I am Cuban I am a chess player Capablanca was a Cuban man too, he invented a chess thing called POSITION, he said that a player can have material advantage, space advantage, time advantage and still lose the game because he has no good POSITION. POSITION is the backbone of the chess game.
@@AngelGonzalez-pd4cn this is true because he always built a position immediately thinking of the endgame, creating a minimal number of weaknesses in the position.
Alfred Kreymborg was among the top dozen or so chess players in the US around 1910, and was also a leading figure in the imagist and modernist movements in poetry/literature. A lifelong friend of Carl Sandburg, Kreymborg was a leading American intellectual and cultural figure for the next couple of decades. Among his close friends and associates were Alfred Stieglitz the photographer, Man Ray, the Dadaist/Surreealist painter, and another Dadaist, Marcel Duchamps (Nude Descending a Staircase) who was a very fine chess player in his own right, and played on some French chess Olympiad teams in the 1920's and 1930's. Kreymborg gave up chess completely a couple of years after this game was played, following a crushing and heartbreaking defeat by Oscar Chajes, who was one of the very few players anywhere to have scored a tournament victory against Capa. A K did return to the game about twenty years later, during the depression. He never regained the full strength he had in his glory days, but was once again bewitched by the spell of the game that had so possessed him in his youth. He wrote a wonderful short memoir, "Chess Reclaims a Devotee," which I read as a young boy in the marvelous anthology "The Fireside Book of Chess" in the late 1950's or early 60's. Highly recommended. Chajes, incidentally was the last player to beat Capa, in 1916 before the great man embarked on his 8-year undefeated streak which was ended by Reti at New York, 1924.
Great analysis. There is something to be said about a superior player just exchanging pieces knowing he'll win the endgame. It would great a very easy tournament style.
But it’s super boring and also seems unfair to me don’t know why.I like wins when there arr lots of materials on the board..tactical plays or positional maneuvering.. not just directly going to the endgame,,that doesn’t seem like chess.
@@RedwanurRahaman-cv9mrYou know there is something satisfying being able to spot a winning endgame and using a series of objectives set plan to get there as the pieces come off the boars. Once you have that advantage and can liquidate into such a position there is nothing like it. The other player is blundering checkmate in 30 moves just from trades and they do not even know it. You don't have to calculate each position, it is just known that the weaknesses are to much to cover if they are targeted in a systemic way, then a final simple endgame win ensues. King and pawn vs king, or king and major piece vs king.
The good players seem to have a knack of, well not exactly seeing ten moves ahead, but placing pieces on good squares so that when the trading feeding frenzy is over those pieces are ready to get down to business.
It's not really surprising, to be honest. Most lower leveled players rely on their tactical capabilities. Trading off pieces eliminates complicated positions. Reaching the endgame is an unfamiliar territory for them.
This has really been an epiphany for me. In the few games I’ve played since watching, I’m consciously not trying to find the “tricky” move that I saw in a RUclips video but can’t quite remember fully and instead just playing what I think I now understand as “solid chess”: just focusing on keeping a strong structure and small incremental improvements to my position. Thanks again!
can somebody explain why it would have been so bad for black to let white get his rook on the 7th? i.e. why black shouldn't take with the queen? around 4:20. Thanks!
In the quest to develop pieces, a rook on the 7th rank near the end of the game generally attacks everyone and often cuts off the opposing king from moving toward the middle to attack/defend anything. In this case, it would take black one additional move to defend the b pawn, after which white could move the other rook to the same file. With both rooks connected on the file, black would not be able to enter the file with one of his own rooks, (or be taken), and since white's already on the 7th rank, black could not get a rook onto the 7th rank for defense either--white would own both the open file and black's 7th rank. So white would have the opportunity to choose what he wants to attack and black would be stuck reacting and trying to defend...i.e. one side would be attacking with nothing but prospects to win while the other side would be defending and trying to achieve nothing better than avoiding the loss by achieving a draw.
Very good question. It turns out that Rh2+ holds the draw. White has to let the black rook to the b-file, behind the b6 pawn, or allow continued checks of his king. If Kb3 then Rh1 threatening to check from behind works for black. If white gets his king to a3, then Rh1 threatens to check from behind and win the rook.
The funny thing is, the end game consisted of many simple moves that ppl with ELO of 1600-1800 might have played. So not really sure this is a good demonstration of Capas abilties.
