300 Most Important Chess Positions

A Book Review

If you follow Chess Skills, then you know that I've been working through Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) at a pace far more accelerated than recommended by the author. When I announced this 60 day effort in December, I noted, “failure may be expected”. I worked through the last four positions this morning, the 74th day.

I heartily recommend this book. Studying five positions per week, as the author suggests, improves retention, and likely long-term benefits from study. Having raced through the book, I will be reviewing and deepening my study of many positions in the book over the coming months.

Engqvist’s 300 positions are selected from classical games, recent master practice, and compositions. Engqvist also includes some of his own most instructive losses. He is guided by a library of chess books, many years of playing, and experience coaching. The core idea of deep study of a limited number of positions developed from the way he was coached by Robert Danielsson while a young player. He studied positions from Ludek Pachman’s books on the middlegame and endgame.

Alekhine builds his gun

In the introduction, Engqvist makes a case for careful, disciplined study and focus on a limited number of positions per week. This contrasts markedly with Jeremy Silman's recollection that as a young chess player, he went through "200 to 500 games a day, every day" ("Studying Master Games and Berkmaster's First Over-the-Board Tournament Battle"). Silman claims that he absorbed tactical patterns and positional concepts in this manner. Engqvist advocates reflection and review with intent to "understand, grasp and assimilate the most important idea(s)" (9). He asserts that studying too many positions at once lead you to forget what you have learned. At the core of this learning process, he writes, is "to gain a deeper appreciation of the inner qualities of the pieces, their movements and their actual value in any specific position" (emphasis in original, 9).

By way of illustration, he offers this composition by Paul Rudolf von Bilguer from 1843.

White to move

This position appears in the introduction and as number 281 in the text. Both Ludek Pachman and André Chéron advocate 1.Qe6 and consider the position a draw, but tablebases show that it is a win. There is much to attempt to absorb in the tablebase moves that Engqvist annotates (274-276), but he notes that sometimes the queen works best when it does no more than a rook can do (9). 1.Qc7! is the only winning move. The queen's demotion explains the first move, but subsequent moves draw on the full mobility of the queen, leading Engqvist to marvel at "how the attacker uses the queen over practically the whole board" (276).

The positions that he chooses are interesting, challenging, instructive, and practical. Most of them were tested with chess players who subscribed to an email course where they were presented five positions per week. Rarely is a single move or short sequence the solution that one must find while examining the position. Only a few offer long computer solutions as in the Bilguer study. A considerable number of positions feature equal or near equal positions from games where strong moves and persistent maneuvers eventually provoked error.

Many of the positions are suitable for training with a study partner. Engqvist recommends playing both sides with another person, or against the computer. Teaching the position to someone else improves retention he notes, and in my experience also depth of understanding. My young students often vex me with moves that were not anticipated in master commentary or computer analysis. The positions in this book are excellent resources for coaches. The day that I acquired this book in February 2019, I took it to a lesson with my top student. We looked at six endgames and then the first position in the book (see "A New Book and a Morphy Game"). The next few weeks, this student and I will be playing some of the rook and queen endings.

Emphasis is on positional concepts, rather than tactical operations. The author notes that this emphasis distinguishes his book from Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas (1997), which emphasizes tactics. Alburt also limits the number of endgames. He states that becoming a "strong player" requires knowledge of 12 key pawn endings, not hundreds (9). These 12 are in his Pocket Book. Alburt's book is the second one that I list in "Ten Books to Achieve 1800+".

Some positions in 300 Most Important Chess Positions are surprising, such as White’s second move in the English Opening, Sicilian Reversed.

White to move

But this position is placed alongside others (both English Opening and Sicilian Defense) with references to several games played by top players. There is plenty of study material in these games. I might also note that Engqvist’s opening choices reflected in the positions chosen offer more variety than those in another collection of 300 positions that I’ve spent time working through: Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). Ziyatdinov’s positions stem from games where 1.e4 is the overwhelming choice.

An instructive sequence of positions that I found highly motivating began with Bologan,V.--Frolov,A., Moscow 1991, a Sicilian Defense, then in a variation continued with Anand,V.--Illescas Cordoba,M., Linares 1992 and reference to Karpov,A.--Kasparov,G., Moscow 1985.  It continued with Bologan--Frolov for two more positions, then Marin,M.--Korneev,O., Capo d'Orso 2008 takes us through moves 2-4 through three positions in the English Opening, Sicilian Reversed.

