The Marshall attack was so threatening that could crush anyone...it gave me goosebumps impending capablanca loss..but to outthink such an attack OVER THE BOARD with some ingenious moves is true genius... I'm convinced he's amongst the top 3 in all time great list with Paul Morphy.
Some are born cool. Besides, what else can one do besides keeping his cool? What else that helps, I mean? 😅 Still, many people do lose their cool. Even when their life is at stake. In chess, people who lose their cool tend to be, I guess, proud people fearing to lose their pride together with the game. Great people know better than taking so much pride. They aren't that insecure.
@@kenw2225 , yep, Karpov and Kasparov probably being extreme opposites. 😅 I regard Karpov as a little more representative than Kasparov, but I have never competed, so I don't know.
I'm a fan of Magnus but seeing this game of Capablanca against Marshall(the creator of the Marshall attack), I'm amazed he was able to do it under a lot of pressure. Dang. I need to watch more Capablanca games. I'm hooked.
You can still rack-up a buttload of wins in speed chess with this very variation, even now. Most players today concentrate on the 11)..c6 line instead of Marshall's original 11)..Nf3. 11)..Bb7 is another interesting line that is playable and can unbalance your opponent.
I did not realize how brilliant of a positional player Capablanca was and very creative. Thank you for this! You should be one of the top subscribed chess people on YT. You really bring genuine respect for the game and the players.
Capablanca has always been my favorite. His ability to calculate was astonishing. One of the few who can see the whole board and understand all of the implications and weakness.
Negative...his ability for real tactical calculation was NOT his forte. In fact this is the reason he lost the title to the Russian. He relied instead on his uncanny ability to asses positionally, any given position objectively, and of course could play an endgame without equal. Perhaps his greatest weakness was his openings.
@@johnnyzee383He was strong in every aspect of the game, including calculation. He lost to Alekhine because he was distracted playing a tournament in a spanish speaking country full of beautiful argentinian ladies.
Alekhine got defeated by Capa many times after world chess championship ,and alekhine never challenge capablanca again in chess championship@@johnnyzee383
Fantastic prepared attacking ideas by Frank Marshall , and even more amazing difficult defensive ideas found on the go by Capablanca under time constraints !!!
Well, Im also Cuban. My name is not even close as cool as Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera. Anyone Hispanic knows that we use father and mother last names. I love chess, Capa is perhaps my favorite person on the planet, he played a science game like a genious. Lasker said he met many great players but only one genious, Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera. Adeu
Without a doubt one of the best players ever a real Genius. A master of class . He will always be remembered on chess history for his incredible performance under pressure
Thank you ChessDawg. Thank you very much. Marshall's two years preparation destroyed by Capablanca. A treat to see. Thank you for uploading this beautiful game!
It is no bold prediction that a player who was ahead of everyone at his time would be a top player today. This is also true for Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Botwinik, Smyslov, Tal, Spasski, Fischer etc.
I think Capablanca is one of the true geniuses of the early times. He is very flexible and concrete, which are universally important skills. He would learn modern openings in no time
Sultan Khan Humiliated Both of Them , sacrificeda Queen against Capablanca , Let both of them make a Move then resign 😅😊 Capablanca called him “Genius”
Capablanca was a natural. intuitive positional player. genius. it would such an amazing sight to see him play against today's players. His game against Keres in 1936 (or was it 38), however, saw him totally outplayed by another master player. endgame skill, unequalled. somehow he played the engame right from the beginning. if he could not outplay tactically or positionally, then he would swap off pieces and eke out a win. I studied Capablancas 100 best games for years and still find them pieces of art. Sometimes you just know after his opening moves he is going to win. Janowski, Marcozy etc., found him simply intimidating. I have played myself at the Hastings chess Club and all the picture are still on the walls. Sultan Khan, however, was another matter. i like your videos very much as u balance your enthusiasm for the game with good analysis. Richard
Sultan Khan Humiliated Both of Them , sacrificeda Queen against Capablanca , Let both of them make a Move then resign 😅😊 Capablanca called him “Genius”
I was born in Havana, Cuba, just like Capablanca. Since I love chess, Capa is my favorite Cuban. It is a great honor to be born in the country of one of the greatest minds in the history of Chess. Thank you very much for your video, Capa had the brains to play in this era if he was alive. How do we know when we are great? Answer: When you were born in 1888 and they mention your name on the Netflix series The Queen's Gambit and the movie Searching for Bobby Fisher. 100 years from now, those who love this game like myself will know the name Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera, Havana, Cuba.
In 1921 he wrote " The Fundamentals Of Chess " A classic! Everyone wanted to know and understand his genius. Nobody wrote a book like this before. Still pertinent today
No question about it. Just think of it for a second..he played 100 years ago..no computers..no engines..the reason players are what they are today is because of engines, yet look at how well modern chess engines correspond to his moves...and the manner in which he played. With the added incentive of Engines and 2 years of study/playing he most certainly would be right there with the top players of today.
Thank you for explaining this wonderful battle.amazing how capablanca kept his cool and defended his king without getting nervous and blundering. Shows great confidence under pressure ! Which am guessing comes from many an old battles. Very entertaining game!
This presentation is very reminiscent why you would be dominant in the chess analysis scene today had you started this channel 2 years earlier than you had. The good news is that given you're just getting started, you have ample time to make your mark and in doing so reach the upper echelons of this delicate but precise art-form. Thank you for your tireless hard work, the wisdom you impart is invaluable. All the best to you and yours, and a very Merry Christmas!
Zero doubt! he had a plus score against Lasker and Alekhine and lost about 5% of his games only! even in 1931 when no longer a champion in a New York rapid tournament he won every single game including the ones against Fine and Reshesvky, { both of them were strong enough to give Boby a hard time even past their prime] no more needs to be said. Thank you, great coverage
Capablanca might have retaken his world championship had Alekhine been obliged to face him. Unfortunately, back then, a champion was allowed to avoid playing his main rival.
@@nomcognom2414 Alekhine was a Coward! It's not a might He would have Destroyed Alekhine the Coward! That's why Alekhine dodged Capablanca the remainder of His career!
@@williamwelch1978 , I don't know. As a kid, an uncle of mine who was a chess player in the 1930s, told me that Alekhine kept refusing to play again Capablanca. But was it him, or was it already the Soviet authorities, wanting to exploit the championship prestige? The match that Alekhine won was quite long. Capablanca was initially surprised, maybe, but couldn't revert things and impose himself. What makes me doubt is that reasons for Alekhine to have won wouldn't have changed much. Alekhine was sort of a chess stakhanovist, while Capablanca was sort of an aristocrat. Alekhine pursued success in life, Capablanca pursued fun. Alekhine studied chess, trained like an athlete and used analysts. Capablanca never had any use for chess books and openings study, was on his own and wouldn't even have a chess game at home. Their mentalities and lifestyles were opposite. Capablanca had a natural genius that Alekhine lacked (only meaning by that that Alekhine's extraordinary talent didn't compare with even bigger Capablanca's). Therefore, in an hypothetical new match, for us to be confident that Capablanca would have won and impressed us, reaching an unprecedented level of chess playing, he would have had to change, prepare for the match, maybe use analysts as well, etc. Would he? I just don't know. It wouldn't be like him. On the other hand, he would be facing such a challenge, both in terms of chess and money, that he might well have decided to become more "professional" and prepare seriously. We will never know. It would have been an opportunity for Capablanca to reach new levels of absolute brilliancy. Alekhine will always be resented for being the guy who maybe made the whole world miss glorious and innovative chess playing ahead of their time. But was him a coward, I don't know. Maybe, if he had one of those pathological egos. But he might as well have been following Soviet orders and/or been a cold, selfish, calculating man, with a different ethos than you and I. No idea. Like Capablanca but without a fraction of his talent, I only ever played for fun, never studied, never read about chess really.
