why do people always insult and criticize the commentator for these videos? if you dont like him, dont watch the videos... im grateful that i can watch this and listen to commentary for free
Yo, I just looked at the first four or so comments and everyone is complaining for some ridiculous reason about your videos. I just found your TH-cam page and am enjoying your game commentary and lessons and reviews of different openings quite a bit; I'm really trying to take my game to the next level and your videos are helping a lot. Thanks so much for what you do!
IMO the older games are much more interesting than the hypermodern era games, bobby fischer and tal were the last truly fascinating chess players to me.
Great game, great analysis but your statement @1:37 was kinda bothering so I wanted to make 3 points. 1. Lasker himself was no slouch in the Endgame, in fact you can argue that he was just as good as Capa. 2. Capa has lost endgames before. He's not like Magnus who pushes on in dry positions. If you've seen some of his games, and even Fischer has said this, Capa usually come into the endgame with an advantage because of his superb middlegame play so it isn't strange for Lasker to want to go right into the endgame if he wanted to avoid going into the middlegame with Capa. 3. White has somewhat of an advantage in the Exchange Variation because of his healthy kingside pawn majority which Lasker utilized in this game.
This is an excellent video and explanation of the match. This is the first time I've seen games on youtube which has a visual, as well as, thorough analysis. I've read books on Lasker and Capablanca and trying to follow the games was very tedious and slow.
I am reading Lasker's 1907 essay "Struggle", at present, and wanted to watch some of his matches. I liked your vid very much. Glad to have given the 700th thumb up.
I just think its impressive that Lasker's legacy carries on to this day. Almost one hundred years have passed and in that time new strategies and tactics were formed and developed, but yet this match is still looked at as one of the finest games.
@paulkiss1981 I appreciate the kind words and I would agree that there were no super crazy moves, although e5 was pretty incredible to me. I only hope that I can find moves like that in my own games.
The commenter says that it's "surprising" that Lasker moves quickly to the endgame, given that Capablanca is so strong in the endgame. No, that's exactly wrong: it's *because* Capablanca is so strong in the endgame that Lasker moves to the endgame. Lasker believed in playing the game his opponent most preferred---if the opponent liked having the two bishops (instead of a bishop and a knight), Lasker would give him the two bishops. Lasker's idea was that playing a game that the opponent liked would make the opponent come out and fight, whereupon Lasker could beat him.
There's a move at 17:53 that if it were played it would totally altered the direction of the rest of the game, it's so obvious that to any skilled chess player it can easily be spotted... I'm not going to be "that guy" that spoil the secret
at 4:42 Bc5 is met by 11 Be3 Rd8 12 Rad1 Bg4 13 Rd3 Rd7 14 h3 Rad8 15 hxg4 Bxd4 16 Rxd4 Rxd4 17 Rxd4 Rd1. This simplified white's majority. The best move was 11 f5! after 12 e5 Bc5 13 Be3 Bxd4! 14 Bxd4 b6 15 Be3 Be6 leaves white with a passed pawn but is comfortably blockaded with the bishop on e6.
maybe for you, but i really haven't played all that much chess so i didn't know anything about openings, pins, semi open flanks (?), bishops better than knights early in the game, even all that much about general pressure! I've learnt a huge amount from these clear and dense commentaries, not to mention how amazing the games themselves are to watch after a little explanation.
so ...Bb7 was a prophalactic move because capa wants to avoid the above line if he wants to play say...Nc4 or...Nd5, i know the bishop cant be taken immediately but that was the subtle reason for ...Bb7.
I tend to think that controlling the center is generally a product of good play more than it is a strategy. If your idea is to "control the center" as quickly as possible, then you need to focus on development, and gambits may be your friend. The other thing is, there are two ways to influence the center; you can either do it with central pawns or you can do it from the flanks. Both methods are perfectly acceptable.
An imporant aspect of Lasker's opening is that in the position after move 7 if he could exchange all of the minor pieces and the rooks he would have a won king and pawn ending.