The first position in the book is slightly less surprising, but with two book moves played by Adolf Anderssen and Paul Morphy, as well as many other players before and since, Engqvist’s preference for Morphy’s choice provokes reflection.

White to move

9.Nc3 and 9.d5 both get played by masters today. Adolf Anderssen favored 9.d5 and won many games from this position. Paul Morphy showed, Engqvist suggests, that 9.Nc3 is a better developing move.

As I consider Morphy’s 9.Nc3 in the Evans Gambit or Mihai Marin’s view that after 1.c4 e5, 2.g3 is the most precise, I am reminded of my tendency to blitz out opening moves by rote and only begin thinking after an inaccuracy. Engqvist’s positions from very early in the game should help me to develop better habits. Thinking should begin before the first move, even if positions at move 10 are well-studied.

There are positions in this book that I have used with students for many years and there are positions that are wholly new to me. There are many positions with several pages of analysis and variations. There are positions that should be drawn, but one player was able to present sufficient difficulties to provoke error.

Ziyatdinov advocates memorizing the 56 games from which he draws the middlegame positions; Engqvist is more selective in games that he suggests the student commit to memory. Schulten -- Morphy, New York 1857, a King's Gambit that Morphy won in 21 moves, appears in both and I'm close to having it in my long-term memory. I have not yet started the effort to memorize Karpov,A.--Unzicker,W., Nice 1974, which is another suggestion of Engqvist's.

One position that I studied in early January led me to improve my move order in a position that I frequently reach while playing against the Caro-Kann.

Several endgame positions that I played against Stockfish before or after reading Engqvist's notes drove me to dig into some of the volumes in Yuri Averbakh's eight-volume series.

Engqvist's analysis is fresh, lucid, and thought-provoking. Many of his memorable phrases guide me when they should--appropriate moments during play. For example, "Nimzowitsch tried to make his opponent tired and careless by doing nothing" (230). In Duras -- Nimzowitsch, San Sebastian 1912, more than twenty moves of rooks and kings were played in a completely equal endgame. Only when Duras erred did Nimzowitsch move a pawn.

I reflected on this lesson while playing online a completely drawn ending of bishop and knight versus bishop, and then nine moves prior to a draw by the 50-move rule, my opponent allowed a small combination that allowed me to win his bishop. That game, then, became my first opportunity to checkmate with bishop and knight that did not result from a deliberate underpromotion. Because of Engqvist's choice of positions, I had recently practiced that checkmate, too (see "Recognizing Known Positions").

300 Most Important Chess Positions was on my shelf nearly six years, serving as occasional study material and reference for finding positions suitable for some of my students. Now that I've been through every position, I will use it more actively.

I have a to do list that developed as I was going through the book. The list includes studying Jose Capablanca's analysis of a couple of his games in My Chess Career (1920), the only Capablanca authored book that I did not wholly read in 2021. Engqvist brought to my attention a game that Richard Reti analyzes in Master of the Chessboard (1930), which I intend to study. Some of Engqvist's analysis draws from Victor Bologan, Victor Bologan: Selected Games 1985-2004 (2007), and I added it to my library. The long rook endgames and queen endings are games worth reviewing periodically until I absorb their lessons.

Another task presented to me after racing through this book is that Engqvist has also published 300 Most Important Tactical Chess Positions (2020), 300 Most Important Chess Exercises (2022), and Chess Lessons from a Champion Coach (2023). Any or all of these books would be worth my time. Perhaps I'll continue to ignore Engqvist's advice on pacing, and race through his tactics book in the near future.

Equal is not yet Drawn

In "Playing Drawn Endings", I noted some cases where grandmasters played on in technically drawn endings. Sometimes a draw offer was made and refused. Sometimes a player erred and lost.

When I awoke this morning, foremost on my mind were memories of a game when my lower rated opponent offered a draw in an equal position with plenty of play. It happens almost every day in online chess. One in particular took me some time to find in my history. It is notable because a position was reached that I use in training my students. Needless to say, I know how to win it. My opponent could have avoided this technically lost position with better endgame play.

Internet Opponent -- Stripes,J [C00]
Live Chess Chess.com, 05.03.2025

White to move

42.Ke3 Kd6 43.Nb4 Nd5+ 44.Nxd5 Kxd5 45.Kd3

Now a pawn ending that is equal, but offers plenty of chances to err. Perhaps it was at this point that my opponent offered a draw. 

45...b5 46.b3 g5 47.h3

Stockfish slightly favors 47.g4, but both moves maintain equality.