Sultan Khan Humiliated Both of Them , sacrificeda Queen against Capablanca , Let both of them make a Move then resign 😅😊 Capablanca called him “Genius”
@@nomcognom2414 The Soviet authorities had nothing to do with Alekhine's decision to avoid a rematch against Capablanca. Alekhine fled the USSR and became a French citizen in 1927
Can you imagine preparing a defense for two years only to have it countered the first time it is used, by an opponent that has never seen it before? Capablanca is truly great and it pains me to see players like Hikaru not recognize him in the top ten chess players of all time, which is a travesty. This game gotme go out and find everything I could on Capablanca, what a genius. Best player in the Havana chess club by eight years old, champion of Cuba by twelve. Story goes, he learned chess only by watching his father and a neighbor playing and he calls out an illegal move by his dad. He then promptly beats his dad in a game. I don't know if that story is true or just myth but Capa might be the only chess player in the history of the game, outside of Morphy, that I would consider it as a real-life possibility. I JRC is one of the most "natural" chess talents of all time along with Sultan Khan, Morphy and Magnus. Great content, brings back memories!
What does it matter if Hikaru recognizes him as a great or not? Last time I checked, only one of the two reigned as champion for 6 years, and it certainly wasn't that choke artist Hikaru.
@@benjamindillard2391 Hikaru is the greatest creator of chess content right now and many young players follow him and look up to him. I worry that they will not get a true understanding of Capablanca's greatness, which is a travesty. This is a new world and that's they way it is these days, youtube and twitch.
@@barnyarkoudos3373I think he is historically great, he would be in the top 20 players all time, probably. He had the misfortune of playing during the Magnus reign.
And, according to the inestimable Professor at HCV, always wanted to be a professional baseball player. He was a better than average shortstop but no where near the level of a major league shortstop and no where near his absolute brilliance as a chess player. Is he a top three all time chess player? Debatable but what is not debatable, imho, that he is a top 5 chess player of all time. Who, other than Paul Morphy can't say they, too, stood on the shoulders of past greats in some way?
Thanks again, a marvellous game. i've seen it before but enlivened by your excellent commentary, both the genuine danger of Marshall's innovation and the unflappable poise of Capablanca in defense is much easier to comprehend. Very much enjoy your analyses.
Two scientific papers discuss who is the best, according to computer analysis: (1) Bratko type analysis on best players as rated by a Stockfish engine on a several hundred core computer system: Carlsen, Kramnik, Fischer, Kasparov, Anand, Khalifman, Smyslov, Petrosian, Karpov, Rustam Kasimdzhanov, Botvinnik (#11, ahead of Capablanca, # 16, unlike in the original Bratko analysis where Capablanca was near #1), and Euwe is ranked ahead of Alekhine. (2) Computer Analysis of World Chess Championship Players by Oscar Romero et al. (ICSEA 2019 paper). Abstract: Abstract In some sports, it is difficult to know who has been the best winner of the world championship. In this paper, we use one of the best chess engines, Stockfish 10, in order to know which world chess championship player is the best of all time. We have compared their moves during the world championship with the ones suggested by the chess engine in each game. Results show how good each one of them was, compared with Stockfish 10, which player obtained the greatest percentage of best moves during their games, how the quality of their moves evolved during the games and the average percentage of best moves throughout the games. Ranks the best players according to least mistakes as (in order): Carlsen, Caruana, Karjakin, Leko, Kramnik, Anand, Kasparov.... Capablanca (12th place), Fischer (13th place), Karpov (14th place), Botvinnik (23rd), Tal (24th)
The computer analysis says Capablanca made fewest errors! This 12th place Capablana is not true! My old computer tought 5:22 minutes Capablanca-Reti move and solved! Same computer tought only 4:37 minutes Kasparov-Kramnik game move and solved! The conputers telling the truth Capablanca better than Kasparov!! Capablanca less errors than Carlsen!!
We need to think about other stuff as well than purely accuracy. It's easy to not make the best move in a winning position where one moves wins on the spot and the other wins later. Was this factor considered in the study? Capa won against Lasker who even didn't finish the match, he might have played better moves if he had to. Also it's quite unfair to Tal, stockfish doesn't feel the pure terror of Tal sacking every piece against you
@@jakubsevcik1392 Most studies of this sort have a cutoff where the analysis stops, such as if one side is ahead a rook (500 centipawns), because at that point it doesn't matter if you play perfect moves, since the game is already won. I agree about Tal. One thing computers have shown is that defense is underrated, but with limited time who has the time to find a perfect "only move" that defends against Tal? Very few. Of interest to me is how the rankings change depending on computer (about a decade or more ago, with a weaker PC and engine, Capa was tied with Carlsen, since fewer lines to calculate if you are an "endgame master" like them), which shows possibly how close the rankings are, in that engines agree for the first N moves but disagree deeper in the tree. Also I'd like to see how the masters perform in the middlegame when they are "out of book". Could it be the players of today play "perfect chess" since the first 15 to 30 moves are by Stockfish? Very possibly.
@@RaineriHakkarainen Yeah I saw that paper about a decade ago, Capa tied with Carlsen, but Capa dropped to 12th with stronger engines. See my comment to @jakubsevcik1392 as to why I think that is.
Marvellous game, and instructive comments to it! And yes, I think Capablanca would be at the very top of the chess world right now, because of his resourcefulness and great tactical ability. He truly was a natural talent not seen that often.
Most chess players would take the knight especially in a speed game, but in a long game a creative and analytical player can shine especially in finding the defensive moves and not collaspe under pressure. This game demonstrates Capablanca exceptional abilities. I bet Marshall was so disappointed after this game, figuring he could finally beat Capablanca but realize it is hopless.
Wow poor old Marshall must have been so tilted after that game. Imagine working on an opening innovation for a couple of years springing it on your unsuspecting opponent only to have it refuted at your first attempt.
I am not a very strong Chess player but I the love game and enjoy watching interesting games. But I will say that this game, that you have so excellently commented on, is THE most interesting and well done game commentary I have ever followed. I especially enjoyed it because the Ruy Lopez was always my favorite opening when I play white, and I don't recall ever running into the Marshall Defense. What is interesting is, and was not aware of, is all of the early Mates available to black that require White to be extremely careful to prevent being mated before ever reaching the "end game" or even "the middle game". People who play the Spanish opening with white and the Marshall Defense as black, would do well to study this game. I intend to watch this video again with a board on hand to play some of these lines of play. It appears from your narration that Capablanca might have already committed to some vulnerabilities before he "smelled a rat" and I would be interested in having you make another video where you can show how Capablanca might have played had he "smelled a rat" a few moves earlier, (or had he just "lucked out") and made some moves that didn't leave white so vulnerable to these early mates.. I suppose you might need to consult a Chess engine to prepare for such a video. But it would be worth doing as a follow up to this amazing video. The only book I ever purchased on Chess was a book on End Game play that Capablanca wrote. I had a copy of the first edition which I understand is worth a lot of money. In the few instances I that I played well enough to reach an end game (which was seldom) I would win because of my study of that book. Once I won against a very good player who was unaware that you could mate in under 50 moves with just the king and a rook. He wanted to call it a draw, and I said "It is NOT a draw. Watch and learn!" he resigned before I mated him when he saw the plan rather take the time to have me force him to the edge of the board and the corner. Since old age had ruined the little skill that I once had I don't play chess any longer, and I gave my Capablanca book to my grandson who has studied that book and has turned out to be very good at Blitz Chess when playing on-line; He quickly moved up to above a 2000 rating. He has stopped playing Chess for a while becasue he just started college. But I am sure Chess is in his future. I am going to send him the link to this video and encourage him to watch it.
