| Jan-04-04 | | Whitehat1963: One of only five times Capablanca played the QGA, and his only win as black in three games (according to this site). |
|
| Sep-12-05 | | yunis: why not 22.Qxd3? |
|
Sep-12-05
 | | WannaBe: <yunis> trading ♕ for ♘?? Then what would white do? |
|
| Sep-12-05 | | peabody88: <yunis> if 22.♕xd3 cxd3 Maybe you meant 23.♕xd3 and what I think is that it allows 23... ♘c5 and now if 24.♘xc5 ♗xc5 and the ♘ in f3 and the pawn in d4 are under double attack. The ♗ in c5 can´t be taken by the pawn in d4 because of the pin by the rook. |
|
| Jul-14-06 | | tonsillolith: Capablanca would not have been able to win the game without playing on the kingside in the endgame with the use of the g-file, or it would have been more difficult at least. Did he know this when he played 33...g6? If so, I am very impressed. |
|
Aug-28-08
 | | GrahamClayton: Capablanca noted on his score sheet that he should have played 30...Nc4, and if 31. Rb5 d2 32. Rb1 Ne5 33.Ne3 Rc8 and Black wins at once. |
|
| Aug-28-08 | | visayanbraindoctor: <tonsillolith: Capablanca would not have been able to win the game without playing on the kingside in the endgame with the use of the g-file, or it would have been more difficult at least. Did he know this when he played 33...g6? If so, I am very impressed.> I am very impressed. Capa apparently intentionally isolated the white a5 pawn, already foreseeing the maneuver 39...Rc3 and 41...Rh3 On 33. Kg2, the position is materially equal and much simplified. 90% of such games would probably be drawn. Note that Capa does not immediately attack the weak white pawn on d4. Instead, he first creates a new weakness (the white a5 pawn) by 33...g6, so that white now has two weak pawns. Excellent judgment and possibly the only practical chance to win. (Most players probably would have automatically focused immediately on the white d4 pawn.) Then he gradually zeroes on these two weaknesses, eventually winning an almost equal game. I wonder what would happen if the position on 33. Kg2 occurred in a super GM tournament; how would our super GMs treat this endgame? |
|
Sep-02-08
| | GrahamClayton: Source: CN 2114 Edward Winter, "Kings, Commoners & Knaves", Russell Enterprises, 1999 |
|
| Jun-04-14 | | visayanbraindoctor: For fans of the relentless endgame grind-out (if one is to use the terms applied to many of Fischer and Carlsen's games): This is another game that the perfectionist Capablanca condemns <Capablanca noted on his score sheet that he should have played 30...Nc4, and if 31. Rb5 d2 32. Rb1 Ne5 33.Ne3 Rc8 and Black wins at once.>. Yet he says nothing of the classical way he won anyway from which chess players may learn from. Capa demonstrates a basic endgame strategy: Playing against two weaknesses or targets.
In fact, Kupchik had only one weakness, the d4 pawn. But Capa intentionally creates another weakness in White's position, the h5 pawn, which happens to be the one that he later on takes. <Note that Capa does not immediately attack the weak white pawn on d4. Instead, he first creates a new weakness (the white h5 pawn) by 33...g6, so that white now has two weak pawns. Excellent judgment and possibly the only practical chance to win. (Most players probably would have automatically focused immediately on the white d4 pawn.)> Now why didn't Capablanca explain in more detail how he won, but simply condemns his own play as inefficient? Surely the art of creating and exploiting two weaknesses in endgames should be taught to all aspiring chess players. It's annoying that he has this habit, just taking it matter of factly that everyone would see what he immediately saw, leaving a dearth of explanations in his writings. |
|
| Jun-04-14 | | ughaibu: If the only source is a note written on his scoresheet, then presumably he was writing for his own benefit. If so, he did explain sufficiently. |
|
Feb-13-17
 | | wwall: Perhaps the losing move is 42.Nd3 since White will not be able to protect the d4 pawn with his knight. Better may be 42.Kc1, and if 42...Rxh5, then 43.Rxb3 Rh4 44.Rf3 Kg6 (44...Rxd4 45.Rxf7+ Kg6 46.Rf8 looks like a draw) 45.Nc2 and White may be able to draw this endgame. |
|
May-08-22
 | | kingscrusher: <visayanbraindoctor> Okay this is frightening indeed for accuracy - checking with a modern engine, only 2 inaccuracies picked up in Capablanca's play - and one of them Capablanca noted - the Nc4 at move 30. https://lichess.org/3yEMtbpY#60
Now I am starting to think maybe Capablanca was sometimes more accurate than Lasker. |
|
May-08-22
| | kingscrusher: Maybe "26. THE SUDDEN ATTACK FROM A DIFFERENT SIDE" is related to the notion of attacking two weaknesses or targets See: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/338...
Section 26
Capablanca seems to think this middlegame strategy is useful in endgames. The underlying concept I would say is "Overwhelming threats" which in a turn based game where only one move, multiple threats will overwhelm sometimes. |
|
May-08-22
 | | fredthebear: Capablanca writes of <attacking two weaknesses or targets> (tying up defenders to protection of one weakness, then switching or trading the attack for the other weakness as the defense cannot react efficiently) in his book Chess Fundamentals. Capa had a reputation for deadly accuracy in simplified positions. |
|
Kibitzing
icon.