| Aug-02-07 | | cn1ght: I know 'Spanish' and 'Ruy lopex' are the same opening, but normally a single source keeps the same name throughout, it's strange that this website switches between both names. |
|
| Mar-02-08 | | Knight13: I like the way Capablanca moves his knights around in the closed endgame to weaken white's pawns, but I don't see how that really became helpful. |
|
| Nov-23-09 | | Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: I like the way Capablanca moves his knights around in the closed endgame to weaken white's pawns, but I don't see how that really became helpful.> Capablanca's comment on White's 27th move 27 a4 suggests a part of the answer, as follows. Capablanca wants to play the move ...a5 in order to play ....a4 and so to remove his weak a pawn. With White's c pawn on c2, White can answer ....a5 with a4 and then play Nc4, and attack the Black a5 pawn, thus tying a Rook - a piece of greater value than the Knight- to the defence of the Black a5 pawn. With the White c pawn on c3 this does not work. The b3 pawn lacks a c2 pawn to defend it, and White's N is tied to the defence of the b3 pawn, so that the move Nc4 invites the capture ...Rxb3. |
|
| Nov-08-18 | | JimNorCal: <cn1ght>: "know 'Spanish' and 'Ruy lopex' are the same opening, but normally a single source keeps the same name throughout" I think individuals upload collections. It's plausible that they are not necessarily consistent. |
|
Mar-31-21
 | | Ziryab: Was this game started on 30 March after two hours of play finishing game 5? If so, then 31 March was taken as a rest day. My hunch—so far lacking evidence—is that Hartwig Cassel made a typo in his chart of the dates of play, and that this game was actually played 31 March and 1 April. |
|
Mar-31-21
| | Ziryab: And now I have evidence. American Chess Bulletin (April 1921), p. 72, has this game played on March 31 and April 1. Hartwig Cassel provided this information to ACB, and later produced that chart that appeared in Capablanca’s book on the match. My hunch that he made a clerical error in the chart is supported by his initial report from Havana during the match. |
|
| Mar-31-21 | | sudoplatov: Capablanca's note to move 21 (about the Knight moves being needed to force White to play c3 and thus weaken the pawn on b3 which in turn will need Piece protection illustrates how Grandmasters seem to see infinitely far ahead. Botvinnik remarked similarly in his articles on computer chess. (B talked about "trajectories" of pieces independent of variations.) |
|
| Mar-31-21 | | thelegendisback: <sudoplatov: Capablanca's note to move 21 (about the Knight moves being needed to force White to play c3 and thus weaken the pawn on b3 which in turn will need Piece protection illustrates how Grandmasters seem to see infinitely far ahead. Botvinnik remarked similarly in his articles on computer chess. (B talked about "trajectories" of pieces independent of variations.)> Capa was just trying to make himself look smart in reality for sure white is better until he plays a4 on move 27. Surely f4 is much more logical. Afterwards Lasker starts to play badly for example Nc4 is just horrible. All in all not a very good game by two of the most overrated world champions. |
|
Mar-31-21
 | | beatgiant: <thelegendisback>
Trying to get White to play c3 to weaken his pawn structure is standard operating procedure, so I wouldn't call it <seeing infinitely far ahead> but nor would I call it <trying to make himself look smart>. In fact, it's interesting to consider whether it might be better for White to allow Black's ...Nd4 and only kick the knight out with c3 later on. The disadvantage is White would have to tie down a rook for a while to defend the c2 pawn. White played 27. a4 to prevent Black's playing 27...a4 himself. By move 32, White's advantage is slight and I don't see why you think 32. Nc4 is <just horrible>. What would you suggest instead? |
|
Apr-01-21
| | Ziryab: It might be worth your time to compare Capablanca’s comments to those of Lasker on this game. http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2021... |
|
Apr-22-22
 | | Chessical: "DR LASKER REQUIRES 40 MINUTES TO DECIDE ON A CHESS MOVE. The sixth game in the contest for the world chess championship, which is proceeding in Havana between Senor Capablanca and Dr. Lasker was adjourned after 37 mores. The first eight moves came rapidly, but for the 15th Dr. Lasker required 40 minutes to decide what to do. while Senor Capablanca devoted twenty minutes to his own 16th move." [Dundee Courier - Saturday 2nd April 1921] |
|
| Jun-15-22 | | Ulhumbrus: <Ziryab> In the page to which you have given a link Lasker's comment on Black's twentieth move 20...Ng5 is <Black uses the knight very skilfully. Of course, nothing comes out of all of this. You can do almost any maneuver with the minor pieces in balanced positions, as long as they do not change the situation significantly> |
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 