I was never good at calculation, so I had this kinda sad feelings about chess. But when I discovered Capablanca and all about strategy, everything has changed. A very simple way of playing that gives ridiculous results. There are some games, like this one, that he only moves the pieces to good squares. And "suddenly" a simple combination appears and he wins the game. Quite amazing. His style boost me to continue playing and studying. Thanks, Capablanca.
If you know the Philador mate which is mate in 5 and you see now is the time to play this variation, then you didn't calculate. It is just a pattern you know works. If you are Capablanca controling the centre of the board in the Ruy Lopez attacking on the king side crushing the player like a boa constrictor then you know the pattern. Every time Frank moves you tighten where he is weakest. Capablanca may not have needed to calculate he already played so many positions. Everyone else, we might want to check our intuition if the clock allows.
I had a (blitz) game like that in Santa Cruz in 1987. I sacced both bishops and a rook for three pawns and an exposed king, all because I saw an undefended rook on a8 and queen on c7, and thought I'd probably be able to chase the king from g8 to e8, giving a knight fork from d5 when he reached e7 in time to drive the king home to e8, and then take the queen with a second consecutive royal fork before finishing by taking the turret. 🦀🍿🧈🫗🫧🌊💥🙃🕳️😸!
Thank you for the great commentary. I appreciate the way you always give a little history on the players involved, then a short synopsis of the opening strategy, and then point out strategies and tactics as the game develops. I always learn something. Keep up the great work!
I thank you for sharing this game also. I read about Capablanca two months ago and learned that Marshall helped Capablanca shine in a way reminiscent of how Spassky let Fischer shine. Your reviewing such a game makes me feel more in touch with the masters who helped bring the game to its current healthy state. Thank you!
Spassky was/is an amazing gentleman and sportsman from all I have seen and read. I believe Pal Benko actually did more to let Fischer shine when he ceded his invitation to the Palma De Majorca (sp?) to Fischer in 1970. This lead to one of the greatest, if not the greatest, run of chess victories of all time against the world's top caliber players.
That's how I learned to play years ago in the early 1990s... picked it up from the old standard "Logical Chess: Move by Move" by Chernev. Most people today scoff at that type of play but it often works anyway. Thanks for the video mate.
Kasparov don't like Capa. He called him lazy and in his book is very harsh on him. He diminished the giant dimension of Capablanca and praise mora the play of Alekhine. What he does not understand is that Capa had another view of chess and his intuition and sense of positional play was such that he most of the time didn't have to calculate at all. And that is Greatness. Kasparov needs to calculate all and was never the fierce defensive or positional player Capa was.
Agreed. I've learned to take most everything Kasparov says about opponents with a grain of salt as he was so narcissistic. His match with Judit Polgar where he makes a move then takes it back. breaking chess clocks, having temper tantrums, etc. Fabulous/fantastic chess player? Unquestionably but he pales in all other aspects compared to other greats.
I had just gone over this game in Kasparov's MGP book. He said of the game at move 19.Q-e3 -"Up to a certain time such moves sufficed for Capa. With Marshall he did not need to calculate. With Lasker(1921) he could afford to miscue slightly, but with Alekhine(1927) when extreme accuracy was required, he no longer had the strength for complicated calculations: his laziness had become a habit of many years standing." Both Fischer and Kasparov knew the Spanish game inside out to score many valuable wins when needed after learning from Capa how to do so. Good show.
Beatiful game. The concepts are so clear that even I can understand and follow them, even learning from them. I have no rating and I have not played a live opponent in 40 years. I probable will not do well in my first rapid games when I feel I can play without blundering all over the place. Speed has alway been poorly by me and Rapid 10 min is about as fast as I might be able to play a decent game. This demonstration of simple strategic move without calculation will assist me in that.
