 |
This is perhaps one of the most famous games of chess ever played. You cannot have played chess for more than five years without someone showing you this game at least once. Some have also said that this game is one of the best - if not the very best - Lasker ever played. (I definitely have to disagree there.)
I have worked on this game for practically my whole chess career. I first annotated it for a Florida Scholastic publication around 1974. (It went bust just a short time later, I hope my writings were not the cause!) When I first went into the Air Force, one of my relatives stored a lot of things in their attic. I had a very large box full of writings, spiral-bound notebooks, legal pads, etc. I had two or three notebooks on this one game alone. (This box of writings was later destroyed in a fire.) I have since annotated this game many times. When I was in the Air Force, (and stationed at Albuquerque); I did a lot of writing for New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. I clearly remembered annotating this game during that period. I went to a tournament shortly after this annotation job was published in a state magazine. One guy was very upset that I dare to criticize Capa's play, another guy wanted to punch my lights out for my daring to suggest that Lasker's play might have not been perfect. (Sigh.)
This is another game that I have used to test dozens of computers on. (Before computers got so powerful, it was fun to see at what point they considered White to be winning. Most programs would not even consider e5!! for White - too materialistic, I guess.)
I had a good friend who was a Navy pilot candidate here in Pensacola. (1985?) Shortly after he got transferred to his "permanent duty station," (North or South Carolina, I believe.) I annotated this game and sent it to him. They published a part of that analysis in their State Magazine.
Since I started my web page(s), I have gotten literally HUNDREDS of e-mails about this game. (Asking me, "When are you going to analyze this game?") I have about 10 different jobs of annotations on floppy disks, that I have done on this game over the years. Most of the time, I was NOT very happy with the way I had annotated this game.
While I am not entirely certain this version is my very best work, it will at least serve as a point of reference. Feedback is very welcome. But also bear in mind that you should check any ideas or questions against a good computer program BEFORE sending them to me. (PLEASE!!) I NEVER do any analytical work, (post 2000); that I do not check at least one time on the computer. Analysis engines are very good about catching the big tactical mistakes. (Mate in 'X' ... a combination that drops a piece.) They are still not 100% reliable when it comes to questions of strategy ... or complex end-games. (July, 2003.)
This is mostly a text-based page, with only a few diagrams.
Therefore,
you will probably want ... or need a chess-board.
Click HERE to see this game (UN-annotated) ... in java-script re-play form.
Click HERE to see an explanation of the symbols that I use in annotating a chess game.
|
***************************************************************************************************************
One of the most well-known games
of all time, and also a very important
game - in terms
of chess history. (This contest also decided first
place in the tournament.)
It was rare - very rare - to see a
game between two of the world's
best players, and see
them basically
go all-out for a win.
(This was the round seven encounter
from the finals of the historic master
tournament
in St. Petersburg.)
*************************
The ratings are exact, and come
from Jeff Sonas's rating list for
December 31st, 1913.
(I would have rated Capa around 2750, based on his more recent
performances.)
***
According to Jeff Sonas, these two
contestants were clearly ...
THE TWO BEST PLAYERS! ... in the whole world.
***************************************************************************************************************
1.e4 e5; 2.Nf3 Nc6;
3.Bb5 a6; 4.Bxc6,
This is the Exchange Variation ... designed to give White a small but
steady pull in
the ending. (Lasker had used this before, and
Capa had previously condemned
it in print.)
More than anything else, I think this
variation shows respect. Lasker plays
a line
where only he has winning
chances, and it is next to impossible
to lose with.
"A surprising choice ... " - GM Garry Kasparov.
'!?' - GM Garry Kasparov.
[ The following moves:
4.Ba4 Nf6; 5.0-0 Nxe4; 6.d4 b5;
7.Bb3 d5;
8.dxe5 Be6;
9.Nbd2 Nc5; 10.c3 d4!?; "~" {Diagram?}
had been played between these
same two players - in a previous
round. They only agreed to a draw
after 100 moves had been made!!
J.R. Capablanca - Em.
Lasker; Final (winners) Section, Rd. # 2
St. Petersburg, Russia, 1914. ]
4...dxc6; 5.d4!?,
White immediately heads for a trade
of the ladies ... and the ending that
ensues.
[ More often than not:
>/= 5.0-0, {Diagram?}
is played in this position today.