Capablanca didn't do nothing, he was just lazy. He knew he was the better endgame player so he regularly simplified so he wouldn't need to think to hard about it. Just look at his game against the first Marshal attack if you think he couldn't play complicated positions. Refuted that over the board.
There is a scene in Boardwalk Empire where Arnold Rothstein is giving wise counsel to Nucky Thompson who is being assailed on all sides. The hyper-intelligent character tells Nucky to "Do nothing...".
This video is pointless. Its more about a players blunders and mistakes not about skillful strategy. If you focussed on why they lost you will get more information.
Is because they trade on their terms and not yours? If so then change the trade terms and make it your trade with a pawn capture after. Trading pieces and winning pawns is good, be the guy who’s wins pawns after trades. Ez game, ez life
@@jamesmoran7511 Define "chess player". If (according to your definition) you aren't one: why do you make snide remarks about chess? Is it envy? Is chess a sore point with you? Is there any game at all you don't consider "stupid" or "pointless"? What's your point in clicking on YT flicks about chess in the first instance?
@@travis3382 I'm not talking about the other nine games but you know what I mean. London come on everybody knows something about the London. Bad things can happen to you when you play with a 1400 that specializes in the London System. I'd definitely smack him. And then he'd figure me out.
Please dont make such comments. Just have a look on his records and playing style. As per Fisher, Capablanca and Morphy is one of the top players of all time.
@@ManishSharma_OO7 Bro I'm just saying saying hey at 1400 every blitz game I play is 2700+ database on move 12++. This ain't that great of a game really.
Brothers and Sisters, God loves us so much that He sent His Son Jesus Christ for us to save us from our sins, and he bled and died on a cross for us to redeem us from death, and to gain life everlasting, for those who put their trust in him. And what's more, he has risen, and is willing to call you to repentance (correction) and as his witness, by his grace indeed. "For it is by grace you are saved, through faith". Jesus loves you, God cares for you! Therefore, repent and believe the gospel.
![Lasker's Rule Will Help You Get Better at Chess [INSTANT Improvement]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tPb5QXUHaMU/mqdefault.jpg)
Capablanca wasnt called "The Invincible Chess Machine" for nothing. My favorite chess player.
Dude understood pawns.
I am Cuban I am a chess player Capablanca was a Cuban man too, he invented a chess thing called POSITION, he said that a player can have material advantage, space advantage, time advantage and still lose the game because he has no good POSITION. POSITION is the backbone of the chess game.
@@AngelGonzalez-pd4cn this is true because he always built a position immediately thinking of the endgame, creating a minimal number of weaknesses in the position.
Alfred Kreymborg was among the top dozen or so chess players in the US around 1910, and was also a leading figure in the imagist and modernist movements in poetry/literature.
A lifelong friend of Carl Sandburg, Kreymborg was a leading American intellectual and cultural figure for the next couple of decades. Among his close friends and associates were Alfred Stieglitz the photographer, Man Ray, the Dadaist/Surreealist painter, and another Dadaist, Marcel Duchamps (Nude Descending a Staircase) who was a very fine chess player in his own right, and played on some French chess Olympiad teams in the 1920's and 1930's.
Kreymborg gave up chess completely a couple of years after this game was played, following a crushing and heartbreaking defeat by Oscar Chajes, who was one of the very few players anywhere to have scored a tournament victory against Capa. A K did return to the game about twenty years later, during the depression. He never regained the full strength he had in his glory days, but was once again bewitched by the spell of the game that had so possessed him in his youth. He wrote a wonderful short memoir, "Chess Reclaims a Devotee," which I read as a young boy in the marvelous anthology "The Fireside Book of Chess" in the late 1950's or early 60's. Highly recommended.
Chajes, incidentally was the last player to beat Capa, in 1916 before the great man embarked on his 8-year undefeated streak which was ended by Reti at New York, 1924.
Thank you!
Great analysis. There is something to be said about a superior player just exchanging pieces knowing he'll win the endgame. It would great a very easy tournament style.
But it’s super boring and also seems unfair to me don’t know why.I like wins when there arr lots of materials on the board..tactical plays or positional maneuvering.. not just directly going to the endgame,,that doesn’t seem like chess.