I wonder which 49 move game of Capablanca’s Phillip Marlowe plays at the end of ‘The High Window’? It was night. I went home and put my old house clothes on and set the chessmen out and mixed a drink and played over another Capablanca. It went forty-nine moves. Beautiful and remorseless chess, almost creepy in its silent implacability. When it was done I listened at the open window for a while and smelled the night. Then I carried my glass out to the kitchen, and rinsed it and filled it with ice water and stood at the sink sipping it and looking at my face in the mirror. "You and Capablanca," I said.
Some of what I consider my best games were blitz battles, their details now all but entirely forgotten, where the decisive attack was not only too complex to calculate at speed, but at all. But intuition and inspiration told me to play them, and I won both the games and an excited audience of onlookers.
He played brilliantly simple good chess. When I first started chess. I was taught pretty much the same thing. Defend your pieces. Make sure all your pieces are defended. And move all your pieces out of back row and castle. Simple but textbook and it will set you up without calculations. Mix that in with aggressive pawn moves. If you watch top players they use there pawns more then lower level players , anyway thanks !
Sultan Khan was not a rudimentary player at all! Capa was perhaps too confident, but please respect Khan´s talent. No "rudimentary player" ever defeated the only World Champion with only 37 official lost games!
@@SilvioRicoCruz : oh no. Don't get me wrong. He was a rudimentary player in a way that he doesn't have opening knowledge the way other top players do. Also his playing style was self developed rather than adaptation of theoretical knowledge. He was rudimentary in a way that he doesn't rely on other principles rather than his own .
I think that this was part and parcel of why Capa lost the match with Alekhine, as when you go through the games, especially with the aid of an engine you can see where he did not calculate alot of the variations in alot of the games instead playing what appeared to be strong moves but not seeing the tactical refutations.
Hmm...Lichess agrees with Marshall at 4:08, where you say it's a tactical oversight and Capa said ...Ng5 was better, but Lichess says Marshall was correct with ...Bg5. Food for thought. Even Kasparov ganged up on him. Come to think of it, far be it from me to advise the great Capa, but why didn't he just take that bishop at e7 rather than ...h3xg4? Hmm....Haha I guess overreliance on Lichess maybe.
I felt bad, I Lost a battle against Capablanca bot, I had 2 bishops, 2 towers, and some pawns. He had more pawns, a queen and 2 towers, and he won!! Oh man, just my 3rd play agaisnt that damned bot, for a moment I felt i could win!
Using your arguments, you can say most games the player didn’t calculate, but just played the best intuitive move. Ridiculous statement by you because that would mean anyone could not calculate but just play the best intuitive move…but behind “the best intuitive move” is a shitload of prior experience with that opening.
Capablanca cheated at the end. He should have taken the rook after the king stepped aside, instead of making a move that was no better, demanded some calculation and ended up with a showy but pointless pin of the Queen and rook with the bishop on f8.
Great analysis as always ... but ... fall back and reconcile, please. Evaluate your current position: read the room/board. RUclips itself is a chess board. Act accordingly.
I was never good at calculation, so I had this kinda sad feelings about chess. But when I discovered Capablanca and all about strategy, everything has changed. A very simple way of playing that gives ridiculous results. There are some games, like this one, that he only moves the pieces to good squares. And "suddenly" a simple combination appears and he wins the game. Quite amazing. His style boost me to continue playing and studying. Thanks, Capablanca.
kasparov has a very special definition ""didn't calculate" because all i saw was the king on g6" while showing simple obvious mates in 8 and 11
He didnt calculate god dammit! 😂
@@stephenr80 he just knew that it was #16 when he saw Kg6 it just had to be winning
If you know the Philador mate which is mate in 5 and you see now is the time to play this variation, then you didn't calculate. It is just a pattern you know works.
If you are Capablanca controling the centre of the board in the Ruy Lopez attacking on the king side crushing the player like a boa constrictor then you know the pattern. Every time Frank moves you tighten where he is weakest. Capablanca may not have needed to calculate he already played so many positions. Everyone else, we might want to check our intuition if the clock allows.