[See MCO, or any good book
on the Ruy Lopez.]
5...f6!?;
{Diagram?}
Black has many moves at this point.
(...Bg4, ...Bd6; etc.)
6.d4 exd4!?;
{Diagram?}
This is probably the most reliable,
although ...Bg4 is often played
in this position as well.
(6...Bg4!?; "~")
7.Nxd4,
{Diagram?}
This seems to be best, although
the capture with the Queen is
both
interesting and playable.
(= 7.Qxd4!?, "+/=")
7...c5;
8.Nb3 Qxd1; 9.Rxd1 Bg4; 10.f3 Be6;
11.Nc3 Bd6;
12.Be3 b6;
{Diagram?} The end of the column.
13.a4 Kf7!;
14.a5 c4; 15.Nd4 b5; 16.Nxe6 Kxe6;
"=" {Diagram?}
GM Nick de Firmian considers this
position to be equal, and I do not
disagree with him.
V. Meyers - GM A. Onischuk; Hamburg, 1993.
[ See MCO-14; page # 56, column # 2, and note # (k.). ] ]
5...exd4; 6.Qxd4 Qxd4; 7.Nxd4 Bd6!?;
While this was condemned by
many authors, it looks perfectly
reasonable to me.
[ Opening theory recommends that
Black play:
>/= 7...Bd7;
"~" {Diagram?} in this position.
For example: Kr. Georgiev (2529)
- J.P. Le Roux (2364);
17th Masters Tourn, 2003. (Black won a long game.)
]
8.Nc3 Ne7!?; 9.0-0,
This is rather routine, but it is
adequate for a (very) small edge
for White.
[ 9.Bg5!? ]
9...0-0; 10.f4 Re8!?;
Some writers called this ... "The Losing Move." But this
is simply ludicrous.
In fact, ...Re8
looks very playable ... even good!
... to me.
[ Interesting was:
10...Bc5!?;
Or >/= 10...f5!?; "~" - Tarrasch ]
White now withdraws the Knight ...
knowing that too many exchanges
will lead to a draw.
11.Nb3 f6; {See
the diagram just below.}
The great Capablanca wishes to
restrain White's central pawn
majority.
This appears to be a
very logical idea.
***************
|
|
***************
The normally sober Reti - whose judgment is usually very accurate -
condemns this
move, and attaches
a whole question mark. To me,
this is MUCH too severe and really
an over-reaction to Capa's loss.
"An absolutely unnecessary defensive move ... " - GM Richard Reti.
I have DEEPLY analyzed this game,
with the help of computers and the
latest chess
programs. (Fritz 8.0) Just about all the programs evaluate
this position as equal, or
even as a
little better for Black. The move ...f6;
looks not only playable ... but like a
wise precaution as well.
[ Black could also play: 11...Ng6!?; {Diagram?}
or even the move: 11...Bg4!?;
{Diagram?}
but neither try looks as solid
as the move actually
played
by the great Capablanca.
Interesting was: 11...b6!?; "~"
{Diagram?}
possibly even with the idea of playing
a later ...Pawn-at-a6-to-a5. ]
12.f5!, (Maybe - '!!')
{Diagram?}
A glorious move. White risks a
permanently backward e-pawn
to cramp Black and
keep Capa
from being able to develop his
Queen's Bishop in this position.
'!' - GM Garry Kasparov.
[ After the moves:
12.Be3!? Nd5!; "=/+" {Diagram?}
Black is OK, maybe even slightly
better. And a line like
this - that
might catch the average player -
clearly illustrates
the venom in
Capablanca's set-up.
The continuation of: 12.Bd2!? Bd7;
13.Rad1 Rad8;
14.h3!?
b6!; "~" {Diagram?}
(with the idea of ...Pawn-at-a6
to-a5); leaves Black with
no
real problems. ]
12...b6!?;
This move has many purposes,
to prevent a White piece from
landing on the
c5-square, and
also allow Black to be able to
develop his Queen's Bishop.
This was criticized as VERY weak
by several authors, (Amos Burn);
yet it
appears to me that Black may
have to play this sooner or later.
[ Maybe better was:
12...a5!?; ('!')
"~" {Diagram?}
with the idea of ...a5-to-a4. ("=/+")
]
13.Bf4 Bb7?!; (Hmmm.)