@@RedwanurRahaman-cv9mr not unfair winning is winning
@@RedwanurRahaman-cv9mrYou know there is something satisfying being able to spot a winning endgame and using a series of objectives set plan to get there as the pieces come off the boars. Once you have that advantage and can liquidate into such a position there is nothing like it. The other player is blundering checkmate in 30 moves just from trades and they do not even know it. You don't have to calculate each position, it is just known that the weaknesses are to much to cover if they are targeted in a systemic way, then a final simple endgame win ensues. King and pawn vs king, or king and major piece vs king.
@@RedwanurRahaman-cv9mrIf you play Go, you’re definitely not gonna be a fan of Lee Changho😂.
@@jimscheurtz8224 I dont get it
The good players seem to have a knack of, well not exactly seeing ten moves ahead, but placing pieces on good squares so that when the trading feeding frenzy is over those pieces are ready to get down to business.
Yes, pre-FIDE, the Grandmaster title 1:00 was first conferred on players by Tsar Nicholas in 1914.
can you slightly grey the screen when making alternative plays,so its easier to different between alternative game plays and the actual game
It's not really surprising, to be honest. Most lower leveled players rely on their tactical capabilities. Trading off pieces eliminates complicated positions. Reaching the endgame is an unfamiliar territory for them.
End game is unfamiliar for me because the zoomers i play at work quit if they start losing. 😨
Yes, I find that the closer I get to an endgame, the weaker opponents below 1900 play, sometimes astonishingly so...
Thank you for sharing this. Hope you can create more videos like this on Capa's earlier games, I think they illustrate lots of chess knowledge
Do we know what the time control was for this game? How long each player took deciding (or not) on their moves?
Great analysis .. simple and clear ..thanks
Just started this was great .don't
be scared to trade off
Iff u know what u doin love this one subbed
Nice to learn from this channel!
Capablanca was the early 1900s stockfish.
at 6:44, what was black's plan with the f4 square?
really enjoyed this breakdown and exploration!
Good video. Subscribed.
“Doing nothing” is prophylactic moves. Waiting for opponent to compromise his position or blunder somehow
Such a typical Capa game. Positional mastermind
Magnus could win this way as well. One of the greatest, if not the greatest end game player ever.
Loved this thank you. A good lesson in how simple good chess can be.
This has really been an epiphany for me. In the few games I’ve played since watching, I’m consciously not trying to find the “tricky” move that I saw in a RUclips video but can’t quite remember fully and instead just playing what I think I now understand as “solid chess”: just focusing on keeping a strong structure and small incremental improvements to my position. Thanks again!
can somebody explain why it would have been so bad for black to let white get his rook on the 7th? i.e. why black shouldn't take with the queen? around 4:20. Thanks!
In the quest to develop pieces, a rook on the 7th rank near the end of the game generally attacks everyone and often cuts off the opposing king from moving toward the middle to attack/defend anything. In this case, it would take black one additional move to defend the b pawn, after which white could move the other rook to the same file. With both rooks connected on the file, black would not be able to enter the file with one of his own rooks, (or be taken), and since white's already on the 7th rank, black could not get a rook onto the 7th rank for defense either--white would own both the open file and black's 7th rank. So white would have the opportunity to choose what he wants to attack and black would be stuck reacting and trying to defend...i.e. one side would be attacking with nothing but prospects to win while the other side would be defending and trying to achieve nothing better than avoiding the loss by achieving a draw.
@6:09 I heard "exchange deez knights" in my head.
Capablanca is just legendary
Learn a lot from this channel, TY
Please advise why white did not play B6 at 11:29. Thanks!
Very good question. It turns out that Rh2+ holds the draw. White has to let the black rook to the b-file, behind the b6 pawn, or allow continued checks of his king. If Kb3 then Rh1 threatening to check from behind works for black. If white gets his king to a3, then Rh1 threatens to check from behind and win the rook.
You know how good is a player seeing his endgames.
thank you for this coverage of the old games , i am not interested in modern computerized prepared lines to move 45
Great vid.. i found value and took away knowledge applied it and getting good results. great lesson! Who would of known😂 cheers ..
The funny thing is, the end game consisted of many simple moves that ppl with ELO of 1600-1800 might have played. So not really sure this is a good demonstration of Capas abilties.
That's definitely an opinion.
At 9:08 Rxa7 does not lead to an advantage for white. ...Rxa7 Rxa7 Rh6! Rc7 Ke5
It looks like rook to e7 at 11:45 was the real blunder of black, giving up the g line, so the white rook can intrude. Why did he do this?