47...h5

White to move

48.Kc3

Should one doubt the difficulty of playing this ending correctly, I might note that Komodo 13 sees 48.Ke3 as just as good, while Stockfish 16 sees Kc3 as the only move that holds equality. 

48...f5 49.Kd3

After 49.b4 h4 50.gxh4 gxh4, there is only one move that holds, but it is not difficult to find 51.Kd3

49...Kc5

White to move

50.g4??

This move loses. White had five other choices that are equal.

50...fxg4-+ 51.fxg4

51.hxg4 h4

51...hxg4 52.hxg4 Kd5 53.Ke3 Ke5 54.a4 bxa4

54...b4 is a shorter distance to mate

55.bxa4

Black to move

55...a5

The only winning move is easy to find because the position is nearly identical to one reached in Example 27 in Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals (1921), which I have studied carefully. Capablanca's position, which is not original with him, is a standard training position that I use to teach and test students on understanding opposition and outflanking.

56.Ke2

56.Kd3 is more stubborn 56...Kf4 57.Kc4 Kxg4 58.Kb5 Kf4 59.Kxa5 g4 60.Kb5 g3 61.a5 g2 62.a6 g1Q and Black's queen controls the next square for White's pawn.

56...Ke4

56...Kf4 is more accurate

57.Kd2 Kd4 58.Ke2 Ke4 59.Kd2 Kf4 60.Kc3 Kxg4 61.Kd2 Kf4

White to move

White can resign, but played on until the clock ran out.

62.Ke2 Ke4 63.Kf2 Kd4 64.Ke2 Kc4 65.Kf3 Kb4 66.Kg4 Kxa4 67.Kxg5 Kb3 Black won on time 0-1

Copying

Working with very young chess players, I often hear one of them complaining that their opponent is copying their moves. It sounds as though there is some ethical problem with such behavior. When I'm drawn into the discussion, I point out that such imitation is completely within the rules and that it generally favors the first player.

Jose Capablanca offers a comment on symmetry in Chess Fundamentals (1921).

After the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.O-O O-O 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5, we reach the following position.

Black to move

Capablanca asserts. "there is long analysis showing that Black should lose if he also plays 7...Bg4" (27). The reader is left wondering where to find this analysis, but Capablanca offers no clues. ChessBase Mega 2024 contains fifteen games with the resulting position prior to publication of Chess Fundamentals. One is a sixteen move miniature that Capablanca won in a simul in 1918. Another, Alekhine--Marshall, St. Petersburg 1914 was drawn after 45 moves and annotated by Siegbert Tarrasch. Capablanca participated in the tournament where this game was played. Perhaps he and others spent some time analyzing the game.

After 8.Nd5 Nd4, Alekhine played 9.Kh1 and Tarrasch recommends 9.Nxb4 Nxb5 10.Nd5 Nd4.

Tarrasch's recommendation was the continuation in Capablanca's miniature.

The game continued: 11.Qd2 Qd7

White to move

Black carried the imitation too far and will now suffer punishment.

12.Bxf6

12.Nxf6+ may be slightly better. 12...gxf6 13.Bxf6 and now 13...Nxf3+ walks into checkmate in four.

12...Bxf3 13.Ne7+

Checks usually end all chance of further copying.

13...Kh8

13...Qxe7 14.Bxe7 is the only way to avoid immediate checkmate.

White to move

White has forced mate in three.

14.Bxg7+ Kxg7 15.Qg5+ Kh8 16.Qf6#

Yesterday, I found myself in a symmetrical position.

White to move

Ten moves have been played.

11.Ne5

After 11...Qb3 12.Nxb3, the symmetry ends and both players have equal chances.

My opponent, inexplicably, played 11...Nxe5?? 12.Qxb6+-

Black found a way to keep the game interesting, but the win was simply a matter of avoiding a few transparent traps after that.

Capablanca's game and my position from yesterday are today's lesson plan for the beginning students who I meet this afternoon. Do not fear copying as it does not harm you.

Chess Club Lessons

The after school chess club that I run in an elementary school began the second week of October after a week's delay because I had COVID. We meet twice per week with some students coming both days and some coming once each week. Each session is devoted to children playing chess with other and sometimes with me. There is always a short lesson. As the year goes along, sometimes these lessons will be built around a worksheet. For example, the students will see as many worksheets from my Essential Tactics* as time allows.

Chess Skills has a record of a great many of my lessons in years past. The tag, "Problem of the Week" links to these.