{Diagram?}
This move has been viciously
attacked and has even been
labeled (by some)
as the losing
move. (again)
{One author even gave this move a DOUBLE-QUESTION MARK, and said:
"After this, Black is unable to save his game."}
'?' - GM Andrew Soltis. '?' - IM Amos Burn.
'?!' - GM Garry Kasparov. ("My Great Predecessors," Part I.)
The main drawback to this move is
that White leaves Black with a very
weak and
permanently backward
pawn on the d6-square. And while this
move is indeed
inadequate, I am
100% certain that this move (alone)
is not the reason for Black's
loss
in this game.
Maybe Capablanca believed that
Lasker would NEVER un-double
his pawns???
If so, this would go
a very long way in explaining Capablanca's conduct of this
whole opening!
[ With the very simple moves of:
>/= 13...Bxf4;
14.Rxf4 Rd8; ('!')
This is probably the best
move here.
***
( Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich, and many
others give a long line
that begins with ...c5; here. The analysis of that line is quite
extensive.
I will give the very short version here:
14...c5; ('!?')
15.Rd1 Bb7; {Diagram?}
Capa and Nimzo got this far in their analysis.
16.Rf2 Rad8; 17.Rxd8, {Diagram?}
The correct move, according to the great Lasker himself.
( Capa gave Rfd2?! here ... but that is not at all that impressive.
17.Rfd2?! Rxd2; {Diagram?} This was thought to be incorrect.
18.Rxd2 Bc6!; "~" ("=/+") {Diagram?}
and Black has nothing to fear.
(One plan for Black is simply to play ...Kf7; ...Rc8; ...Ke8; and
then ...Rd8; trading Rooks.) )
17...Rxd8; 18.Rd2 Rxd2; 19.Nxd2,
{Diagram?}
Lasker got this far.
Now I found a major improvement.
19...Nc8!; 20.Kf2 Nd6; 21.Ke3
Kf7!; "=" {Diagram?}
Black is fine here, ALL the key squares are covered.
Black has a very durable position here, MULTIPLE computer tests
have confirmed this. (That Black has at least a draw from here. )
***
15.Rff1 Bb7;
16.Rad1 c5; "="
{Diagram?}
Black has almost full equality.
]
14.Bxd6!,
The correct idea. Although this
'repairs' Black's Pawn Structure,
Capa will always ... "feel the heat"
down the d-file ...
for the rest of
the game.
'!' - GM Andrew Soltis.
[ 14.Rad1 Bxf4; 15.Rxf4 Rad8; "~" ]
14...cxd6; 15.Nd4!,
White immediately heads for the
"outpost" square on e6.
"Capablanca admitted that he did not see this move when he played
13...Bb7."
- GM Garry Kasparov. ("My Great Predecessors," Part I.)
??? (Source?)
[ Average moves don't put any
pressure on Capa, i.e.,
15.Rf2!? Rad8;
16.Nd4 Bc8; and Black appears to be fine. ]
15...Rad8?;
Just plain silly. While the piece
congestion that Black experiences
after this
move may not be terminal,
Capa is made to suffer for a long
time.
'?' - GM Garry Kasparov. (CB) '?' - GM Andrew Soltis.
Black simply had to swallow his pride, and play ...Bc8[]; in this position.
[ Black should play:
>/= 15...Bc8; "="
{Diagram?}
with a strange position.
or even 15...Ra7!?; "~" ]
16.Ne6 Rd7; 17.Rad1 Nc8!?;
(Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?}
I think this is exactly the kind of
position that calls for endless
maneuvering.
I also don't think this
move is near as bad as it has
been made out to be. But Capa
and Soltis both harshly condemn
this move. The great Cuban goes
one step further,
calling it ... "the fatal error."
'?' - Jose R. Capablanca '?' - GM Andrew Soltis.
In his book, "The Art Of Defense,"
Soltis postulates that ... the majority
of the time ...
one weakness alone is
usually NOT enough to lose a game!! If he is correct, all
Capa has to do is
avoid creating any more problems,
and avoid opening lines -
and he
should be able to hold this position.
Another point to consider is that the
move ...Nc8; has no real effect on
most programs
evaluations' of this
particular position. Objectively, a
truly bad move is going to have
some impact on the way a machine
'scores' the position!