Someone who is repeatedly finding the engine's best move is Probably gonna hold his own. What we need is someone to write "Player" programs so that you can sit down and play a 'virtual' Kasparov or Carlsen or whoever. Then, we can get the programs to play each other. For example, who would win a match between Carlsen and Capablanca. Or, Hikaru and Marshall. Or, Fisher and Carlesen. Now, THAT Would be cool!!!
Two players who have made dramatic lines in the Ruy Lopez are Marshall with his attack and Kramnik with the Berlin Defense. Both lines are played today and have had exhaustive analysis by all engines. Kramnik's use of the Berlin showed the real reason why Kasparov lost--he was too tired mentally to play top level Chess anymore. It was the lengthy battles with Karpov that drained him of his attacking fire and mental energy by the time he played Vlad. Spassky once said that his six Candidate Matches and two World Chess Championships drained his soul. He felt it was terrible to ask a player to have to go thru that again. It seems there is a limit to human mentality to play Chess at the top forever. Magnus quit keeping his title because he did not have the capacity for the work involved to retain it anymore. His supreme ability is tp see positions much more quickly in Rapid Chess and knowing rapidly what to do that keeps him at the top there. Maybe all this is due to the diminishing testosterone levels in the adult males body. Many a 60 year old man will tell he he has a lack of energy and that when treated with testosterone finds that energy restored. So maybe we do needs performance altering drugs to better our performances!!
Kasparov wasn’t too tired to play top chess. He continued to be the top player for years after he lost to Kramnik. Kasparov lost I think because he was too stubborn. He believed he could crack the Berlin, but he just didn’t have the right kind of skills for that, and Kramnik did. Had he just switched to any other white opening he could have kept the title. That said, Kramnik uniquely had Kasparov’s number. He was the one person Kasparov couldn’t dominate.
Your analysis is right, no better proof than choosing the best moves in a totally new variation. Moreover, Capablanca is believed to rely on his intuition rather than in theory. Once he was asked how many moves he used to foresee and he said 1.
I don't know how to thank you for sharing such an outstanding game. As yusual, your analysis was excellent. I think Capablanca and Karpov are the most complete and best players of the chess history. Unfortunately, Karpov has been under evaluated and was under the shadow of Kasparov, who learned a lot from his many games with Karpov.
The nickname of Capablanca was THE MACHINE. One of the greatest practitioners of the Marshall attack was World Champion Boris Spassky, he was so good the Mikhail Tal was avoiding it during their 1965 Candidates Match.
Capa has always been my top favourite.. had he just lived in the modern era if today, bis appreciation would easily be golded ten times, but no problem, he never wanted it any way. Such a great man.
I champion Capablanca. I learned what I think I know about endgame from his authored books. Elegantly simple describes he play. As a perpetual beginner I study him because the simplicity of play allows me to grasp well hie attack of the defense. It’s akin to wearing a good wool suit with complementary tie and fresh white shirt.
You can play chess with the memory or with the imagination. I couldn't care less about memorizing all the openings and their variations. You might win that way, but where's the fun? Master Capablanca relied on his creative imagination, and with his gift, he could beat anyone, anytime. Besides, his games are fun to watch.
That's an interesting take and I agree to a degree. Memorization of book lines might lead you to a won position but if you don't understand that position, don't know it's key concepts and don't play in that style, then it will not benefit you over time. The best approach is to understand key concepts in a position, then the variations you were trying to memorize will flow from your understanding.....or imagination if you like.
This shows Capablanca was one of the greatest and probably would easily beat modern grandmasters, who actually understood the game. Excellent choice sir. These old masters' have a lot to teach us.
The games of Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen, et al, each at their peaks, would be titanic struggles (given some time for players of the past to acclimate to modern chess). I think we cannot even properly speculate on the outcome(s).
I think it would be pretty safe to assume that Magnus would dominate them in this era, because It's statistically unlikely that Capablanca etc would be able to learn computer like endgame shuffling as well as Magnus did. If you sent back a baby Magnus in time & somehow ensured his chess education etc etc, I think it's difficult to say if he could hold a candle to Capablanca.
Excellent narration and comments on an iconic chess game played by two former masters of the game. Both would do quite well today because the game will always be about control of the center four squares on the board, and whoever plays the white pieces will will begin with a slight advantage. My guess is that most of the games would end as draws.😇
Currently, as observed by Bobby Fischer , chess players have many resources not available to him in his chess formative playing days. Today you have a treasure trove of grandmaster games to study online, and more.
2 years of pure torture in Marshals chess lab, dreaming the positions night and day, swept away in moments by Capablanca’s precise navigation of the new lines, leading to a crushing defeat. Looks like he would do well today, for all I know, which isn’t much.
dude after watching this theres so many LET HIM COOK memes flying around in my head. amazing defense by Capablanca but I see now why Marshall has an attack named after him
Most modern players learnt chess tactics from the great masters of the past, Boris Spassky when he was world champion said "Capablanca is the best chess player of all time". Fischer admired Capa's play and he once said he was a phenomenon with an acute instint for attack under pressure and an impenetrable defence. I venture to say that all the grandmasters that have trained and continue training with computers, including Carlsen, Nakamura, Caruana and the rest of the best, would find Capablanca a very hard bone to chew...
Yes, I agree. I think Capa would rise to the level of his peers in whatever era he found himself. Same with Morphy. They would have read Modern Chess Openings and worked on computer database problems instead of those of their own devising maybe.
Capablanca is one of the best among the all time chess prodigies. People like him or Fischer are so rare and precious. His surname, by the way, was a little bizarre. He was from Cuba, with Catalan ancestry. "Capa blanca" means "white cape" in Catalan. It is an uncommon surname. Maybe coming from some old nickname, as these often attached to families and became actual surnames.
@@hanswust6972 , yes, it does, in Catalan, Occitan, Spanish, and likely some other romance language such as Aragonese or Astur-Leonese. But only in Catalan do I know it for sure it exists, as I have sometimes come across it. Plus, it is documented since at least the 17th century, in Catalonia, as a famous highwayman's nickname. He roamed the hilly backcountry between Barcelona and Manresa. The oral tradition, regarding his nickname, offers different accounts. One claims that he ambushed people putting his white cape (won playing cards) in the middle of the road, for travellers to leave their valuables on it as, from a tree, he pointed at them his petronel. Flintlock petronels* were a Catalan development, banned from 1603 onwards, as many people got killed by this firearm (around 300 people just for year 1603). It was a highwaymen's and rebels' favourite. The other account claims that Capablanca got his nickname after taunting a captain that was hunting him. He would have cut the captain's cape without him noticing, while watching theater, and sent it to him afterwards. Anyway, regarding the chess player, I think both his parents were of Catalan ancestry. Both surnames are Catalan, Graupera, his mother's, being more common. With her and her family, at least, he is known to have spoken in Catalan. *"Petronel" comes from Catalan "pedrenyal", meaning flintstone. Wikipedia only refers to similar words in French (petrinel or poitrinal) and Italian (petrinale), making a wrong guess at the etimology, which has nothing to do with "poitrine" (i.e. chest) as both words are obvious transliterations of "pedrenyal" (from the flintstone at the heart of the flintlock innovation). "Pedrenyal" may have been transliterated first into some Italian language as "petrinale", as Catalans ruled over Sardinia and southern Italy (Naples and Sicily) since the 14th century. Then, "petrinale" would have been transliterated intro French "petrinel", still later becoming "poitrinal", for the word to make some sense to French ears. The French and Catalans fought a lot over northern Catalonia (Rosselló/Roussillon) but also, for a long time, over Italy. It was the kingdom of France against the Crown of Aragon (i.e. mostly Catalonia), though textbooks and literature often speak of the Spanish Crown, which referred in fact to the Crowns of Aragon and Castile, mainly, ruled together, alongside others (such as the Crown of Portugal for a while), under the same monarchs from the late 15th c. onwards (since the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile).