Here is a synopsis of the lessons so far this fall for further review by students and parents, as well as for anyone interested.

11 October

We began with an endgame position that occurred in a game that I played online and that I believe highlights the importance of calculation and a single tempo in a pawn race. "Time and Speed" shows this position with analysis of the game's conclusion and how White should have played.

13 October

Young students often express frustration when their opponent "copies" their moves. The lesson featured a game played by Jose R. Capablanca a few years before he became World Champion. In symmetrical positions, the first player often has an advantage. Check puts an end to the copying. 

Capablanca,Jose Raul -- NN [C49]
New York casual New York, 1918

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4

The copying begins.

5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bg4 8.Nd5 Nd4

White to move

9.Nxb4 Nxb5 10.Nd5 Nd4 11.Qd2

Black to move

11...Qd7??

Now, Black is lost. After 11...Nxf3+, White is only slightly better.

12.Bxf6 Bxf3 13.Ne7+

Black to move

13...Kh8

13...Qxe7 is best. Black loses the queen. The move played gives White a forced checkmate in three. Students were asked to find the conclusion.

14.Bxg7+ Kxg7 15.Qg5+ Kh8 16.Qf6# 1-0

18 October

Students were presented with a difficult endgame position that was part of Hikaru Nakamura's analysis of Niemann,H. -- Lenderman,A., Saint Louis 2022, a game played the previous day in the US Championship.

White to move

I had no expectation that young players would find the correct move. However, the wrong answers are quite instructive for showing the difficulties a bishop has stopping three connected passed pawns. It is an impossible task in this case.

45.Bb5!! is the only winning move.

If Black captures the bishop, then White queens first and the queen controls Black's promotion square. 45...axb5 46.a6 h3 47.a7 h2 48.a8Q.

If Black opts to leave the bishop alone and advance pawns, play might continue 45...h3 46.Bxa6 g5 47.Bf1 g4 48.a6 h2 49.Bg2 f4 50.a7 f3 51.a8Q fxg2 52.Qxg2 and White wins.

Following this lesson, I showed the students the game's continuation beginning with White's move 30.

White to move

30.Kb4!

Nakamura praised this move.

30...Nf4 31.Rh2 Kc7 32.a5 cxb5 33.Bxb5 a6 34.Ba4

Nakamura stated that 34.Bc4 seems more natural, but also pointed out how Niemann's move keeps Black from occupying the open e-file with his rook.

34...Ne6 35.d5 Nxg5 36.d6+

Black to move

It was here that Alex Lenderman made the error that cost him the game. This position was where we began Thursday's lesson.

20 October

The lesson was to understand the threats that Lenderman overlooked.

36...Kd8?

Students suggested 36...Kb8, which is better than 36...Kd8. According to Nakamura and Stockfish, 36...Kc8 would have given Black excellent chances to hold a draw.

37.c6

Niemann played the only winning move.

37...bxc6 38.Kc5

Again, the only winning move.

38...f4

Nakamura analyzed 38...Ne4+ and some of this analysis was shared with my students. One of these lines leads to the endgame position that was Tuesday's focus.

39.Rb2 Ne6+ 40.Kxc6

Black to move

If Black's king were on c8, White would not have a checkmate threat. This threat forces concessions that lead to a position where Black must give up the rook for White's queen.

40...Nd6+ 41.Kd5 Nb5 42.Bxb5 axb5 43.Kc6 Ke8 44.Kc7

Black to move

I pointed out to the students that if we removed all the pieces except the two kings and White's d-pawn, we would have an elementary pawn ending position that they all need to know.

44...Kf7 45.d7 1-0

Lenderman resigned here. Young students, however, benefit from seeing the reason on the board.

45.d7 Ke7 46.Re2+ Kf7 47.d8Q Rxd8 48.Kxd8 and White's rook will be able to stop Black's two passed pawns. A student needed to see even this demonstrated, so I showed him a couple more moves until he said, "Okay, now I get it."

Next week, the demo board and/or worksheets will be used to teach some checkmate patterns or techniques.

*The worksheets are available in reproducible format (no solutions) as Essential Tactics: The Worksheets (2017). The same exercises with solutions and instructional content is available only in Kindle format as Essential Tactics: Building a Foundation for Chess Skill (2017). These worksheets were created after an inspiring experience using Bruce Pandolfini, Beginning Chess (1993).