[ Capa said better was:
17...c5!?;
{Diagram?} in this position.
But I am not
so sure about this. (Black
gains a diagonal for his
Bishop,
but White might play a later Nd5.)
Many strong programs - like
Fritz and ChessMaster - pick
the
move: 17...Kf7!?;
{Diagram?}
in this position.
The move: 17...a5!?;
{Diagram?}
might also be playable in this
position. ]
18.Rf2 b5!?; (Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?}
Black gains some Q-side space.
Probably the case of the wrong
pawn. By advancing his QRP, with
the idea of ...Ba6-c4xe6; I think
Black may be able to hold the
balance.
Black plans a later ...a5, but he is never given that chance.
[ After the move,
>/= 18...a5!; "~"
(Maybe "=") {Diagram?}
I don't think Black will lose.
(I played a correspondence game,
{from this particular position};
with a player who is one of the
better correspondence players -
at least by rating - in the USA. I
held the draw ... without any
great difficulties.)
Interesting was: 18...Kf7!? (Unclear?) ]
19.Rfd2 Rde7; ('!')
Correctly side-stepping White's
battery, and avoiding any later
tactical tricks.
20.b4!,
This gains space, and fixes
Black's Queen-side Pawns. It
is also useful (later)
when Lasker
wants to open lines on that side
of the board.
'!' - GM Andrew Soltis.
[ Interesting was: 20.Kf2!? ]
20...Kf7;
It is very useful to have the King
a little nearer the center in some
variations.
[ One author suggested ...c5 here,
but I think he was on crank:
20...c5?!; ('?')
21.bxc5! dxc5; 22.Nxc5 b4!?; 23.Nd5,
'±' {Diag?}
and White is clearly MUCH
better in this position. (Maybe
"+/-") ]
We are coming to a very critical
point in this game.
21.a3 Ba8?!; (Probably - '?')
{See the diagram just below.}
"The question mark is deserved, not
by the move, but for the idea to open
the a-file, which can be used effectively
only by the white rooks. Of course
Black has lost the strategical battle,
... "
- GM Garry Kasparov.
'?' - GM Garry Kasparov. (CB & MGP) '?' - GM Andrew Soltis.
***************
|
|
***************
"Once more changing my plan ...
and this time, without good reason."
- GM J.R. Capablanca.
In the end ... I think Black's next move should simply be ...Bb7.
[ Maybe 21...Rh8!?; was better?
</= 21...Nb6?; 22.Rxd6 Nc4; 23.Rd7, '±' - GM Andy Soltis.
Capa
said that Black should try:
>/= 21...Rxe6;
22.fxe6+ Rxe6; {D?}
as being better than the game -
and he may be right. But I think that
Lasker would have eventually
found a way to win with his extra
material. ]
22.Kf2 Ra7!?;
Continuing a bad plan, placing the Bishop back on the b7-square may
have been wiser.
[ 22...Bb7!? ]
Kasparov
gives White's 23rd move here an exclam. ("23.g4!" - GM G.
Kasparov.)
23.g4, ('!') 23...h6;
Preparing a <break-through> on the King-side.
24.Rd3 a5?!; (Probably - '?')
Just about every manual ever
written on defense ... says that the LAST thing
a defender of a bad
position should do is open lines ---> for the attacker ...
or the player who
is better!!
(Soltis makes no comment
here or attaches any kind of mark
at all to
Black's 24th move.)
At chess club one night, I played
...Rae7; and then ...Bb7; and no
one was
able to prove a win for
White. (There was one Master, and
many strong players
were also
present. They actually lost many
times trying break Black's position
open.)
'?' - GM Garry Kasparov. ("My Great Predecessors," Part I.)
[ I am sure that
>/= 24...Rae7!?; "~"
{Diagram?}
with maybe ...Bb7; next move,
was much better than the game. ]
25.h4 axb4!?; 26.axb4 Rae7?;
{Diagram?}
Any good reason ... for abandoning
the open a-file here ...
escapes me completely.
'?' - GM Andrew Soltis. [ '?!' - GM Garry Kasparov. (MGP, Pt. I) ]
"The only consistent move was
26...Ra3." - GM A. Soltis.
(Capa said Black could draw here
with ...Rxe6, but I don't buy it.)