Hello, not sure where in Spain Capablanca's father was born. What I imagine, his mother was from Catalunya, Graupera is a Catalan last name. Im Cuban, of Catalan discent, my last name is Isern. Like we say in Catalan, Adeu.
@@nomcognom2414 : Nice enlightening post, just that there is no _'Spanish'_ language the same there is no _'British"_ one. The name of the language is Castilian as accepted by the Spanish Constitution, the fact it's extended all over Spain doesn't suffice to change its name gor as long there other spoken languages such as Catalonian, Galician and Basque that amount 1/4 Spanish inhabitants. The fact of its evolution doesn't suffice either for all languages do and keep their names. The King James Bible English is hardly understood by most English speakers today and it evolved as it expanded over Wales, Scotland and Ireland but kept its name. Before the foundation of Great Britain in 1707, Englishmen established colonies in America and their English language. Likewise, before the foundation of the Spanish Kingdom in 1853, Castile established colonies in America and their Castilian language. In America, the colser to the US the more common to call Castilian Spanish, obviously after the powerful influence of the Northern neighbour. In Spain, some people try to disguise the Castilian conquest of the rest of Spanish lands using a name common for all whereas others think romantically in the tesurrection of the Visigothic kingdom. Actually, the name Spain is too much for the country for it's the evolution of the Latin word _Hispania_ that encompassed the whole peninsula and Portugal is outside.
@@hanswust6972 , yes sir, you are very well informed. I never refer to Spanish as "español" in Spanish, or "espanyol" in Catalan. I will say "castellano" or "castellà", respectively. But in English, French or Portuguese, though I also use "Castilian", "castillan" and "castelhano", respectively, I won't mind referring to it even more often as "Spanish", "espagnol", and "espanhol" for practicality. Castilians, at the peak of their power during the 17th century, decided to conquer and assimilate the whole peninsula, where their nation alone would be left and known as Spain (from Latin Hispania for the peninsula). They would partially succeed, by force, in the 18th century. But they projected such power, even across Europe, during the 17th century, that other countries started referring to the Castilian language and all of the Spanish Crown lands in the Iberian Peninsula as Spain, for simplicity. Europeans were aware of the different nations, but the peninsular political geography was just too diverse to make distinctions each time. The Spanish Crown did not refer to a kingdom. It referred to the monarchy that ruled over most of former (Roman) Hispania, i.e. over most peninsular states (kingdoms and principalities, like Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Valencia, Mallorca, Catalonia, etc.). That monarchy ruled from Castile (Madrid or Valladolid). Castilians ruled and all their ambassadors were Castilians as well. That is how the British, French, Italian, etc., started to call "Spanish" the Castilian language. And that 17th century imperialism (and 20th century fascism) are still in full swing. Catalonia, for instance, was conquered and has been treated as a Spanish colony ever since 1714. Here I must use the word "Spain" because, unlike "Castilian" for their language, which they still tolerate to hear, they do not identify as Castilians anymore in terms of nationality. They shed that identity during the 17th century in favour of the more ambitious and prestigious (better known at least) "Spanish" one. They call their nation Spain. They abolished their kingdom of Castile in the early 19th century to create a kingdom of Spain that would be larger and theirs, by abolishing too, and annexing, neighbouring states (especially those of the Crown of Aragon, basically meaning the Catalan nation). They use "Castile" today to refer not to the kingdom of Castile as it stood and where Castilian was spoken in the 16th century, but only to the region where it developed during the first centuries of the Reconquista (i.e. excluding Andalusia and Estremadura to the south, broadly speaking).
Imagine spending 2 years creating your own opening that ends up being good enough to last 100 years and the first game you finally play with it you get absolutely roped
Capablanca learned chess by watching his father playing against his uncle in one single session. After the game Capablanca played a game against his father and beat him whereupon his father put Capa on his shoulders running around in the neighbourhood shouting ‘my son is a genius.’ I believe this story proves everything about Capa’s chess talent. Capa did not even have a chess set at home!
Trying to name the greatest anything is endlessly arguable. It's all a matter of position in time. In chess, comparing anyone in the pre-engine era to MC or whomever eventually displaces him is a chase into the wind. That said, I I tend to agree with those who put Capa or Morphy (or even Philidor for that matter) as equal or possibly even superior to the best of today. Who knows what any of them could achieve if they had the advantages taken for granted by players today? Everything and everyone is just a moment in time...
Agree pre-1927 Capablanca would dominate the version after his loss to Alekhine showed flashes of his brilliance but at times was unrecognizable and inconsistent he wasn't the same.
Love the Ruy Lopez. But a 1400 level player like me doesn't get to play the Original Marshall Attack very often. You can really see how good he was at tactics. This is definitely a well studied high level blitz game today.
As far as I know Capa is the only player there has been written a book about all his losses in his entire career! 36 guys, anyone able to beat that number?
Fisher, Capablanca, Alekhine and the few more players played chess using their sole talent, players today use chess engines. Fisher can play simul against Carlsen, Kasparov and Hikaru and still with good result.
Of course.....Capablanca for me is the#1 best player all time ( my opinion)... #2 Morphy ( right there with Capa).. he was a truly lazy genius 😂... End game / accuracy/ understanding/ rapid chess/ vision .etc......on his prime he was unbeatable.. ..he *DESTROYED* everyone at that time in history... . A real natural talented Genius....
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Even Fisher was a great fan of Capablanca .He called him a genius without any doubt.
People play chess for three main reason:
1) For personal pride
2) For fun
3) To escape the insanity of this world
4) to mess with people
@@sonnyhalla7252 Ha ha ha! Who would do that?
@@CheckmateSurvivor Hikaru who else lol
Maybe not "even Fischer" but "Fischer of course"- takes one to know one.
There's no doubt in my mind that Capa would be a force in any era of chess. There's no substitute for genius.
There's AI
This player is really a unique one
Capablunder
That's not a true statement, sir.
Moron@@stolengirlfriendclub8724
The Marshall attack was so threatening that could crush anyone...it gave me goosebumps impending capablanca loss..but to outthink such an attack OVER THE BOARD with some ingenious moves is true genius... I'm convinced he's amongst the top 3 in all time great list with Paul Morphy.
Keeping your cool under such a crazy attack is not easy. What a game.
That's why they called him the 'Human Chess Machine', an actual nickname of his by his peers.
Some are born cool. Besides, what else can one do besides keeping his cool? What else that helps, I mean? 😅 Still, many people do lose their cool. Even when their life is at stake.
In chess, people who lose their cool tend to be, I guess, proud people fearing to lose their pride together with the game.
Great people know better than taking so much pride. They aren't that insecure.
The point is most people can't. Pro chess players are usually ok at it though
@@kenw2225 , yep, Karpov and Kasparov probably being extreme opposites. 😅 I regard Karpov as a little more representative than Kasparov, but I have never competed, so I don't know.
I'm a fan of Magnus but seeing this game of Capablanca against Marshall(the creator of the Marshall attack), I'm amazed he was able to do it under a lot of pressure. Dang. I need to watch more Capablanca games. I'm hooked.
love the old chess full of creativity
You can still rack-up a buttload of wins in speed chess with this very variation, even now. Most players today concentrate on the 11)..c6 line instead of Marshall's original 11)..Nf3. 11)..Bb7 is another interesting line that is playable and can unbalance your opponent.
I did not realize how brilliant of a positional player Capablanca was and very creative. Thank you for this! You should be one of the top subscribed chess people on YT. You really bring genuine respect for the game and the players.
Capablanca has always been my favorite. His ability to calculate was astonishing. One of the few who can see the whole board and understand all of the implications and weakness.
Negative...his ability for real tactical calculation was NOT his forte. In fact this is the reason he lost the title to the Russian. He relied instead on his uncanny ability to asses positionally, any given position objectively, and of course could play an endgame without equal. Perhaps his greatest weakness was his openings.