Black is actually already lost at that point. White's threat of Ra6 and b5 is going to be decisive if black stays on the g-line.
@@chessdawg
True. Very bad pawn structure of black indeed.
You are correct, that opened up the lane and multiplied Capablanca's options, great insight !♟
How embarrassing for this opponent Kreymborg: "I am so bad at chess that I was defeated by a guy who basically did nothing the whole game."
Capablanca didn't do nothing, he was just lazy. He knew he was the better endgame player so he regularly simplified so he wouldn't need to think to hard about it. Just look at his game against the first Marshal attack if you think he couldn't play complicated positions. Refuted that over the board.
Nice.
That's how I play when I know the other player doesn't play that much.
Hey Man. Make a video on Sultan Khan vs Capablanca
bro scared to play f4 lol
Instead of bouncing around openings … study endings!
A good strategic game by capablanca
Who is the narrator?
Do nothing in face of having to make move is obviously an empty phrasing. (This isn't even a chess thought, this is linguistics!)
Good R end game
you are always seem to be refuting a point some unnamed chess entity made^^
U should reach 100000 subs soon
Instead of exchanging knights, maybe ... Nd3 was a powerful square.
bro whatsup with the commercials, i had more commercials than content
Do nothing but do it very well. IM David Levy [his strategy against chess engines]
There is a scene in Boardwalk Empire where Arnold Rothstein is giving wise counsel to Nucky Thompson who is being assailed on all sides. The hyper-intelligent character tells Nucky to "Do nothing...".
why do you mak moves that are more sensible? it is difficult to follow the game with your assumptions moves!! let the game flow naturally
Better call Saul
Sorry, but even a 2000 FIDE rated player now doesn't play like black. If you want to see Capablanca's masterpieces, get 'Kings of Chess' book.
This video is pointless. Its more about a players blunders and mistakes not about skillful strategy. If you focussed on why they lost you will get more information.
I hate players that swap everything.
Is because they trade on their terms and not yours? If so then change the trade terms and make it your trade with a pawn capture after. Trading pieces and winning pawns is good, be the guy who’s wins pawns after trades. Ez game, ez life
😂😂
Good lord, thumbnail looks like Jon Favreau.
Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do sh*t.
Today’s players are tougher.
Very little ... hm
Second?
Chess is pointless. Anyone who cares about this stupid game needs to consult mental health treatment.
So which games are not "pointless", and how do you support your point?
@@wolfganglaun2319 it's all pointless. That's my point.
@@jamesmoran7511 So are you.
@@wolfganglaun2319 you must be a chess player.
@@jamesmoran7511 Define "chess player". If (according to your definition) you aren't one: why do you make snide remarks about chess? Is it envy? Is chess a sore point with you? Is there any game at all you don't consider "stupid" or "pointless"? What's your point in clicking on YT flicks about chess in the first instance?
Capablanca, the most boring world champion
Boring is what losers call winners. Unfortunately, losers don't usually live long enough to have REAL fun. 😂
I thought Karpov held that title.
First view!
Good game for it's era but I would smack Capablanca if he played the London against me... and I'm a 1400 level player.
Wow you’re so strong
@@travis3382 I'm not talking about the other nine games but you know what I mean. London come on everybody knows something about the London. Bad things can happen to you when you play with a 1400 that specializes in the London System. I'd definitely smack him. And then he'd figure me out.
Please dont make such comments. Just have a look on his records and playing style. As per Fisher, Capablanca and Morphy is one of the top players of all time.
@@ManishSharma_OO7 Bro I'm just saying saying hey at 1400 every blitz game I play is 2700+ database on move 12++. This ain't that great of a game really.
Walter must be trolling
Brothers and Sisters, God loves us so much that He sent His Son Jesus Christ for us to save us from our sins, and he bled and died on a cross for us to redeem us from death, and to gain life everlasting, for those who put their trust in him. And what's more, he has risen, and is willing to call you to repentance (correction) and as his witness, by his grace indeed. "For it is by grace you are saved, through faith". Jesus loves you, God cares for you! Therefore, repent and believe the gospel.
Chess Dawg
Pretty good chest tactics by the generals of chess and thank you for your illustration much appreciated! ♟️
Finally a strategy for me