[ I like
>/= 26...Ree7!;
"~" {Diagram?}
when White might be a shade
better, but Black
has chances
to defend.
</=
26...Rxe6?!;
27.fxe6+ Kxe6; 28.Ne2, "+/="
(Maybe - '±')
{D?}
(Capa claims Black could
defend here, but I have my doubts.)
Maybe better was:
26...Ra3!?; {Diagram?}
- GM Andrew Soltis.
]
27.Kf3 Rg8; 28.Kf4 g6!?;
Black now continues on his
course of trying to open lines ...
perhaps looking for counterplay.
'?!' - GM Garry Kasparov. (MGP, Part. # 1.)
[ Possibly 28...Rge8!?; {Diagram?} was playable?
Kasparov recommends 28...g5+; here instead. ]
29.Rg3!?,
A very logical move, the great
Lasker plans on playing g4-g5,
but only after due preparation.
(Soltis says g5 immediately is
better, but I
have analyzed this
position deeply ... even spending
years on this game.
I am not
entirely convinced that Soltis is
correct.)
Better was >/= 29.g5! - Soltis.
"This move prolongs matters ... " - GM Andrew Soltis.
[ After the moves:
= 29.g5!? hxg5+; 30.hxg5 Rh8!;
{Diagram?}
Black gains the h-file. (If Rg1,
then ...Ra7!) I let Fritz 6.0 run
for
over an hour one afternoon
on this position. Although White
is
probably better, NO forced win
was immediately evident.
( Soltis only gives the grossly
inferior continuation of:
</= 30...gxf5?; ('??') 31.exf5 fxg5+?!; 32.Nxg5+ Kf8;
33.Ne6+ Kf7; 34.Ne4!, ("±") {Diagram?}
and White probably wins.
(Probably "+/-".) )
I think it was better to play:
>/= 29.Ra1! Bb7; 30.g5!,
"+/=" {Diag?}
with a small, but clear advantage
for White. ]
Black may have done better to avoid
his next move entirely ...
the open
h-file is one open line too many.
29...g5+!?; {Diagram?}
Black figures he may as well
try and play this ... and stop
White from playing
g5! himself.
"Now White will open the King's
Rook file with (a) decisive
advantage."
- GM Richard Reti.
"The last move to be criticised
by the annotators.
But it's too
late for good advice."
- GM Garry Kasparov.
***
[
Tarrasch, Brinckmann, and Chernev
recommend that Black play the
move: 29...P/g6xP/f5?; ----->
but their analysis has more holes
than
swiss cheese! {My analysis
of this line now runs almost a page
and
a half alone ... so I will definitely
skip it here.}
(I have had literally dozens of requests for my analysis of this line. 10/30/04)
29...gxf5?!; ('?')
{Diagram?}
This move was recommended by Tarrasch, but I have doubts
about this approach.
{According to some programs, White's advantage DOUBLES
after this inaccurate move.}
************
Brinckmann, (also quoted by poor Chernev); give the following (horrible) analysis:
30.exf5 d5; {Diagram?} White is clearly better here.
Now Fritz (6.0) likes g5 here...
31.Rdg1!? Nd6;
32.g5?!; {Diagram?}
Premature. (This advance must be timed a little better.)
(>/= 32.Re1 "+/=")
32...hxg5+; 33.hxg5 fxg5+?; (Probably - '??')
{Diagram?}
Gross, and an oversight.
( Why not: >/= 33...Nxf5; ('!') "/+" {Diagram?}
which practically wins for Black - in this line? )
34.Nxg5+ Ke8; 35.Ne6?!, ('?')
{Diagram?}
This misses a much better move for White.
(After the move: >/= 35.Nge4!, "+/=" White is clearly better.)
35...Rxg3; 36.Rxg3 Ra7??; {Diagram?}
Throws the game away.
( >/= 36...Rf7; "~" (Maybe "=" or "+/=") )
37.Rg8+ Ke7; 38.Rg7+ Nf7; 39.Ng5 Kf8?!;
40.Rxf7+?, ('??') {Diagram?}
Just plain stupid.
( The simple 40.f6!, "+/-" wins easily for White. )
40...Rxf7; 41.Nxf7 Kxf7; 42.Kg5,
"+/=" (Maybe - '±')
{Diagram?}
... "and White wins." But this analysis has more holes
than swiss cheese! {A.J.G.}
(This note added, and the game updated on Thursday; November 4th, 2004.) ]
***
[ Maybe better was:
>/= 29...Ra7!?; {Diagram?}
and delay opening more lines.