@@johnnyzee383He was strong in every aspect of the game, including calculation. He lost to Alekhine because he was distracted playing a tournament in a spanish speaking country full of beautiful argentinian ladies.
@@alvarohigino while I can entertain this as a novel idea it simply cannot be the case.. he lost because he became lazy
Alekhine got defeated by Capa many times after world chess championship ,and alekhine never challenge capablanca again in chess championship@@johnnyzee383
Thank you for featuring these classic games, ChessDawg!
it's really incredible he could manage defending that attack without any preparation and even he never saw a chess engine in his life.
Excellent game.
Capablanca just didn't fall for traps that most of us would.
That Knight was really poisoned. LOL
Fantastic prepared attacking ideas by Frank Marshall , and even more amazing difficult defensive ideas found on the go by Capablanca under time constraints !!!
" you must study the end-game before anything else "
RC
This guy’s a great chess commentator… glad I stumbled upon his channel!
Capablanca does have the coolest name.
Wrong. Mine is much cooler.
Well, Im also Cuban. My name is not even close as cool as Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera. Anyone Hispanic knows that we use father and mother last names. I love chess, Capa is perhaps my favorite person on the planet, he played a science game like a genious. Lasker said he met many great players but only one genious, Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera. Adeu
Capa called himself "lazy", and he was Cuban. I saw an online player called "LazyCuban" -- and he said he was alluding to Capa on purpose.... ;)
I agree, Capablanca looks like a proper name to a detective story's criminal.
Alekhine is pretty cool too.
Without a doubt one of the best players ever a real Genius. A master of class . He will always be remembered on chess history for his incredible performance under pressure
it was brilliant , glad you are there for the insight
Morphy-Capablanca-Fischer-Karpov-Kasparov-Carlsen.
Thank you ChessDawg. Thank you very much. Marshall's two years preparation destroyed by Capablanca. A treat to see. Thank you for uploading this beautiful game!
It is no bold prediction that a player who was ahead of everyone at his time would be a top player today. This is also true for Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Botwinik, Smyslov, Tal, Spasski, Fischer etc.
If I can take one quality of Jose’s game is his unbelievable poise. That guy is cool as can be, and it shows in his game.
Capablanca made winning look simple.
Nice commentary! An amazing game.
I think Capablanca is one of the true geniuses of the early times. He is very flexible and concrete, which are universally important skills. He would learn modern openings in no time
Sultan Khan Humiliated Both of Them , sacrificeda Queen against Capablanca , Let both of them make a Move then resign 😅😊 Capablanca called him “Genius”
@@mish894because sultan was a genius!
In a Chess book I used to play games from, it noted that for Capablanca to find this exact solution over the board he truly had to have been a genius
Capablanca was a natural. intuitive positional player. genius. it would such an amazing sight to see him play against today's players. His game against Keres in 1936 (or was it 38), however, saw him totally outplayed by another master player. endgame skill, unequalled. somehow he played the engame right from the beginning. if he could not outplay tactically or positionally, then he would swap off pieces and eke out a win. I studied Capablancas 100 best games for years and still find them pieces of art. Sometimes you just know after his opening moves he is going to win. Janowski, Marcozy etc., found him simply intimidating. I have played myself at the Hastings chess Club and all the picture are still on the walls. Sultan Khan, however, was another matter. i like your videos very much as u balance your enthusiasm for the game with good analysis. Richard
Sultan Khan Humiliated Both of Them , sacrificeda Queen against Capablanca , Let both of them make a Move then resign 😅😊 Capablanca called him “Genius”
Amazing game to analyze, insane vision by Capablanca
I was born in Havana, Cuba, just like Capablanca. Since I love chess, Capa is my favorite Cuban. It is a great honor to be born in the country of one of the greatest minds in the history of Chess. Thank you very much for your video, Capa had the brains to play in this era if he was alive. How do we know when we are great? Answer: When you were born in 1888 and they mention your name on the Netflix series The Queen's Gambit and the movie Searching for Bobby Fisher. 100 years from now, those who love this game like myself will know the name Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera, Havana, Cuba.
In 1921 he wrote " The Fundamentals Of Chess " A classic! Everyone wanted to know and understand his genius. Nobody wrote a book like this before. Still pertinent today
amazing commentary! thanks!
No question about it. Just think of it for a second..he played 100 years ago..no computers..no engines..the reason players are what they are today is because of engines, yet look at how well modern chess engines correspond to his moves...and the manner in which he played. With the added incentive of Engines and 2 years of study/playing he most certainly would be right there with the top players of today.
Capablanca wouldn't have bothered with engines..he barely prepared for tournaments, beyond the ballroom.
Thank you for explaining this wonderful battle.amazing how capablanca kept his cool and defended his king without getting nervous and blundering. Shows great confidence under pressure ! Which am guessing comes from many an old battles. Very entertaining game!
This presentation is very reminiscent why you would be dominant in the chess analysis scene today had you started this channel 2 years earlier than you had.
The good news is that given you're just getting started, you have ample time to make your mark and in doing so reach the upper echelons of this delicate but precise art-form.
Thank you for your tireless hard work, the wisdom you impart is invaluable. All the best to you and yours, and a very Merry Christmas!
Zero doubt! he had a plus score against Lasker and Alekhine and lost about 5% of his games only! even in 1931 when no longer a champion in a New York rapid tournament he won every single game including the ones against Fine and Reshesvky, { both of them were strong enough to give Boby a hard time even past their prime] no more needs to be said. Thank you, great coverage
Capablanca might have retaken his world championship had Alekhine been obliged to face him. Unfortunately, back then, a champion was allowed to avoid playing his main rival.
@@nomcognom2414 Alekhine was a Coward! It's not a might He would have Destroyed Alekhine the Coward! That's why Alekhine dodged Capablanca the remainder of His career!
@@williamwelch1978 , I don't know. As a kid, an uncle of mine who was a chess player in the 1930s, told me that Alekhine kept refusing to play again Capablanca. But was it him, or was it already the Soviet authorities, wanting to exploit the championship prestige?
The match that Alekhine won was quite long. Capablanca was initially surprised, maybe, but couldn't revert things and impose himself.
What makes me doubt is that reasons for Alekhine to have won wouldn't have changed much. Alekhine was sort of a chess stakhanovist, while Capablanca was sort of an aristocrat. Alekhine pursued success in life, Capablanca pursued fun.
Alekhine studied chess, trained like an athlete and used analysts. Capablanca never had any use for chess books and openings study, was on his own and wouldn't even have a chess game at home. Their mentalities and lifestyles were opposite. Capablanca had a natural genius that Alekhine lacked (only meaning by that that Alekhine's extraordinary talent didn't compare with even bigger Capablanca's).
Therefore, in an hypothetical new match, for us to be confident that Capablanca would have won and impressed us, reaching an unprecedented level of chess playing, he would have had to change, prepare for the match, maybe use analysts as well, etc. Would he? I just don't know. It wouldn't be like him. On the other hand, he would be facing such a challenge, both in terms of chess and money, that he might well have decided to become more "professional" and prepare seriously.
We will never know. It would have been an opportunity for Capablanca to reach new levels of absolute brilliancy. Alekhine will always be resented for being the guy who maybe made the whole world miss glorious and innovative chess playing ahead of their time. But was him a coward, I don't know. Maybe, if he had one of those pathological egos. But he might as well have been following Soviet orders and/or been a cold, selfish, calculating man, with a different ethos than you and I. No idea.
Like Capablanca but without a fraction of his talent, I only ever played for fun, never studied, never read about chess really.