I had a (blitz) game like that in Santa Cruz in 1987.
I sacced both bishops and a rook for three pawns and an exposed king, all because I saw an undefended rook on a8 and queen on c7, and thought I'd probably be able to chase the king from g8 to e8, giving a knight fork from d5 when he reached e7 in time to drive the king home to e8, and then take the queen with a second consecutive royal fork before finishing by taking the turret.
🦀🍿🧈🫗🫧🌊💥🙃🕳️😸!
Thank you for the great commentary. I appreciate the way you always give a little history on the players involved, then a short synopsis of the opening strategy, and then point out strategies and tactics as the game develops. I always learn something. Keep up the great work!
Love the Capablanca series.
I've always been partial toward keeping caclulations from muddying up a game. So nice seeing my approach vindicated.
I thank you for sharing this game also. I read about Capablanca two months ago and learned that Marshall helped Capablanca shine in a way reminiscent of how Spassky let Fischer shine.
Your reviewing such a game makes me feel more in touch with the masters who helped bring the game to its current healthy state. Thank you!
After that last rook move; I probably would have botched the Win.
Spassky was/is an amazing gentleman and sportsman from all I have seen and read. I believe Pal Benko actually did more to let Fischer shine when he ceded his invitation to the Palma De Majorca (sp?) to Fischer in 1970. This lead to one of the greatest, if not the greatest, run of chess victories of all time against the world's top caliber players.
That's how I learned to play years ago in the early 1990s... picked it up from the old standard "Logical Chess: Move by Move" by Chernev. Most people today scoff at that type of play but it often works anyway. Thanks for the video mate.
Kasparov don't like Capa. He called him lazy and in his book is very harsh on him. He diminished the giant dimension of Capablanca and praise mora the play of Alekhine. What he does not understand is that Capa had another view of chess and his intuition and sense of positional play was such that he most of the time didn't have to calculate at all. And that is Greatness. Kasparov needs to calculate all and was never the fierce defensive or positional player Capa was.
Agreed. I've learned to take most everything Kasparov says about opponents with a grain of salt as he was so narcissistic. His match with Judit Polgar where he makes a move then takes it back. breaking chess clocks, having temper tantrums, etc. Fabulous/fantastic chess player? Unquestionably but he pales in all other aspects compared to other greats.
Thanks ChessDawg. I've been enjoying your commentary reviews 👏😎
You do great analysis, thanks for your content!
I had just gone over this game in Kasparov's MGP book. He said of the game at move 19.Q-e3 -"Up to a certain time such moves sufficed for Capa. With Marshall he did not need to calculate. With Lasker(1921) he could afford to miscue slightly, but with Alekhine(1927) when extreme accuracy was required, he no longer had the strength for complicated calculations: his laziness had become a habit of many years standing." Both Fischer and Kasparov knew the Spanish game inside out to score many valuable wins when needed after learning from Capa how to do so. Good show.
Beatiful game. The concepts are so clear that even I can understand and follow them, even learning from them. I have no rating and I have not played a live opponent in 40 years. I probable will not do well in my first rapid games when I feel I can play without blundering all over the place. Speed has alway been poorly by me and Rapid 10 min is about as fast as I might be able to play a decent game. This demonstration of simple strategic move without calculation will assist me in that.
Very cool breakdown
I wonder which 49 move game of Capablanca’s Phillip Marlowe plays at the end of ‘The High Window’?
It was night. I went home and put my old house clothes on and set the chessmen out and mixed a drink and played over another Capablanca. It went forty-nine moves. Beautiful and remorseless chess, almost creepy in its silent implacability.
When it was done I listened at the open window for a while and smelled the night. Then I carried my glass out to the kitchen, and rinsed it and filled it with ice water and stood at the sink sipping it and looking at my face in the mirror.
"You and Capablanca," I said.
Thank you to share this game!