]
Now if White plays PxP, PxP/g5+;
and Black will play ...Rh8 here the
next move.
(Black's defensive
resources might be enough to
hold.)
30.Kf3! Nb6?!; ('?')
{Diagram?}
This is very trappy, but I am
not entirely sure if it is best.
("A desperate try." - Kasparov. Soltis makes no comment on
this particular move.)
Maybe Rxe6 was better than Nb6.
(A BIG emphasis on the word,
'maybe' here!)
Most programs notice a fairly
substantial change in their
evaluations of the
position/game
after this move.
(Is this the losing move?)
[ It seemed Black had to play:
>/= 30...gxh4; ('!')
31.Rh3 Ra7!;
32.Rxh4,
"+/=" (Probably - "±")
{Diagram?}
White is clearly better here,
and Black's position is extremely
ugly ... but anything even resembling
a forced win is NOT immediately
evident. (!!!)
{In several tests at the time control
of <game in one hour>, the latest
version
of Crafty is unable to defeat
Junior 6.0 from this position.}
(I have spent over 25 years
analyzing this game, and I
have tested this position
on
nearly every available computer
program. With perfect play, a
draw may yet
be possible!!! It
is certainly superior to the
continuation in the game!) ]
31.hxg5!,
The correct move.
Capa left the d-pawn as bait, but Lasker does not bite!
Now White gets to use the h-file as well ... and I think this dooms Black.
'!' - GM Garry Kasparov. (MGP, Part. # 1)
[ After the moves:
</= 31.Rxd6?! Nc4!;
32.Rd4!? Ne5+; {Diagram?}
... "Black is back in the game." ("=/+")
- GM Andrew Soltis. ]
31...hxg5;
This was obviously forced.
[ 31...Nc4??; 32.gxh6, "+/-" ]
32.Rh3!, {Diagram?}
"Much stronger than taking the QP,
which would have given Black
counter-chances by ...R-R1 and ...Knight-to-B5."
- GM Richard Reti.
(Soltis makes no comment here.)
'!' - GM Garry Kasparov. (MGP, Part # 1.)
[ 32.Rxd6!? ]
32...Rd7;
This is probably best.
[ Maybe a little worse would
have been the continuation:
</= 32...Nc4;
33.Rh7+ Ke8; 34.Ra1! Bb7; 35.Nc7+ Kd7;
36.Rxe7+ Kxe7;
37.Ra7 Rb8?!; 38.Na6, '±' (Maybe "+/-")
{D?}
- GM Richard
Reti. ]
Lasker now vacates the long
diagonal ... the reasons for this
are far from obvious.
(And just about ALL the authors
who have annotated this game
have praised Lasker's
33rd move
in this game. But Soltis makes
no comment.)
33.Kg3! Ke8; 34.Rdh1 Bb7!?;
{See the
diagram ... just below here.}
Black struggles to try and hold
the balance.
"Black is running out of moves." - Irving Chernev.
***************
|
|
***************
[ Was the move:
34...Kf7!?; {Diagram?}
an improvement here?
</= 34...Ra7?; 35.Rh8!; "+/-" {Diagram?}
</= 34...Nc4??; 35.Rh8 Rxh8; 36.Rxh8+ Ke7; 37.Rxa8, "+/-" ]
Now White breaks through with
one of the best illustrative examples
of a
breakthrough / clearance
sacrifice ... from an actual game.
("A textbook example," says Soltis.)
35.e5!!,
(Maybe - '!!!') {Diagram?}
Completely inspired and brilliant. (A Knight comes to e4, and Black
can no longer
defend all the key
squares and open lines.)
"An artistic vacating sacrifice." - Irving Chernev.
According to one account in a
Russian newspaper, Capa literally
sagged in
his chair. It was obvious
that he had overlooked this move.
(And without this breakthrough,
a win may NOT be possible.)
'!!' - GM Garry Kasparov. (MGP, Part # 1.)
[ Interesting was: 35.Rh6!?, '±' ]
35...dxe5;
This could be forced here.