Very detailed analysis! Excellent. But why didnt black move pawn g6 at 12:46? It seems to weaken the centralized pawns and pressurize the knight. Sorry I am a chess beginner, I cant see through that much!! :(
helo chesswebsite. is it a master who is commenting the game? is it possible that he is not that precise in his analyse? cause at 18.29, the commentator says that black gives up a pawn for gaining a good position for his knight. but what i see, is that black will gain the pawn 4 moves later back. after checking the king on e5, and taking the pawn on h4, black will be able to just gain the g4 pawn. or am i missing something?
i too ended up choosing f5 from the pause, although i think it may have been subcontious since i know ive played this game over more than once when going over the exchange variation in my studies, most find it dull and drawish but in the hands of the greats like lasker and fisher it was a fearsome weapon.
You are correct. Bc5 is met by 11 Be3 Rd8 12 Rad1 Bg4 13 Rd3 Rd7 14 h3 Rad8 15 hxg4 Bxd4 16 Rxd4 Rxd4 17 Rxd4 Rd1. This simplified white's majority. The best move was 11 f5! after 12 e5 Bc5 13 Be3 Bxd4! 14 Bxd4 b6 15 Be3 Be6 leaves white with a passed pawn but is comfortably blockaded with the bishop on e6.
Lasker had to win this game to have any chance to catch tournament leader and wunderkind (20 years Lasker's junior) Capablanca at the 1914 St Petersburg tournament. And whenever Lasker had to win, more often than not he did.
When he Capablanca has the option of moving his rook or bishop to defend D6 why doesn't he move knight to C8 defending D6 and allowing his rook to defend E6?
Why does Capablanca move the rook d7 -e7 at 12:49? There seemed to be a more than adequate defense against Lasker's doubled rooks. Something to do with the pawn at e4?
What he said was true, there weren't many moves. Bb7 avoids the tactic you mention, so it's one of the few valid moves. Just because he didn't explicitly go through all the consequences of the other moves doesn't mean he missed the point.
At 4:40, I don’t like Bishop->c5 at all. While you are pinning an unguarded piece to the king, the fact that it is unguarded just guarantees that white will respond with Bishop->e3 the next turn. This breaks the pin and develops another of white’s minor pieces, while black has already developed his dark-square bishop and achieved nothing with the initial attack. Furthermore, white’s center pawns block any attempt black has of removing the defending white bishop if it moves to e3, however since black’s bishop on c5 is unprotected at this point, then white could later in the game move his d4 knight away to attack a piece or check the king and have a discovered attack with the white bishop on e3 threatening the black bishop on c5. And also, if black ever wants to move a rook to d8 to add another attacker to this knight, then white can simply respond with rook->d1. Black would need to set up this play with something like bishop->g4 to prevent this, but white can kill the attack permanently in a number of ways if he has 2-3 turns to do it. So the way I see it, this move gains absolutely nothing, guarantees white will advance his development while black does not, and sets up for potential backfiring traps later.
I don't think Lasker was worried about the pin at all. He has the bishop and rooks to back up the knight. Plus he probably would've moved the king instead of the knight to b3
@Athalxoz i agree. The sad thing is that I've analyzed my own games before and thought "man i could play better than this Kevin guy." It's definitely easy to look at a game after and notice mistakes but I wish I played like Capablanca, even on his bad days.
I think that people forget that a century ago ... chess was not like now : players didn't have computers aso ... so they were mostly counting on their experiences and some books they could find . I do respect those players a bit more than champions of today :)
besides that one bishop move capablanca played engine moves all the way through, pinning the knight on d4 was a move that woulda made him lose tempo, resp lasker woulda gotten out of it easily while bringing out the darksquare bishop.
At 14:20, why couldn't Capablanca play Rd7 followed by an eventual Nb6 and then Nc4, posting the knight on a decent square where it can eye Lasker's rooks and give an additional supporter to d6?