Sultan Khan Humiliated Both of Them , sacrificeda Queen against Capablanca , Let both of them make a Move then resign 😅😊 Capablanca called him “Genius”
@@nomcognom2414 The Soviet authorities had nothing to do with Alekhine's decision to avoid a rematch against Capablanca. Alekhine fled the USSR and became a French citizen in 1927
Great game and fantastic commentary. Thanks for bringing this old gems.
Yes Capablanca is one of the Greatest Chess player😮
Genius at work yesterday and still can work today!
Can you imagine preparing a defense for two years only to have it countered the first time it is used, by an opponent that has never seen it before? Capablanca is truly great and it pains me to see players like Hikaru not recognize him in the top ten chess players of all time, which is a travesty. This game gotme go out and find everything I could on Capablanca, what a genius. Best player in the Havana chess club by eight years old, champion of Cuba by twelve. Story goes, he learned chess only by watching his father and a neighbor playing and he calls out an illegal move by his dad. He then promptly beats his dad in a game. I don't know if that story is true or just myth but Capa might be the only chess player in the history of the game, outside of Morphy, that I would consider it as a real-life possibility. I JRC is one of the most "natural" chess talents of all time along with Sultan Khan, Morphy and Magnus. Great content, brings back memories!
What does it matter if Hikaru recognizes him as a great or not? Last time I checked, only one of the two reigned as champion for 6 years, and it certainly wasn't that choke artist Hikaru.
Hikaru... lol . He is more of a content creator and less of a good chess player.
@@barnyarkoudos3373he is currently no3 in the ratings, quite good for a content creator.
@@benjamindillard2391 Hikaru is the greatest creator of chess content right now and many young players follow him and look up to him. I worry that they will not get a true understanding of Capablanca's greatness, which is a travesty. This is a new world and that's they way it is these days, youtube and twitch.
@@barnyarkoudos3373I think he is historically great, he would be in the top 20 players all time, probably. He had the misfortune of playing during the Magnus reign.
People forget Capa wasn't and never wanted to be a chess professional. He had a day job as a diplomat.
And, according to the inestimable Professor at HCV, always wanted to be a professional baseball player. He was a better than average shortstop but no where near the level of a major league shortstop and no where near his absolute brilliance as a chess player. Is he a top three all time chess player? Debatable but what is not debatable, imho, that he is a top 5 chess player of all time. Who, other than Paul Morphy can't say they, too, stood on the shoulders of past greats in some way?
The ability of capablanca to make chess simple makes him the true goat
An incredible game! Capa was the truest genius of chess. Excellent video.
Really enjoyed the multifaceted and intricate contest. This guy could give anyone a good go. I like his style. Thanks.
Thanks again, a marvellous game. i've seen it before but enlivened by your excellent commentary, both the genuine danger of Marshall's innovation and the unflappable poise of Capablanca in defense is much easier to comprehend. Very much enjoy your analyses.
Two scientific papers discuss who is the best, according to computer analysis:
(1) Bratko type analysis on best players as rated by a Stockfish engine on a several hundred core computer system: Carlsen, Kramnik, Fischer, Kasparov, Anand, Khalifman, Smyslov, Petrosian, Karpov, Rustam Kasimdzhanov, Botvinnik (#11, ahead of Capablanca, # 16, unlike in the original Bratko analysis where Capablanca was near #1), and Euwe is ranked ahead of Alekhine.
(2) Computer Analysis of World Chess Championship Players by Oscar Romero et al. (ICSEA 2019 paper). Abstract: Abstract In some sports, it is difficult to know who has been the best winner of the world championship. In this paper, we use one of the best chess engines, Stockfish 10, in order to know which world chess championship player is the best of all time. We have compared their moves during the world championship with the ones suggested by the chess engine in each game. Results show how good each one of them was, compared with Stockfish 10, which player obtained the greatest percentage of best moves during their games, how the quality of their moves evolved during the games and the average percentage of best moves throughout the games.
Ranks the best players according to least mistakes as (in order): Carlsen, Caruana, Karjakin, Leko, Kramnik, Anand, Kasparov.... Capablanca (12th place), Fischer (13th place), Karpov (14th place), Botvinnik (23rd), Tal (24th)
The computer analysis says Capablanca made fewest errors! This 12th place Capablana is not true! My old computer tought 5:22 minutes Capablanca-Reti move and solved! Same computer tought only 4:37 minutes Kasparov-Kramnik game move and solved! The conputers telling the truth Capablanca better than Kasparov!! Capablanca less errors than Carlsen!!
We need to think about other stuff as well than purely accuracy. It's easy to not make the best move in a winning position where one moves wins on the spot and the other wins later. Was this factor considered in the study?
Capa won against Lasker who even didn't finish the match, he might have played better moves if he had to.
Also it's quite unfair to Tal, stockfish doesn't feel the pure terror of Tal sacking every piece against you
@@jakubsevcik1392 Most studies of this sort have a cutoff where the analysis stops, such as if one side is ahead a rook (500 centipawns), because at that point it doesn't matter if you play perfect moves, since the game is already won. I agree about Tal. One thing computers have shown is that defense is underrated, but with limited time who has the time to find a perfect "only move" that defends against Tal? Very few. Of interest to me is how the rankings change depending on computer (about a decade or more ago, with a weaker PC and engine, Capa was tied with Carlsen, since fewer lines to calculate if you are an "endgame master" like them), which shows possibly how close the rankings are, in that engines agree for the first N moves but disagree deeper in the tree. Also I'd like to see how the masters perform in the middlegame when they are "out of book". Could it be the players of today play "perfect chess" since the first 15 to 30 moves are by Stockfish? Very possibly.
@@RaineriHakkarainen Yeah I saw that paper about a decade ago, Capa tied with Carlsen, but Capa dropped to 12th with stronger engines. See my comment to @jakubsevcik1392 as to why I think that is.
Marvellous game, and instructive comments to it! And yes, I think Capablanca would be at the very top of the chess world right now, because of his resourcefulness and great tactical ability. He truly was a natural talent not seen that often.
Most chess players would take the knight especially in a speed game, but in a long game a creative and analytical player can shine especially in finding the defensive moves and not collaspe under pressure. This game demonstrates Capablanca exceptional abilities. I bet Marshall was so disappointed after this game, figuring he could finally beat Capablanca but realize it is hopless.
Great commentaries ! Thanks !
Capablanca is my favorite player
Wow poor old Marshall must have been so tilted after that game. Imagine working on an opening innovation for a couple of years springing it on your unsuspecting opponent only to have it refuted at your first attempt.
Yes very true but he tried it on a great champion and he found his way out!
I am not a very strong Chess player but I the love game and enjoy watching interesting games. But I will say that this game, that you have so excellently commented on, is THE most interesting and well done game commentary I have ever followed. I especially enjoyed it because the Ruy Lopez was always my favorite opening when I play white, and I don't recall ever running into the Marshall Defense. What is interesting is, and was not aware of, is all of the early Mates available to black that require White to be extremely careful to prevent being mated before ever reaching the "end game" or even "the middle game". People who play the Spanish opening with white and the Marshall Defense as black, would do well to study this game. I intend to watch this video again with a board on hand to play some of these lines of play. It appears from your narration that Capablanca might have already committed to some vulnerabilities before he "smelled a rat" and I would be interested in having you make another video where you can show how Capablanca might have played had he "smelled a rat" a few moves earlier, (or had he just "lucked out") and made some moves that didn't leave white so vulnerable to these early mates.. I suppose you might need to consult a Chess engine to prepare for such a video. But it would be worth doing as a follow up to this amazing video.
The only book I ever purchased on Chess was a book on End Game play that Capablanca wrote. I had a copy of the first edition which I understand is worth a lot of money. In the few instances I that I played well enough to reach an end game (which was seldom) I would win because of my study of that book. Once I won against a very good player who was unaware that you could mate in under 50 moves with just the king and a rook. He wanted to call it a draw, and I said "It is NOT a draw. Watch and learn!" he resigned before I mated him when he saw the plan rather take the time to have me force him to the edge of the board and the corner. Since old age had ruined the little skill that I once had I don't play chess any longer, and I gave my Capablanca book to my grandson who has studied that book and has turned out to be very good at Blitz Chess when playing on-line; He quickly moved up to above a 2000 rating. He has stopped playing Chess for a while becasue he just started college. But I am sure Chess is in his future. I am going to send him the link to this video and encourage him to watch it.
Thank you for your kind words, and I am glad you enjoyed the video.
Someone who is repeatedly finding the engine's best move is Probably gonna hold his own.
What we need is someone to write "Player" programs so that you can sit down and play a 'virtual' Kasparov or Carlsen or whoever. Then, we can get the programs to play each other.
For example, who would win a match between Carlsen and Capablanca. Or, Hikaru and Marshall. Or, Fisher and Carlesen.
Now, THAT Would be cool!!!
Brilliant. Thanks
Two players who have made dramatic lines in the Ruy Lopez are Marshall with his attack and Kramnik with the Berlin Defense. Both lines are played today and have had exhaustive analysis by all engines. Kramnik's use of the Berlin showed the real reason why Kasparov lost--he was too tired mentally to play top level Chess anymore. It was the lengthy battles with Karpov that drained him of his attacking fire and mental energy by the time he played Vlad. Spassky once said that his six Candidate Matches and two World Chess Championships drained his soul. He felt it was terrible to ask a player to have to go thru that again. It seems there is a limit to human mentality to play Chess at the top forever. Magnus quit keeping his title because he did not have the capacity for the work involved to retain it anymore. His supreme ability is tp see positions much more quickly in Rapid Chess and knowing rapidly what to do that keeps him at the top there. Maybe all this is due to the diminishing testosterone levels in the adult males body. Many a 60 year old man will tell he he has a lack of energy and that when treated with testosterone finds that energy restored. So maybe we do needs performance altering drugs to better our performances!!
Kasparov wasn’t too tired to play top chess. He continued to be the top player for years after he lost to Kramnik. Kasparov lost I think because he was too stubborn. He believed he could crack the Berlin, but he just didn’t have the right kind of skills for that, and Kramnik did. Had he just switched to any other white opening he could have kept the title. That said, Kramnik uniquely had Kasparov’s number. He was the one person Kasparov couldn’t dominate.
Gary sure did look fed up with Chess in his last tournament.@@abj136
Your analysis is right, no better proof than choosing the best moves in a totally new variation.
Moreover, Capablanca is believed to rely on his intuition rather than in theory.
Once he was asked how many moves he used to foresee and he said 1.
And added:Always the best! He sure could calculate very fast!
Capa: I would still be #1 in 100 years
Marsh: I play my own opening named after me
I don't know how to thank you for sharing such an outstanding game. As yusual, your analysis was excellent. I think Capablanca and Karpov are the most complete and best players of the chess history. Unfortunately, Karpov has been under evaluated and was under the shadow of Kasparov, who learned a lot from his many games with Karpov.
The nickname of Capablanca was THE MACHINE.
One of the greatest practitioners of the Marshall attack was World Champion Boris Spassky, he was so good the Mikhail Tal was avoiding it during their 1965 Candidates Match.
Capa has always been my top favourite.. had he just lived in the modern era if today, bis appreciation would easily be golded ten times, but no problem, he never wanted it any way. Such a great man.
Wow, that's pretty insane stuff. Serious calculations going on there.
when i watch your videos, I am enthralled and I forget to like and subscribe
Capablanca's incredible speed at play in his prime would give him a huge advantage today.
I am assuming this was a classical game?
I champion Capablanca. I learned what I think I know about endgame from his authored books.
Elegantly simple describes he play. As a perpetual beginner I study him because the simplicity of play allows me to grasp well hie attack of the defense. It’s akin to wearing a good wool suit with complementary tie and fresh white shirt.
You can play chess with the memory or with the imagination. I couldn't care less about memorizing all the openings and their variations. You might win that way, but where's the fun? Master Capablanca relied on his creative imagination, and with his gift, he could beat anyone, anytime. Besides, his games are fun to watch.
That's an interesting take and I agree to a degree. Memorization of book lines might lead you to a won position but if you don't understand that position, don't know it's key concepts and don't play in that style, then it will not benefit you over time. The best approach is to understand key concepts in a position, then the variations you were trying to memorize will flow from your understanding.....or imagination if you like.
Have seen several analyses of this famous game, yours was the best imho
Thank you.
Unbelievable!
This shows Capablanca was one of the greatest and probably would easily beat modern grandmasters, who actually understood the game. Excellent choice sir. These old masters' have a lot to teach us.
The games of Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen, et al, each at their peaks, would be titanic struggles (given some time for players of the past to acclimate to modern chess). I think we cannot even properly speculate on the outcome(s).
I think it would be pretty safe to assume that Magnus would dominate them in this era, because It's statistically unlikely that Capablanca etc would be able to learn computer like endgame shuffling as well as Magnus did. If you sent back a baby Magnus in time & somehow ensured his chess education etc etc, I think it's difficult to say if he could hold a candle to Capablanca.
Excellent narration and comments on an iconic chess game played by two former masters of the game. Both would do quite well today because the game will always be about control of the center four squares on the board, and whoever plays the white pieces will will begin with a slight advantage. My guess is that most of the games would end as draws.😇
Mir Sultan Khan cannot be ignored
Currently, as observed by Bobby Fischer , chess players have many resources not available to him in his chess formative playing days.
Today you have a treasure trove of grandmaster games to study online, and more.
Amazing video, well said, and I am sure Jose would still dominate
2 years of pure torture in Marshals chess lab, dreaming the positions night and day, swept away in moments by Capablanca’s precise navigation of the new lines, leading to a crushing defeat. Looks like he would do well today, for all I know, which isn’t much.
dude after watching this theres so many LET HIM COOK memes flying around in my head. amazing defense by Capablanca but I see now why Marshall has an attack named after him
Most modern players learnt chess tactics from the great masters of the past, Boris Spassky when he was world champion said "Capablanca is the best chess player of all time". Fischer admired Capa's play and he once said he was a phenomenon with an acute instint for attack under pressure and an impenetrable defence. I venture to say that all the grandmasters that have trained and continue training with computers, including Carlsen, Nakamura, Caruana and the rest of the best, would find Capablanca a very hard bone to chew...
Yes, I agree. I think Capa would rise to the level of his peers in whatever era he found himself.
Same with Morphy.
They would have read Modern Chess Openings and worked on computer database problems instead of those of their own devising maybe.
i think the same too. he is the essence of chess and like maradona he dont spent so much time to study like his opponents and he domitated them all.
Capablanca is one of the best among the all time chess prodigies. People like him or Fischer are so rare and precious.
His surname, by the way, was a little bizarre. He was from Cuba, with Catalan ancestry. "Capa blanca" means "white cape" in Catalan. It is an uncommon surname. Maybe coming from some old nickname, as these often attached to families and became actual surnames.
Actually, Capablanca means the same in Castilian.
@@hanswust6972 , yes, it does, in Catalan, Occitan, Spanish, and likely some other romance language such as Aragonese or Astur-Leonese. But only in Catalan do I know it for sure it exists, as I have sometimes come across it. Plus, it is documented since at least the 17th century, in Catalonia, as a famous highwayman's nickname. He roamed the hilly backcountry between Barcelona and Manresa. The oral tradition, regarding his nickname, offers different accounts. One claims that he ambushed people putting his white cape (won playing cards) in the middle of the road, for travellers to leave their valuables on it as, from a tree, he pointed at them his petronel. Flintlock petronels* were a Catalan development, banned from 1603 onwards, as many people got killed by this firearm (around 300 people just for year 1603). It was a highwaymen's and rebels' favourite. The other account claims that Capablanca got his nickname after taunting a captain that was hunting him. He would have cut the captain's cape without him noticing, while watching theater, and sent it to him afterwards.