Some of what I consider my best games were blitz battles, their details now all but entirely forgotten, where the decisive attack was not only too complex to calculate at speed, but at all.
But intuition and inspiration told me to play them, and I won both the games and an excited audience of onlookers.
More of Capablanca's classical games please.
You got it!
Hey ChessDawg! This is a truly insightful game--thanks so much! It is both a fun game and a highly instructive game.
Hi CD! Excellent videos! More capablanca, fischer and tal when you have time please! Be well!
Add Morphy, Petrosian, and Judit Polgar and you have my six favorite players of all time.
@@PeterWhite-q1k thats an entertaining top 6! Very fun and a lot we can learn from them!
He played brilliantly simple good chess. When I first started chess. I was taught pretty much the same thing. Defend your pieces. Make sure all your pieces are defended. And move all your pieces out of back row and castle. Simple but textbook and it will set you up without calculations. Mix that in with aggressive pawn moves. If you watch top players they use there pawns more then lower level players , anyway thanks !
great analysis, thank you
Beautifull game crystal clear review thank you very much
Looks like the sort of opening Bobby Fischer would turn into a King's Indian Attack! Great post & analysis!
Hello sir, please cover Capablanca game with Sultan khan and elaborate how he lost to a very rudimentary player.
Sultan Khan was not a rudimentary player at all! Capa was perhaps too confident, but please respect Khan´s talent. No "rudimentary player" ever defeated the only World Champion with only 37 official lost games!
@@SilvioRicoCruz : oh no. Don't get me wrong. He was a rudimentary player in a way that he doesn't have opening knowledge the way other top players do. Also his playing style was self developed rather than adaptation of theoretical knowledge. He was rudimentary in a way that he doesn't rely on other principles rather than his own .
Thanks as always ChessDawg
I think that this was part and parcel of why Capa lost the match with Alekhine, as when you go through the games, especially with the aid of an engine you can see where he did not calculate alot of the variations in alot of the games instead playing what appeared to be strong moves but not seeing the tactical refutations.
But how can you say for certain that someone didn’t calculate moves in a chess game?
Hmm...Lichess agrees with Marshall at 4:08, where you say it's a tactical oversight and Capa said ...Ng5 was better, but Lichess says Marshall was correct with ...Bg5. Food for thought. Even Kasparov ganged up on him. Come to think of it, far be it from me to advise the great Capa, but why didn't he just take that bishop at e7 rather than ...h3xg4? Hmm....Haha I guess overreliance on Lichess maybe.
wow this one is straight up inspiring
Instead of moving the white bishop to A4, why didn’t Capa take the pawnn on D4?
I felt bad, I Lost a battle against Capablanca bot, I had 2 bishops, 2 towers, and some pawns. He had more pawns, a queen and 2 towers, and he won!! Oh man, just my 3rd play agaisnt that damned bot, for a moment I felt i could win!
I don't believe he did not calculate. If his time was ticking on the clock then he was calculating. Did he finish without spending time?
Loved it. The old masters breathed it
Breathed what?
Chess
I never calculate
😂😂
Capablanca in the making right here.
Thanks.
what website is he using?
It is software, not a website.
so white is using ultra instinct just like me..he must be talented
Using your arguments, you can say most games the player didn’t calculate, but just played the best intuitive move. Ridiculous statement by you because that would mean anyone could not calculate but just play the best intuitive move…but behind “the best intuitive move” is a shitload of prior experience with that opening.
I would never consider g4.
Another sign to try to be less dogmatic and more adventurous.
Capablanca cheated at the end. He should have taken the rook after the king stepped aside, instead of making a move that was no better, demanded some calculation and ended up with a showy but pointless pin of the Queen and rook with the bishop on f8.
So basically just play the Spanish
I think your face is too much of the screen . Not personal. Just more room for the board.
Great analysis as always ... but ... fall back and reconcile, please. Evaluate your current position: read the room/board.
RUclips itself is a chess board. Act accordingly.
What does this mean?