this gives me an idea. Why not a series on great endgames? Examples might include, Pillsbury-Gunsberg, Hastings 1895, ("Pillsbury wins brilliantly. Cheers ring for him in true British style." Kashdan-Flohr, Hamburg 1930( Special prize.), Botvinnik-Vidmar, Groningen 1946(Bishop versus rook) Fischer Unzicker Siegen Olympiad 1970)
I love this game! I studied it in the book "Capablanca's Best Chess Endgames." They didn't call Capablanca the chess machine for nothing. However, I feel that computer analysis often doesn't do justice to the masters of the past because they didn't have the same resources that we do today. They couldn't push a computer button to instantly get the best variation and didn't have the vast selection of chess books that we do today. When looking at games from pre-chess engine days its just not fair to say "oh, the computer says..." Capablanca's accomplishments are no less impressive with or without computer analysis. 100 years later even Carlsen makes mistakes even though he has the benefit of countless chess books, computer databases, and chess engines to prepare.
Hmm, so Maroczy Tartakover will be coming up. Since one of the others will, almost certainly be an Alekhine game, and since you probably don't want to bore us with yet another Dutch, it will NOT be Bogolbov-Alekhine, Hastings, 1922. So it will be either Grunfeld-Alekhine Carlsbad 1923, or Reti-Alekhine, Baden=Baden, 1924. Of course, you will probably shock us with some game played in an Australian Class B tournament.
This is the first game in the book The most instructive games of chess ever played - but in the notation it gives the first move as f5 and e6 as the 2nd move. Is that a misprint or did the author deliberately changed the move order so the opening is a Dutch Defence instead of a Horwitz Defence?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
this gives me an idea. Why not a series on great endgames? Examples might include, Pillsbury-Gunsberg, Hastings 1895, ("Pillsbury wins brilliantly. Cheers ring for him in true British style." Kashdan-Flohr, Hamburg 1930( Special prize.), Botvinnik-Vidmar, Groningen 1946(Bishop versus rook) Fischer Unzicker Siegen Olympiad 1970)
I love this game! I studied it in the book "Capablanca's Best Chess Endgames." They didn't call Capablanca the chess machine for nothing. However, I feel that computer analysis often doesn't do justice to the masters of the past because they didn't have the same resources that we do today. They couldn't push a computer button to instantly get the best variation and didn't have the vast selection of chess books that we do today. When looking at games from pre-chess engine days its just not fair to say "oh, the computer says..." Capablanca's accomplishments are no less impressive with or without computer analysis. 100 years later even Carlsen makes mistakes even though he has the benefit of countless chess books, computer databases, and chess engines to prepare.
Hmm, so Maroczy Tartakover will be coming up. Since one of the others will, almost certainly be an Alekhine game, and since you probably don't want to bore us with yet another Dutch, it will NOT be Bogolbov-Alekhine, Hastings, 1922. So it will be either Grunfeld-Alekhine Carlsbad 1923, or Reti-Alekhine, Baden=Baden, 1924. Of course, you will probably shock us with some game played in an Australian Class B tournament.
So happy to see this :D
This is the first game in the book The most instructive games of chess ever played - but in the notation it gives the first move as f5 and e6 as the 2nd move. Is that a misprint or did the author deliberately changed the move order so the opening is a Dutch Defence instead of a Horwitz Defence?
To encourage me to come up with a move: "Now you have to come come up with what Capablanca planned"
First! Great video