@ 7:32 I saw f6, though I was thinking of setting up an outpost after Nd4.. Nd6, threatening Nc7 to fork rooks which ties the blacks dark bishop into defending c7 as well.
Kevin, since you're writing that book about Bobby Fischer. Can u write about the 1966 game where Romanian Grandmaster Florin Gheorgiu beat Bobby Fischer.
You can say "he brings the knight into the game", or if you want "he gets the knight into the game", or "he gets his knight involved in the game", but NOT "he gets his knight involved into the game", which is what you usually say.
At 14:20, why didn't (or couldn't) Capablanca play ...Nb6 followed by an eventual ...Nc4, posting the knight to eye Lasker's rooks and give d6 and extra defender?
that is interesting since capablanca was beaten by alekhine, who i believe to be the most imaginative player of all time, in 1910 lasker was almost beaten by schletcher, a brilliant player who ironicaly only needed to draw but pushed for a win in a game (schletcher was known for his drawing prowess) i will say this lasker was the greatest chess phsycologist bar none, he didnt believe in making the best move but one that he knew would give his opponent the most trouble
@md65000 ur knight remains pinned cause the white bishop is unprotected u can face it by playing Rd8 and then Kh1 or be3 and the Re8. I wonder why lasker played so early f5
@dnaselfassemby I know, I didn't say the pin was broken - I just said it was easily dealt with :-) Mainly I'm just saying it's an embarrassingly crappy move suggestion. No one over 1300 - or 13 years of age for that matter - would seriously consider playing it.
at 9:17 Bb7 obviousy wasn't the best. Better was 13... Bxf4 14 Rxf4 c5 15 Rd1 Bb7 16 Rf2 Rad8 17 Rxd8 Rxd8 18 Rd2 Rxd2 19 Nxd2. The pawn majority will be able to create a passed pawn
What? No, that's not how it works. I understand that you're a little annoyed over the fact that he criticized the video without leaving a further explanation. However, he was probably expecting a "why". I personally would explain beforehand, but some people don't enjoy writing as much as me, I guess.
@CaraBrimleyRules 1. No reason to be ashamed of myself for having an opinion, nor is anyone required to have any videos up in order to have one either. Thats like me telling you to be ashamed of yourself for not liking my opinion. You are within your right just as I am within mine.
I cant not belive that Capablanca played so bad here. He let Laskers knight doing a hurricane on E6 and it was all over. But I am a Capos fan and I know that he can play much better.
did i say explain every "possible move" of course not , i said explain jut the moves in the game, especially one that involves a posible tactical sequence. you dont just blow over a move and say "just not any moves here" a begginer will think like i said in my other comment that capabalnca has no moves and just played that move for that reason, when the reason is something that involves a tactic , now ive explained this 3 times if you still dont get it then i cant help you
He would have had to put his bishop behind the rook first before he moved his king. Capa knew this would happen, and in that situation, taking the knight would have been better for lasker.
really well if your supposedly analysing a game you might want to explain every move, since every move in ches should be made for a reason, just saying "oh theres just not alot of moves" doesnt cut because m ost would assume capa was just making a waiting move, capablanca was a deep player and he deserves just analysis if your going to take the task of analysing one of his games,
What it is very interesting in this game, it is how Lasker forces Capablanka to play reaction chess. Therefore not having Capablanka play what he really intends on playing
@@chesswebsite Reaction Chess playing would not help you have a plan. Instead of reacting to the threats caused by your opponents find your opponents weakness and create your own threats. Also develop quickly and take charge quickly. Do not waste on passive moves because devolvement is only temporary.
look i think we both made some valid points, and its all just food for thought anyway, and if someone else learns something in our disagreement then so be it
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
why do people always insult and criticize the commentator for these videos? if you dont like him, dont watch the videos... im grateful that i can watch this and listen to commentary for free
Yo, I just looked at the first four or so comments and everyone is complaining for some ridiculous reason about your videos. I just found your TH-cam page and am enjoying your game commentary and lessons and reviews of different openings quite a bit; I'm really trying to take my game to the next level and your videos are helping a lot. Thanks so much for what you do!