"The student should work this out"

In Chess Fundamentals by José Raúl Capablanca, the author frequently states that a given position, "should be worked out by the student", and other comparable phrases. This assertion vexes some readers and some coaches are loath to recommend the book. If the student does not understand something, how will they come to an understanding without assistance?

In some cases, especially with simple pawn endgames in chapter 1 of Chess Fundamentals, I believe that Capablanca provides the necessary resources in the explanations that he offers. Still, I have seen others struggle. They need more help. Capablanca recommends a teacher.

When Capablanca wrote Chess Fundamentals (he was checking the proofs in England in 1920 while negotiating conditions for the World Championship Match that took place in March and April 1921--see "WCC Havana 1921" in this site's index), there were fewer resources than we have today. I believe the standard endgame book then was Johann Berger, Theorie und Praxis der Endspiele (1890), a book in the German language that was probably not readily available or accessible to the majority of Capablanca's readers.

Today, however, we have an abundance of books, websites, YouTube, ready access to engines, and even tablebases. The danger to the student stems not from lack of help, but rather too much help. Easy access to answers cause many to fail to develop self-reliance. Capablanca's call to develop the habit of working things out may offer a more certain formula for strengthening a player's skills.

I often claim that I have zero natural ability at chess, but that I have learned a modest amount from books (see "My First Chess Book"). Many years ago when I started reading chess books, I found much that was confusing. The book I remember most clearly is Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Often it was not evident to me why a game ended. Sometimes Chernev explained the reason, but even then I had questions. I sought answers to my questions by moving the pieces on a chess board, exploring variations. Certainly, with so little skill at the time, most of my fantasy variations were rubbish. Even so, the effort developed a habit of thinking for myself about chess.

The past few days I've found myself back in the classroom, seeking understanding. I started playing some bishop endgames against the computer on chess.com. Failure in my first effort got me hooked. My time struggling through five positions against the silicon monster engages me for hours every day. At the Learn/Endgames/Minor Pieces/Bishops tab on chess.com, there are five practice positions. To see the second one, you must checkmate the computer in the first. The first is simple and takes me from 12 to 24 seconds most times. 

The second one varies in difficulty, depending on how the engine plays.

White to move

Number Two

1.Bf5

I always play this move. It might be best.

1...h5 2.f3

Now the engine has played 2...a5, 2...Ke7, and 2...Kc6 most regularly. 2...Kc6 has proven most testing but I am reliably winning most of the time. Success grants me the opportunity to see number three.

White to move

Number Three

I found the pawn sacrifice quickly and now get to my seventh move in two seconds or less. Sometimes I reach this point with considerably less than two minutes total time elapsed for checkmating the computer in the first two and playing these seven moves.

1.c5 dxc5 2.Bc4 Bg4 3.Kxe5 Ke7 4.Kd5 Kxf7 5.Kxc5 Ke7 (the computer threw me a curve with 5...Kf6 at least once) 6.Kxb4 Kd6 7.Bd5

Black to move

The computer has played at least five different moves here.

a) 7...Bf3 proved challenging the first time I saw it. That line now often continues 8.Ka5 Be2 9.b4 Bg4 10.Kb6 Bh3 11.b5 Bg4 12.Ka7 and the computer must give up the bishop for my b-pawn.

Black to move

12...Kc5 has given me trouble when I am moving too fast, which the exercise encourages by tracking total time for the series and making me play simple checkmates all the way to the end. Sometimes I underpromote to practice bishop and knight or two bishop checkmates.

13.Bc6 Bc8

Here, 14.b6?? fails, but both 14.Kb8 and 14.e5 succeed.

I have seen most of the computer's responses several times, but this morning's effort presented me with a position I did not recall seeing before. 

b) 7...Bd7 8.Ka5 Kc7 9.Kb4 Kb6

White to move

10.Kc4!

There is more than one way to get rid of Black's bishop.

10...Be8 11.Kd4 Kb5 12.e5 Kb4 13.Ke4 Kc5

White to move

14.Bg8 Bc6+ 15.Kf5 Kb4 16.Kf6 Kc3 17.Bc4 Bd7

This move is Stockfish surrendering it seems.

White to move

18.e6 Bc6 19.Kf7 

Black must give up the bishop for the e-pawn. A few moves later, I underpromoted the b-pawn to a bishop. When I was nine or ten moves from mate, I made a hasty move that stalemated the engine. Now, I must start over at number one. I've played number five half a dozen times and have some ideas how to proceed. My current problems are two: 1) the engine lures me into a pawn ending that is lost foe me, and 2) I fail two, three, and four too often.

Have you tried these exercises? How did you do?

Capablanca and Books

There should be no question that study of the games of José Raúl Capablanca will benefit any chess player.

Had I made a New Year's Resolution to study the games and works of Capablanca in 2021, it would be my satisfaction to report excellent progress. But I have lost that particular self-improvement habit. Nonetheless, the pursuit of knowledge is central to all that I do. 

My long-lasting advocacy of Chess Fundamentals (1921) as a terrific resource for beginning players was given as a boost as Netflix's Queen's Gambit (2020) brought a surge in the number of beginners seeking advice. I created "Advice for Beginners" so that I could avoid typing the same thing day-after-day, and so my answer could be more detailed. 

Writing that article motivated me to reread Chess Fundamentals, a task made easier by purchasing both the algebraic edition in paperback and an ebook version in ChessBase format. Rapidly, my collection of books by and about Capablanca began to grow from two books that I have had several years to fifteen (at the moment of this writing).

Capablanca, José R. Chess Fundamentals. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1934.

I have only a vague recollection of buying this book sometime in the 1990s. Much clearer is my horror when I found a position in the text that I had been shown at the Spokane Chess Club, and proven myself ignorant as to the solution (see "Capablanca's Sources").

Capablanca, José. Chess Fundamentals. London: Everyman Chess Classics, 1994.

Anyone lacking a copy of Chess Fundamentals should order this book forthwith. Be careful that you are getting this copy (a reprint) or a used copy of the original Cadogan Chess version from 1994. See my footnote to "Advice for Beginners" for more detail.

Capablanca, José. Chess Fundamentals, rev. and updated by Nick de Firmian. New York: Random House, 2006.

Aside from acknowledging that I bought a used copy last spring, I have nothing to add to Edward Winter, "Capablanca Book Destroyed", Chess History Center, updated 6 August 2020.

Capablanca, José R. A Primer of Chess, rpt. San Diego: Harcourt, Inc, 1977 (1935).

Capablanca considered A Primer of Chess as a companion to Chess Fundamentals. There is some overlap, especially in the section on elementary checkmates and basic pawn endings. This book, however, begins with the basic rules of the game, omitted from the earlier book. Some of the discussion on openings is a bit more detailed than in Chess Fundamentals, and the tactics portion is less oriented towards forced checkmates. I concur with the author's assessment.

Capablanca, José Raoul. Last Lectures: The Chess Legacy of José Raoul Capablanca. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1966.

This book offers a print version of lectures that Capablanca delivered over the radio shortly before his death. It could be seen as the third in his trilogy for beginners. The themes are in the spirit of the two earlier books, but the examples differ.

Capablanca, José Raúl. World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927. New York: Dover, 1977.

This book is a republication of Capablanca's limited edition book on the match that was published by American Chess Bulletin in 1921. It also republishes a 1928 book on the match with Alekhine with annotations by Fred D. Yates and William Winter.

Capablanca, José Raúl. Capablanca x3: My Chess Career, A Primer of Chess, Chess Fundamentals. London: Everyman Chess Classics, 2017.

This book presents in facsimile the text of My Chess Career (1920), along with algebraic versions of Capablanca's other two books. The pagination of each volume is retained. With the others listed above, this gives me three print copies of Chess Fundamentals, two of which are identical.

Chernev, Irving. Capablanca's Best Chess Endings. New York: Dover, 1978.

This is one of prolific author Irving Chernev's most highly regarded books. He offers sixty complete games arranged chronologically, selected based on the endings. The index, "Principal themes in the endings" (287), has been useful to me while looking for instructive lessons for my students. I bought this book after losing the Spokane City Championship in 2012. My opponent beat me in a nice endgame in one of the games and credited study of this book for having prepared him.

Del Rosario, Frisco. Capablanca: A Primer of Checkmate. Newton Highlands, MA: Mongoose Press, 2010.

Frisco del Rosario took the structure of the classic Renaud and Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate and developed a similar text using Capablanca's games. Naturally, it is less comprehensive than Renaud and Kahn, as Capablanca did not have the opportunity to employ the full range of patterns. Even so, it is a terrific instructional book.

Gilchrist, J., and D. Hooper. Weltgeschichte des Scachs, no. 14: Jose Raoul Capablanca. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. E. Wildhagen, 1963.

This book contains all of Capablanca's match and tournament games with a diagram every five moves. There is not much need for such texts in these days of databases and websites, but it served a purpose when it was published.

