosian
Reshevsky
Smyslov
Tal

Sep-08-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: In 1964 this might have been my top 10 list:

Alekhine
Mason
Capablanca
Lasker
Rubinstein
Chigorin
Tarrasch
Marshall
Zukertort
Tal

Sep-08-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: < offramp: In 1964 this might have been my top 10 list: Alekhine
Mason
Capablanca
Lasker
Rubinstein
Chigorin
Tarrasch
Marshall
Zukertort
Tal>

A nice, subtle Bobby tribute. He inexplicably slighted Lasker in favor of Tarrasch; you inexplicably slight Steinitz in favor of Zukertort. Mason is a charming bit of chauvinism, but where are Blackburne and Atkins?

Sep-08-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: <keypusher: < offramp: In 1964 this might have been my top 10 list: Alekhine Mason
Capablanca
Lasker
Rubinstein
Chigorin
Tarrasch
Marshall
Zukertort
Tal>

A nice, subtle Bobby tribute. He inexplicably slighted Lasker in favor of Tarrasch; you inexplicably slight Steinitz in favor of Zukertort. Mason is a charming bit of chauvinism, but where are Blackburne and Atkins?>

That is the problem, isn't it?

The same problem Fischer had. If you are limited to 10 then many players are going to be left out.

I like Steinitz. But I also like Zukertort. But which one is better?

There's only one way to find out...

FIIIIGHT!!

Aug-01-18  EmanuelLasker: This would have been my top ten list in 1964, in alphabetical order:

Alekhine
Botvinnik
Capablanca
Keres
Lasker
Petrosian
Rubinstein
Smyslov
Steinitz
Tal

Honorable mention for Morphy, who might be the best in terms of dominance and how far ahead of his time he was. But due to his era and short chess career, it feels impossible to compare him with the others which is why I left him out.

May-23-20  Saul Goodman: My top ten from 1964

Alekhine
Botvinnik
Capablanca
Fischer (It was already obvious)
Lasker
Morphy
Reshevsky
Smyslov
Steinitz
Tal

The only other players who really have an argument are Keres and Rubinstein, and they are pretty weak arguments.

Oct-17-21  RookFile: I look back on my list from 2015 and wonder about guys like Schlechter and Pillsbury. Oh well.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  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:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. 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.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

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 game 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.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
QGD Orthodox Def. Main Line (D63) 1-0 Superior W Knights
from Emanuel Lasker Collection by hrannar
Capthahn86's favorite games
by Capthahn86
Capablanca!
by wvb933
Chess Highlights of the 20th Century (1/3)
by 50movesaheadofyou
Capablanca vs the World Champions Decisive Games
by visayanbraindoctor
Game 36
from Veliki majstori saha 12 CAPABLANCA (Petrovic) by Chessdreamer
Game 9
from Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (Watson) by cassiooo
ray keene's favorite games
by ray keene
Clean one from Capablanca
from The masters of chess by espee956
sapientdust's favorite games
by sapientdust
Game 9
from Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (Watson) by Okavango
Match Capablanca!
by amadeus
White 48?..
from Guess The Move II by Ercan
The QGD/Slav/Semi-Slav by Zhbugnoimt
by fredthebear
Games
by Sonic Youth
QGD Orthodox Def. Main Line (D63) 1-0 Superior W Knights
from Capa.blanca by fredthebear
Annotated Games
by balasana128
Game 91
from Garry Kasparov's On My Great Predecessors (1A) by demirchess
Like a Boss!
from Crash Test Chess by Tharinda

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC