Видео

Dankuwel, Endspiel, graag gedaan!

@PeterBeuker - dankjewel, Peter!

❤❤❤

@@the-dutch-table Where did you find the video? We are all so curious now!

@@margaretmosteller1651 it was a newsreel from 1949. All identifying information is in the notes. Thank you for letting me know that this is your grandfather! Did you get to spend time with him and with the train?

7 years later he died of a stroke. It was his second stroke. He was 53 years old. I don't think you would not think that as well as he looks in the video.

Well, Euwe had a life 😉

He did work as a diplomate and spent many years in the US

Because it was scripted right?

No, Capablanca had a flabbergasting sight of board and could play very fast as attested by Manhattan chess club players. Therefore, he could find the right move that fast and Euwe’s reaction proves it was not scripted! Capablanca is exclusively known for his endgame skill and speed of playing according to Wilipedia!

@@kevinwellwrought2024 But there was a film camera there and he had to have agreed to appear on camera beforehand. Not saying you're wrong.

@@Raventooth yeah they made an apology video on it later.

@@RaniaIsAwesome 😂

He spent many decades all over the world and was exposed to English speakers since he was a child. 😊 Officially he was a diplomat.

Alekhine modified his game against Capablanca, recognising that unsound attacks would have no chance. That aside, Capablanca was below his best in that match.

@@Straight_Talk of course Capa was past his prime.

@@Straight_Talk Historically he was in his prime, not below. The next few years he played just fine. You can argue and I'd agree with that, that he was in the end of his prime but to say that he was past it... no. Beyond that, computer analysis (these days, not ten years ago) shows that Alekhine was better. Capablanca has a large amount of games where although he won in the endgame he had a big advantage in the middlegame he lost. Now, beyond that, this debate (not ours, Capa's with Alekhine) reminds me of how people used to view martial arts (prior to MMA): I remember I was in a class and the teacher (who of course had a lot of meglomaniac self importance bs thoughts about himself) was talking about how his system of Karate is best. I asked him to demonstrate and after a few attempts where he told me what to do and I followed his orders to the letter and found myself at the losing end, he smiled thinking he just proved his superiority. I then said: "but this is because we are fighting YOUR system". Long story short - we then fought a free style fight in which I beat the living day lights out of him to a point he broke down and cried (yes I'm being serious). Conclusion... real life is everything, not just what you wanted it to be. In a closed setting where you disregard most things and leave only a few specific ones, yes, Capablanca was better. However, in real life where everything is at your disposal, Alekhine was better. That the idea of playing someone's weaknesses against them didn't work for Lasker against Capablanca doesn't mean that the idea itself is wrong. Alekhine was simply good enough to actually do it. Maybe in retrospect Capablanca can analyse a game till the end of time and realise some of the ideas were indeed "a bluff" but in a practical game that doesn't matter. It's the psychological knowledge, the understanding of pressure in conversion with the time at hand. That matters. Tal made a career with it. Nepo constantly bluffs (that is something he himself said), even Anand often referred to bluffs and how it's difficult because Carlsen doesn't fall for them but basically anyone and everyone else does. BTW, you can also claim Alekhine wasn't in his prime and worst of all... you can easily claim Alekhine was never in his prime because he started playing chess when he was 17 and only played his first serious tournament at 19. Had he started at 4 he'd probably be much much much better than he ever was. I used to be stuck on 1800 for several years. Then something clicked and I started to understand profiling and psychology and in one year my rating surpassed 2300. Anyway... you can debate on who was what and when but the reality is Alekhine beat Capablanca in literally every aspect of the game. To ignore that will be deluded. He beat him in tactical combinations, he beat him in strategy, he beat him in preparation, he beat him in middlegame complexes, he beat him in endgame complexes (which is where Capablanca himself though he will have an advantage over Alekhine and was evidently very wrong), he beat him in opening ideas, he beat him in novelties. To look at all of it (in their match) and ignore it is crazy.

@@c2c001 I didn't bother reading most of your book. Suffice it to say, virtually all great chess players, including Lasker (who played both Capa and Alekhine), Fischer and Kasparov, place Capa well ahead of Alekhine. Further, in OMGP, Kasparov said Capa was at his prime in 1916-18, BEFORE he became World Champion.