Golombek, Harry. Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess. London: B.C.M. Classic Reprints, 1989.

This book offers reasonably insightful annotations for the pre-computer age. I examine the annotations to the first game in some detail in "Is Less More?"

Hooper, David, and Dale Brandreth. The Unknown Capablanca. New York: R.H.M. Press, 1975.

This book gathers games from exhibitions and lesser matches. It serves well as a companion to Gilchrist and Hooper, above, when you need to study Capablanca's games without computers and the internet.

Linder, Isaak, and Vladimir Linder. José Raúl Capablanca: 3rd World Chess Champion, trans. Boris Belitsky. Milford, CT: Russell Enterprises, 2010.

Although I read this book in two afternoons after it arrived, I cannot recommend it enthusiastically. The authors are a bit sloppy with factual matters, even claiming to find a forced checkmate that Capablanca missed because they have incorrect notation. Lasker played 41...Qd7, but they have 41...Qd2 (82). Even so, it is readable. For a quick overview of Capablanca's life and chess achievements, it is a place to begin.

Reinfeld, Fred. The Immortal Games of Capablanca. New York: Dover, 1990.

Which is preferable, the annotations of Harry Golombek or those of Fred Reinfeld? This book contains 112 games.

Sánchez, Miguel A. José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2015.

This book is the definitive biography of Capablanca, expanding on a Spanish edition published decades earlier, Capablanca, Leyenda y Realidad (1978). Miguel Sánchez's scholarship is first-rate and the book is well-written.

Winter, Edward. Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes, Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations and Other Rare Archival Materials on the Chess Genius José Raúl Capablanca, 1888-1942. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1989.

As the long title indicated, this book assembles primary materials relating to Capablanca's work and life. These are presented with Edward Winter's exemplary attention to detail and often wit.

There are other books about Capablanca, but these are the ones I have on my shelves.

Is Less More?

Capablanca was strangely poor at explaining and annotating his own games. Possibly this was because he assumed immediate comprehension on the part of the reader of moves that really demanded considerable explanation.
Harry Golombek, Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess (1947)

In My Chess Career (1920), José Raúl Capablanca annotated two of his games from his match with Juan Corzo. Harry Golombek begins Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess with the same two games. There is no question that Golombek's annotations are more extensive, but are they more useful?

Let's examine the annotations to the first of these.

Corzo y Prinzipe,Juan -- Capablanca,Jose Raul [C25]
Havana match Havana (8), 06.12.1901
[Golombek and others]

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5

Black to move

At this point, Golombek inserts his first note identifying the Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit, noting, "it is not sound" (21). He describes Corzo's strategy as an effort to take advantage of Capablanca's lack of book knowledge. This insight merely repeats what Capablanca wrote in My Chess Career: "Corzo knew my complete lack of book knowledge, consequently he tried repeatedly to play gambits of this sort where it would be difficult for me to find the proper answer" (7).

Golombek goes on to state that Capablanca, "does diverge from the book of the time--but only to find a better continuation for Black" (22).

6...h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.d4

Black to move

8...d5

Golombek  gives the line 8...d6 9.Bxf4 Bg7 10.Bc4+ with an attack, and the reader is left wondering if 8...d5 was Capablanca's improvement. A glance at a modern database does not resolve the question. ChessBase Mega 2020 lists seven games preceding this one that reached the position after 8.d4. One was game 6 of this match. The other six have three games with 8...d5, two with 8...f3, and one with 8...d6. Five of these games were won by White. In the exception, Taubenhaus -- Lipschuetz, New York 1889, 8...f3 was played.

Of course, Golombek had no databases with which to work. Nor are the databases particularly complete as shall be shown below.

Capablanca is more helpful: "Afterwards Corzo told me that the book recommended 8...d6" (7). The "book" would have been Handbuch des Schachspiels, 7th edition, published in 1891 under the editorial direction of Emil Schallopp.

Handbuch (1891), 8...d6 underlined

There are no games in PowerBook 2020 with 8...d5, but there are eight games with 8...d6. 

9.exd5

9.Bxf4 Bb4 is good for Black (Golombek). Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 3rd ed. gives this line continuing 10.Be2 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Nf6 with a better game for Black.

9...Qe7+

White to move

Capablanca offers a comment here that reveals how, even at the age of 13, he prepared for games through the course of the match with Corzo. He notes they had played this variation previously, but omits the detail that it had been only one week earlier in the sixth game of the match.