Anyway, regarding the chess player, I think both his parents were of Catalan ancestry. Both surnames are Catalan, Graupera, his mother's, being more common. With her and her family, at least, he is known to have spoken in Catalan.
*"Petronel" comes from Catalan "pedrenyal", meaning flintstone. Wikipedia only refers to similar words in French (petrinel or poitrinal) and Italian (petrinale), making a wrong guess at the etimology, which has nothing to do with "poitrine" (i.e. chest) as both words are obvious transliterations of "pedrenyal" (from the flintstone at the heart of the flintlock innovation). "Pedrenyal" may have been transliterated first into some Italian language as "petrinale", as Catalans ruled over Sardinia and southern Italy (Naples and Sicily) since the 14th century. Then, "petrinale" would have been transliterated intro French "petrinel", still later becoming "poitrinal", for the word to make some sense to French ears. The French and Catalans fought a lot over northern Catalonia (Rosselló/Roussillon) but also, for a long time, over Italy. It was the kingdom of France against the Crown of Aragon (i.e. mostly Catalonia), though textbooks and literature often speak of the Spanish Crown, which referred in fact to the Crowns of Aragon and Castile, mainly, ruled together, alongside others (such as the Crown of Portugal for a while), under the same monarchs from the late 15th c. onwards (since the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile).
Hello, not sure where in Spain Capablanca's father was born. What I imagine, his mother was from Catalunya, Graupera is a Catalan last name. Im Cuban, of Catalan discent, my last name is Isern. Like we say in Catalan, Adeu.
@@nomcognom2414 :
Nice enlightening post, just that there is no _'Spanish'_ language the same there is no _'British"_ one.
The name of the language is Castilian as accepted by the Spanish Constitution, the fact it's extended all over Spain doesn't suffice to change its name gor as long there other spoken languages such as Catalonian, Galician and Basque that amount 1/4 Spanish inhabitants.
The fact of its evolution doesn't suffice either for all languages do and keep their names.
The King James Bible English is hardly understood by most English speakers today and it evolved as it expanded over Wales, Scotland and Ireland but kept its name.
Before the foundation of Great Britain in 1707, Englishmen established colonies in America and their English language.
Likewise, before the foundation of the Spanish Kingdom in 1853, Castile established colonies in America and their Castilian language.
In America, the colser to the US the more common to call Castilian Spanish, obviously after the powerful influence of the Northern neighbour.
In Spain, some people try to disguise the Castilian conquest of the rest of Spanish lands using a name common for all whereas others think romantically in the tesurrection of the Visigothic kingdom.
Actually, the name Spain is too much for the country for it's the evolution of the Latin word _Hispania_ that encompassed the whole peninsula and Portugal is outside.
@@hanswust6972 , yes sir, you are very well informed. I never refer to Spanish as "español" in Spanish, or "espanyol" in Catalan. I will say "castellano" or "castellà", respectively. But in English, French or Portuguese, though I also use "Castilian", "castillan" and "castelhano", respectively, I won't mind referring to it even more often as "Spanish", "espagnol", and "espanhol" for practicality.
Castilians, at the peak of their power during the 17th century, decided to conquer and assimilate the whole peninsula, where their nation alone would be left and known as Spain (from Latin Hispania for the peninsula). They would partially succeed, by force, in the 18th century. But they projected such power, even across Europe, during the 17th century, that other countries started referring to the Castilian language and all of the Spanish Crown lands in the Iberian Peninsula as Spain, for simplicity. Europeans were aware of the different nations, but the peninsular political geography was just too diverse to make distinctions each time. The Spanish Crown did not refer to a kingdom. It referred to the monarchy that ruled over most of former (Roman) Hispania, i.e. over most peninsular states (kingdoms and principalities, like Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Valencia, Mallorca, Catalonia, etc.). That monarchy ruled from Castile (Madrid or Valladolid). Castilians ruled and all their ambassadors were Castilians as well. That is how the British, French, Italian, etc., started to call "Spanish" the Castilian language.
And that 17th century imperialism (and 20th century fascism) are still in full swing. Catalonia, for instance, was conquered and has been treated as a Spanish colony ever since 1714.
Here I must use the word "Spain" because, unlike "Castilian" for their language, which they still tolerate to hear, they do not identify as Castilians anymore in terms of nationality. They shed that identity during the 17th century in favour of the more ambitious and prestigious (better known at least) "Spanish" one. They call their nation Spain. They abolished their kingdom of Castile in the early 19th century to create a kingdom of Spain that would be larger and theirs, by abolishing too, and annexing, neighbouring states (especially those of the Crown of Aragon, basically meaning the Catalan nation). They use "Castile" today to refer not to the kingdom of Castile as it stood and where Castilian was spoken in the 16th century, but only to the region where it developed during the first centuries of the Reconquista (i.e. excluding Andalusia and Estremadura to the south, broadly speaking).
Imagine spending 2 years creating your own opening that ends up being good enough to last 100 years and the first game you finally play with it you get absolutely roped
Capablanca learned chess by watching his father playing against his uncle in one single session. After the game Capablanca played a game against his father and beat him whereupon his father put Capa on his shoulders running around in the neighbourhood shouting ‘my son is a genius.’ I believe this story proves everything about Capa’s chess talent. Capa did not even have a chess set at home!
Trying to name the greatest anything is endlessly arguable. It's all a matter of position in time.
In chess, comparing anyone in the pre-engine era to MC or whomever eventually displaces him is a chase into the wind. That said, I I tend to agree with those who put Capa or Morphy (or even Philidor for that matter) as equal or possibly even superior to the best of today. Who knows what any of them could achieve if they had the advantages taken for granted by players today?
Everything and everyone is just a moment in time...
Marshall gambit in under 14 minutes! Thank you!
good content
Silent moves are the most deadly.
Agree pre-1927 Capablanca would dominate the version after his loss to Alekhine showed flashes of his brilliance but at times was unrecognizable and inconsistent he wasn't the same.
Love the Ruy Lopez. But a 1400 level player like me doesn't get to play the Original Marshall Attack very often. You can really see how good he was at tactics. This is definitely a well studied high level blitz game today.
Those people had a wonderful understanding of the game. I wonder who has the longest in terms of years period at the helm chess ranking.
In his prime and playing quick chess, I'd agree with the title of this video.
As far as I know Capa is the only player there has been written a book about all his losses in his entire career! 36 guys, anyone able to beat that number?
ChessDawg! Thanks for showing this great game.
I love when white finally turns the tables!! lol😊
What a wild game, no wonder players today don't want to enter into the Marshall.
amazing thanks !! i did not know capablanca had access to stockfish though 🤣
Reuben fine and capablanca always plays on championship.😊
Great one !
Probably Capablanca and Morphy would Dominate Chess, even Today !
Thanks
Jim
Canada
My man frank marshall and boris spassky always been the side character 🙂
That's a phantastic game, top of all times..😂😅
Brilliant game!
6:00 looks like white can checkmate after Q×f7
The problem is that Rf7 would come with check, so there is no time for Re8 mate.
Thanks @@chessdawg
Fisher, Capablanca, Alekhine and the few more players played chess using their sole talent, players today use chess engines. Fisher can play simul against Carlsen, Kasparov and Hikaru and still with good result.
I would have loved to have known Capa
Of course.....Capablanca for me is the#1 best player all time ( my opinion)... #2 Morphy ( right there with Capa).. he was a truly lazy genius 😂... End game / accuracy/ understanding/ rapid chess/ vision .etc......on his prime he was unbeatable.. ..he *DESTROYED* everyone at that time in history... . A real natural talented Genius....