[ </=
35...fxe5?!; 36.Ne4 Nd5; 37.Rh7! Bc8;
38.Rh8!,
"+/-" {Diagram?} - GM Andy Soltis.
</=
35...d5?; 36.exf6 Kf7; 37.Nc5,
"+/-" {Diagram?}
... "is crushing."
- GM Andy Soltis ]
Now Black continues to squirm,
but cannot get off the hook.
(If it makes you happy, you may
give both of White's next two
moves an exclam.)
36.Ne4 Nd5; 37.N6c5, {Diagram?}
'!'
- GM Garry Kasparov. (MGP, Part #
1.)
[ 37.Rh8!? ]
37...Bc8;
Unfortunately this is forced.
"Black must give up the exchange
here." - Dr. J. Hannak.
(Possibly quoting Reti.)
White now finishes off sharply. (By encirclement.)
38.Nxd7 Bxd7; 39.Rh7 Rf8; 40.Ra1, ('!')
{D?}
'!'
- GM Garry Kasparov. (MGP, Part #
1.)
40...Kd8; 41.Ra8+ Bc8; 42.Nc5, ("+/-") {Diagram?} Black Resigns. (1 - 0)
{White threatens several mates ...
and/or a win on material. The cutest
is 42...Nb6;
(This is forced. White now
threatened Rd7+! and Rxc8#.)
43.Nb7+, Ke8; 44.Nd6+, Kd8; 45.Rb8, and Black loses a piece,
because if he
moves his Knight on
b6, RxB/c8 is mate.}
(A long and thunderous applause
for Lasker followed Capa's
resignation here.
Meanwhile Capa sat 'dejected, in a chair ...with his head in his hands.')
"This was Lasker's most glorious
victory, and more than worthy of
a
great occasion."
The one and only - Irving
Chernev.
For perhaps 75 years, writers -
echoing ideas like Chernev, (see just
above);
and Fine - hailed this as one
of the finest games of Lasker's career.
"The psychological effect of this
brilliant victory was long-lasting.
A shaken Capablanca
lost with
White in the next round to Dr.
Tarrasch. And even seven years
later, in his world
championship
match against Lasker, he never
played 3...a6; (!) in the Ruy Lopez!"
- From the CB annotation of this
game. (Reti, Kasparov, etc.)
Lasker's play in this game was
simply incredible, but Capa's play
was absolutely very,
very poor.
(I think it also should be clear by
now that Capablanca's defeat in
this game
is NOT due to any ONE
move!! Rather, it was an accumulation
of less-than-best ideas,
bad strategy, inaccuracies, and doubtful moves
that caused Capa's downfall here.
Perhaps Capa was a victim of his own
press? Did he begin to believe he
was literally
invulnerable over the
chess-board ... as some had begun
to say? (It had been years since
he
had lost a SERIOUS tournament game,
since maybe 1909. His play does
seem to
indicate this.)
GM Andy Soltis gives the amusing
commentary of:
<< "One of the landmarks of chess
history," wrote Fine. But Amos Burn
was more accurate when he said
the game was "simply one of the
worst" Capablanca ever played!
>>
(Soltis considers this a
very over-rated game.)
*************************
Bibliography:
This game has been annotated an almost countless number of times, in
books,
magazines, and newspaper columns. It would be impossible to find and -
and
also consult - every single reference, as ever concerns this epic encounter.
But
I think I have found enough different sources ... and also freely looked at
enough
(sometimes opposing) opinions about this game ... to do at least an
adequate
job. I also have thoroughly computer-checked all of my analysis!
I consulted the following books ... in the order given ... to annotate this game:
NOTE: I must apologize for an omission here. THANKS
to all the friends and
many (former) students who sent me material on this game!!! (Dec. 04,
2003.)
{Without their contributions, this page would NOT have been
possible!}
**********
# 1.) "The 100 Best,"
by GM Andrew Soltis.
(Soltis considers this to be:
"One of the MOST OVER-RATED
games
ever played." His analysis
of this game begins on page # 21.)
# 2.) 'Das Grossmeisterturnier zu St. Petersburg.' (Page # 167.)
# 3.) Several game collections (different
books) on the great Emanuel
Lasker.
(By Hannak, Whyld, Barden, etc.)
# 4.) "The Golden Dozen."
(The 12 greatest players of all time.)
By Irving
Chernev.