Outstanding video, Kevin. Thank you for your hard work...I always learn so much from your well explained analysis.
IMO the older games are much more interesting than the hypermodern era games, bobby fischer and tal were the last truly fascinating chess players to me.
Great game, great analysis but your statement @1:37 was kinda bothering so I wanted to make 3 points.
1. Lasker himself was no slouch in the Endgame, in fact you can argue that he was just as good as Capa.
2. Capa has lost endgames before. He's not like Magnus who pushes on in dry positions. If you've seen some of his games, and even Fischer has said this, Capa usually come into the endgame with an advantage because of his superb middlegame play so it isn't strange for Lasker to want to go right into the endgame if he wanted to avoid going into the middlegame with Capa.
3. White has somewhat of an advantage in the Exchange Variation because of his healthy kingside pawn majority which Lasker utilized in this game.
Lasker played him well, Capablanca just accepted all of Laskers tricks
This is an excellent video and explanation of the match. This is the first time I've seen games on youtube which has a visual, as well as, thorough analysis. I've read books on Lasker and Capablanca and trying to follow the games was very tedious and slow.
Kevin you rock, your commentary is excellent and I, as a new chess player, find it exceptionally educational! Top notch!
I am reading Lasker's 1907 essay "Struggle", at present, and wanted to watch some of his matches. I liked your vid very much. Glad to have given the 700th thumb up.
I just think its impressive that Lasker's legacy carries on to this day. Almost one hundred years have passed and in that time new strategies and tactics were formed and developed, but yet this match is still looked at as one of the finest games.
@paulkiss1981 I appreciate the kind words and I would agree that there were no super crazy moves, although e5 was pretty incredible to me. I only hope that I can find moves like that in my own games.
Thank you Mr.Kevin for your work.
I really learn a lot from you commentary, thank you.
Great videos. I would love to see more of these really old games.
I love it when Kevin invites you to sit back and think about the next move. Every once in a while, I actually get it right!
The commenter says that it's "surprising" that Lasker moves quickly to the endgame, given that Capablanca is so strong in the endgame. No, that's exactly wrong: it's *because* Capablanca is so strong in the endgame that Lasker moves to the endgame. Lasker believed in playing the game his opponent most preferred---if the opponent liked having the two bishops (instead of a bishop and a knight), Lasker would give him the two bishops. Lasker's idea was that playing a game that the opponent liked would make the opponent come out and fight, whereupon Lasker could beat him.
Leisureguy but during the entire game cappa just duck down you see ..
There's a move at 17:53 that if it were played it would totally altered the direction of the rest of the game, it's so obvious that to any skilled chess player it can easily be spotted... I'm not going to be "that guy" that spoil the secret
Did you know David Lynch refers to this game in Twin Peaks? (original series).
at 4:42
Bc5 is met by 11 Be3 Rd8 12 Rad1 Bg4 13 Rd3 Rd7 14 h3 Rad8 15 hxg4 Bxd4 16 Rxd4 Rxd4 17 Rxd4 Rd1. This simplified white's majority.
The best move was 11 f5! after 12 e5 Bc5 13 Be3 Bxd4! 14 Bxd4 b6 15 Be3 Be6 leaves white with a passed pawn but is comfortably blockaded with the bishop on e6.
really useful commentary - thanks
maybe for you, but i really haven't played all that much chess so i didn't know anything about openings, pins, semi open flanks (?), bishops better than knights early in the game, even all that much about general pressure! I've learnt a huge amount from these clear and dense commentaries, not to mention how amazing the games themselves are to watch after a little explanation.
i love your videos man thanks
so ...Bb7 was a prophalactic move because capa wants to avoid the above line if he wants to play say...Nc4 or...Nd5, i know the bishop cant be taken immediately but that was the subtle reason for ...Bb7.
awesome video kevin! loved watching it :)
Another great video.Thanks
I tend to think that controlling the center is generally a product of good play more than it is a strategy. If your idea is to "control the center" as quickly as possible, then you need to focus on development, and gambits may be your friend. The other thing is, there are two ways to influence the center; you can either do it with central pawns or you can do it from the flanks. Both methods are perfectly acceptable.