# 5.) "Masters Of The Chessboard," by GM Richard Reti. (Dover reprint.)
# 6.) The analysis of this game in
my ChessBase main database.
(By Kasparov, Reti, Tarrasch, et al.)
#
7.) << G.K. on "My Great Predecessors,"
(Part I); >> by GM Garry Kasparov.
(and D. Plisetsky)
Copyright (©) by the author, 2003. Game # 68, page # 210.
Published by EVERYMAN
Chess Series,
(formerly Cadogan Books).
ISBN: # 1-85744-330-6
(Sept. 28-29, '03. I updated this game - from this book.)
#
8.) There were actually several books published on this
tournament ... but just about
all of these are
UN-available today. Probably the most popular was the one done
by Tarrasch - in
German. (See # 2.) There was one done
in English - by Watts, I
believe - but this one is
extremely rare. There was also a book published in
Russia, but this book had
a VERY small initial run. Additionally, the turmoil caused
by the revolution (1917)
resulted in enormous upheaval ... many books were
simply BURNED by the
communists. Layer this over the upheaval in Europe
caused by World War I,
(1914-1918) and most - or all - of the books that were
published during that
period were invariably lost.
Fortunately for those of us - like me! - whose German is VERY poor, there
is
now a VERY good book on
this tournament!
"St. Petersburg, 1914. International Chess
Tournament." (Brandreth)
{originally}
by Siegbert Tarrasch. Translated by Dr. Robert Marxham, and
edited by Dr.
Dale A. Brandreth. Copyright (©) 1993, by D.A. Brandreth.
Published in
1993 by CAISSA EDITIONS / Yorklyn, Delaware; 1993.
ISBN: #
0-939433-17-6
The author says this is simply a translation of the original, but he is MUCH
too
modest. There is
MUCH additional material ... that was gleaned from dozens
of different
sources. And while the game annotations are old - and have not
been checked by any
modern player with a strong computer - this may be the
ONLY decent book on
this tournament in English. The only catch is that this
book {ALSO} was not
printed in great numbers, and is already getting a little
hard to find. (Many
book sellers list it as OUT OF PRINT.)
I did NOT have this book when I first annotated this game, I only recently
...
(late Nov. 2003)
managed to acquire this tremendous book.
I may have to go back and add MANY comments and quotes from this book,
it is very, very,
very interesting and is an excellent source of material!!!
***************
{Several other books - like the one
by Pachman - have a fairly good
analysis of
this game as well.}
NOTE: Several students sent me
several magazine and newspaper
articles - that
were copied from
various archives - on this particular
game.
***************************************************************************************************************
(Code Initially) Generated with ChessBase 8.0
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I. Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003.
Click HERE
to go to a web page ... with a frank discussion of this tournament
...
and a complete list of all the players. (Scroll
down to the bottom of the page.)
There is no site map, but you can click here.
Click here
to go to - or return to - my page of:
ANNOTATED GAMES, (Angel-Fire 2) Page #3.
Click here to go to my (main) "Recent GM Games" page.
***
Click HERE
to go to (or return to) my page ...
devoted entirely to the great player, Emanuel
Lasker.
***
Click here
to go to, (or return to) my
"Best Games Page" on my Geo-cities
web site.
(Or use the "back" button on your web browser.)
(To contact me concerning this analysis, click here.)
This
is a page that I have started many times. About 3-4 years ago, when I first
opened this website, I briefly
annotated this game, but never posted it here. (I
wanted to do a better analysis of the game than I had done,
previously.)
I
have received countless e-mails asking me when I was going to do it. I am
finally getting around to it again
in a serious way. I finally have a version of
this game that I am halfway happy with.
This
is NOT my long version of this game, but rather a
shorter version I did specifically for my web pages.
If you would like a version of this game to study on your own, let me know. (I
will have to charge a very modest
fee, mainly to defray the cost of printing,
postage fees, that sort of thing.)
I had another
page on this game ... that was posted on my "Excite" web site in
approximately 1994.
But that group of servers went bust a long time back. (Late '90's?)
***
This page was
first posted, (here): Monday, December 10th, 2001.
(The page
had no game analysis then, it went unused and sat idle for a very long
time.)
This page was last
updated on: Tuesday, July 18, 2006
.
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 1975 - 2005.
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2006. All rights reserved.
|
|