17:00 He did it because If the second rook had of moved out, the knight could have moved to C7 threatening both the bishop and first rook.
An imporant aspect of Lasker's opening is that in the position after move 7 if he could exchange all of the minor pieces and the rooks he would have a won king and pawn ending.
I thought Capablanca was unbeatable..
Very detailed analysis! Excellent. But why didnt black move pawn g6 at 12:46?
It seems to weaken the centralized pawns and pressurize the knight. Sorry I am a chess beginner, I cant see through that much!! :(
Thanks Kevin!
helo chesswebsite. is it a master who is commenting the game? is it possible that he is not that precise in his analyse? cause at 18.29, the commentator says that black gives up a pawn for gaining a good position for his knight. but what i see, is that black will gain the pawn 4 moves later back. after checking the king on e5, and taking the pawn on h4, black will be able to just gain the g4 pawn. or am i missing something?
i too ended up choosing f5 from the pause, although i think it may have been subcontious since i know ive played this game over more than once when going over the exchange variation in my studies, most find it dull and drawish but in the hands of the greats like lasker and fisher it was a fearsome weapon.
At 25:09, considering the black rook is already protecting f6, would Nc7 to lead into Rf7 not work better than opening the king to further attack?
4:43 the suggested Bc5 is met with Be3 unpinning or did I miss something?
You are correct. Bc5 is met by 11 Be3 Rd8 12 Rad1 Bg4 13 Rd3 Rd7 14 h3 Rad8 15 hxg4 Bxd4 16 Rxd4 Rxd4 17 Rxd4 Rd1. This simplified white's majority. The best move was 11 f5! after 12 e5 Bc5 13 Be3 Bxd4! 14 Bxd4 b6 15 Be3 Be6 leaves white with a passed pawn but is comfortably blockaded with the bishop on e6.
Lasker had to win this game to have any chance to catch tournament leader and wunderkind (20 years Lasker's junior) Capablanca at the 1914 St Petersburg tournament.
And whenever Lasker had to win, more often than not he did.
When he Capablanca has the option of moving his rook or bishop to defend D6 why doesn't he move knight to C8 defending D6 and allowing his rook to defend E6?
Why does Capablanca move the rook d7 -e7 at 12:49? There seemed to be a more than adequate defense against Lasker's doubled rooks. Something to do with the pawn at e4?
What he said was true, there weren't many moves. Bb7 avoids the tactic you mention, so it's one of the few valid moves. Just because he didn't explicitly go through all the consequences of the other moves doesn't mean he missed the point.
At 4:40, I don’t like Bishop->c5 at all. While you are pinning an unguarded piece to the king, the fact that it is unguarded just guarantees that white will respond with Bishop->e3 the next turn. This breaks the pin and develops another of white’s minor pieces, while black has already developed his dark-square bishop and achieved nothing with the initial attack.
Furthermore, white’s center pawns block any attempt black has of removing the defending white bishop if it moves to e3, however since black’s bishop on c5 is unprotected at this point, then white could later in the game move his d4 knight away to attack a piece or check the king and have a discovered attack with the white bishop on e3 threatening the black bishop on c5.
And also, if black ever wants to move a rook to d8 to add another attacker to this knight, then white can simply respond with rook->d1. Black would need to set up this play with something like bishop->g4 to prevent this, but white can kill the attack permanently in a number of ways if he has 2-3 turns to do it.
So the way I see it, this move gains absolutely nothing, guarantees white will advance his development while black does not, and sets up for potential backfiring traps later.
Hi Kevin from the TheChessWebsite! I just wanted to ask you which software you use for that chess boards in these video? Thanks!
5 people don't like chess...
Good video,great game,well explained..
subscribed,
Could someone tell me why in the Ruy Lopez exchange variation the black bishop isn't captured by the b7 pawn?
I don't think Lasker was worried about the pin at all. He has the bishop and rooks to back up the knight. Plus he probably would've moved the king instead of the knight to b3
@Athalxoz i agree. The sad thing is that I've analyzed my own games before and thought "man i could play better than this Kevin guy." It's definitely easy to look at a game after and notice mistakes but I wish I played like Capablanca, even on his bad days.
I think that people forget that a century ago ... chess was not like now : players didn't have computers aso ... so they were mostly counting on their experiences and some books they could find .
I do respect those players a bit more than champions of today :)
besides that one bishop move capablanca played engine moves all the way through, pinning the knight on d4 was a move that woulda made him lose tempo, resp lasker woulda gotten out of it easily while bringing out the darksquare bishop.
Great explanation Kevin.The best ;-)
How can you be so confident that your comment is so awesome?
just out of curiosity, how do you know what Capablanca has later said in his analysis post game?
At 14:20, why couldn't Capablanca play Rd7 followed by an eventual Nb6 and then Nc4, posting the knight on a decent square where it can eye Lasker's rooks and give an additional supporter to d6?
thanks for sharing...
@ 7:32 I saw f6, though I was thinking of setting up an outpost after Nd4.. Nd6, threatening Nc7 to fork rooks which ties the blacks dark bishop into defending c7 as well.
i tink he was referring to my comment so thanks calamus im glad you learned something
Kevin, since you're writing that book about Bobby Fischer. Can u write about the 1966 game where Romanian Grandmaster Florin Gheorgiu beat Bobby Fischer.
In response to Lasker's e5, why not c5? Discovered attack on the Rook, prevents Ne4 and wins a pawn.
Considering the lack of computer chess software they play very great.
wow this match almost took place a century ago!
Kevin, you seem like you'd be awesome to play in chess lol. Would enjoy a game sometime. Even though I'd get annihilated =D
How long do the professional games take?
You can say "he brings the knight into the game", or if you want "he gets the knight into the game", or "he gets his knight involved in the game", but NOT "he gets his knight involved into the game", which is what you usually say.
At 14:20, why didn't (or couldn't) Capablanca play ...Nb6 followed by an eventual ...Nc4, posting the knight to eye Lasker's rooks and give d6 and extra defender?
I know I already said this, but I can't wait for Byrne vs Fischer, thats next right?
Lasker's pretty underated for someone that was undisputed WCC for 27 years.
9:08 I think Black should've taken on f4. That's what I would've done.
that is interesting since capablanca was beaten by alekhine, who i believe to be the most imaginative player of all time, in 1910 lasker was almost beaten by schletcher, a brilliant player who ironicaly only needed to draw but pushed for a win in a game (schletcher was known for his drawing prowess) i will say this lasker was the greatest chess phsycologist bar none, he didnt believe in making the best move but one that he knew would give his opponent the most trouble
@md65000 ur knight remains pinned cause the white bishop is unprotected u can face it by playing Rd8 and then Kh1 or be3 and the Re8. I wonder why lasker played so early f5
@hackman1911 i will make it next for you :)
What endgame?
Is there a full notation of this somewhere?
@dnaselfassemby I know, I didn't say the pin was broken - I just said it was easily dealt with :-) Mainly I'm just saying it's an embarrassingly crappy move suggestion. No one over 1300 - or 13 years of age for that matter - would seriously consider playing it.
at 9:17
Bb7 obviousy wasn't the best.
Better was 13... Bxf4 14 Rxf4 c5 15 Rd1 Bb7 16 Rf2 Rad8 17 Rxd8 Rxd8 18 Rd2 Rxd2 19 Nxd2. The pawn majority will be able to create a passed pawn
Why cant knight take pawn e5 after bishop takes knight at the beginning of the game?
what to know why capablanca did not take the pawn on e4 after the retreat of white king on his first check...
Good, but some things are just plain wrong that you say. You say that it's very common to exchange the bishop on c6 when it is not, it's very rare.
thx for the vid i learned ALOT! thx!
14:20 why not black move knight to b6 and allowing bishop to move to c8 next move to put pressure on knight?
great vid, thx
very wise and strategic game but as a chess noob i must admit the endgame is always confusing and difficult
25:00 Black should of moved Knight to B6 to counter Rook attack and also defending the Bishop
at 5:53
f6 is slightly passive.
11 Be6 was better. If 12 e5, Bb4 will do the job.
What? No, that's not how it works. I understand that you're a little annoyed over the fact that he criticized the video without leaving a further explanation. However, he was probably expecting a "why". I personally would explain beforehand, but some people don't enjoy writing as much as me, I guess.
@CaraBrimleyRules 1. No reason to be ashamed of myself for having an opinion, nor is anyone required to have any videos up in order to have one either. Thats like me telling you to be ashamed of yourself for not liking my opinion. You are within your right just as I am within mine.
I cant not belive that Capablanca played so bad here. He let Laskers knight doing a hurricane on E6 and it was all over. But I am a Capos fan and I know that he can play much better.
did i say explain every "possible move" of course not , i said explain jut the moves in the game, especially one that involves a posible tactical sequence. you dont just blow over a move and say "just not any moves here" a begginer will think like i said in my other comment that capabalnca has no moves and just played that move for that reason, when the reason is something that involves a tactic , now ive explained this 3 times if you still dont get it then i cant help you
Really awesome comment for a medium player like me!
He would have had to put his bishop behind the rook first before he moved his king. Capa knew this would happen, and in that situation, taking the knight would have been better for lasker.
Oh okay I see where I mentioned the word nitpick... It wasn't meant to be negative.
really well if your supposedly analysing a game you might want to explain every move, since every move in ches should be made for a reason, just saying "oh theres just not alot of moves" doesnt cut because m ost would assume capa was just making a waiting move, capablanca was a deep player and he deserves just analysis if your going to take the task of analysing one of his games,
What it is very interesting in this game, it is how Lasker forces Capablanka to play reaction chess. Therefore not having Capablanka play what he really intends on playing
I agree completely.
@@chesswebsite Reaction Chess playing would not help you have a plan. Instead of reacting to the threats caused by your opponents find your opponents weakness and create your own threats. Also develop quickly and take charge quickly. Do not waste on passive moves because devolvement is only temporary.
at 22:13
The alternatives weren't any better.
a) 35... d5 36 exf6 Kf7 37 Nc5 wins at least the exchange.
b) 35... fxe5 36 Ne4 Nd5 37 Rh8 Rxh8 38 Rxh8+ Ke7 39 N6xg5 Nf6 40 Nxf6 Kxf6 41 Rh6+ Ke7 ( 41... Kxg5 42 Rg6 is an immediate mate.) 42 f6+ Kd8 43 Rh8+ Kc7 44 f7
It's called flanking when you attack from sides
Lol yeah i know. Sorry, I was feeling a bit silly, and also I love the word schmuck and suddenly had an irresistible urge to use it.
@freddyp91 you should watch my video on "Good vs Bad Bishops "
Why not checkmate?
at 20:18 black could've still brought knight to c4-->e5.
1 year later and i still laugh at this comment thanks for the enjoyment
at 20.35, could he not move Rh7? Trade off rooks, but it would maybe be stupid?
look i think we both made some valid points, and its all just food for thought anyway, and if someone else learns something in our disagreement then so be it
18:10 Why didnt capablanca take on g5 with his pawn ?