10.Kf2

10.Be2 was played in game six.

The game ended in a draw, but I should have won. Corzo analyzed the position and told someone that he should have played 10.Kf2. When I heard this I analyzed the situation myself and decided to play it again, as I thought that Black should win with the continuation which I put into practice in the game.
Capablanca, My Chess Career (8).

Capablanca offers no further comments on the game.

10...g3+ 11.Kg1

Golombek offers a diagram here, notes the vulnerability of the White king, and lauds Capablanca's return of the sacrificed piece. "White is continually harassed by mating threats" (22).

11...Nxd4! 12.Qxd4

12.Bxf4 Qf6 (Golombek).

12...Qc5 13.Ne2

Black to move

13...Qb6!

Golombek states, "An original and pleasing touch and much more powerful than the humdrum 13...Qxd4+ 14.Nxd4 Bc5 15.c3 Now Black's threat of Bc5 forces White to exchange queens thereby allowing Black to bring the queen's rook into the game at once" (22).

The ChessBase DVD Master Class 04 José Raúl Capablanca (2015) notes that Isaak and Vladimir Linder, José Raúl Capablanca: 3rd World Chess Champion (2010) gives 13...Bg4 14.Be3! fxe3 15.Qxg4. A correspondence game in the nineteenth century continued with 13...Bg4 14.Be3 Qxd4 15.Bxd4 Bxe2 16.Bxe2 Bg7 (Deutsche Wochenschach 46 [17 November 1889], 402, points out that 16...Nf6 is better here. Miguel A. Sánchez, José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography (2015), 80, points out the game in Deutsche Wochenschach, and also shows that White is still better after 16...Nf6. This game may be in ChessBase's Correspondence database, but it does not appear in Mega 2020. I did find it in the online version.

Deutsche Wochenschach

Sánchez is the only annotator, it seems to me, who does justice to Capablanca's comments about how he prepared for this game, asking whether he might have known about the game published twelve years earlier. It would not seem likely that a thirteen year-old player with no book knowledge would be reading a German magazine that was published near the time of his first birthday.

14.Qxb6 axb6 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.c3 Ra4

Golombek points the threat of Rxd4 wins another pawn.

White to move

17.Be2 Bxd4+ 18.cxd4 Rxd4 19.b3

"White has been relying upon this maneuver to pull the game round to his favour by exploiting the risky position of Black's queen rook. It soon becomes apparent that Black has seen further into the position than White." (Golombek, 22) 

19...Nf6 20.Bb2 Rd2

Does Golombek offer much value pointing out 20...Rxd5? 21.Bc4+-?

21.Bh5+

Black to move

21...Nxh5!

"Hoping for 21...Kg7 22.Bc3 Rc2 23.Be5 with distinct counter-chances but Black now finishes off the game in the best style" (Golombek, 22).

22.Bxh8 f3! 23.gxf3

23.Bc3 f2+ 24.Kf1 Bf5 25.Bxd2 Bd3# (Golombek)

23...Nf4 24.Be5

Golombek points out another checkmate threat: 24.Re1 Rg2+ 25.Kf1 Rf2+ 26.Kg1 Bh3-+ 27.Bc3 Rf1+ 28.Rxf1 Ne2#.

Black to move

24...Rg2+ 25.Kf1 Rf2+ 26.Ke1 Nd3+ 0-1

Golombek is certainly more thorough in pointing out some tactical threats, but Capablanca's very brief annotation offers the important story of this game. Golombek might have done more to explain why he thinks Capablanca's divergence from the book line was an improvement.

Replaying Endgames

For the past two months, I have been working my way through Cyrus Lakdawala, Capablanca: Move by Move (2012). This book was allowed to go out of print and copies are hard to find at a reasonable price. However, ebook versions exist, and so I am both reading it on my Kindle app, and reading while playing through the moves within ChessBase. Both the CBV files for ChessBase and the Kindle version were purchased direct from the publisher in one package, Everyman.

This morning, I began the last section of the book, "Capa on Endings". Having failed Lakdawala's question because I failed to foresee White's queenside possibilities, I reinforced the lesson by playing the position against Stockfish. After seeing how Capablanca won the game, beating Stockfish was easy. You can view Capablanca's entire game at chessgames.com.

Lakdawala presents the first 29 moves of Capablanca -- Conde, Hastings 1919 without comment, then poses a question: should White trade knights to enter the pawn ending?

Kindle Screenshot

The game continued:

30.Nxf6 gxf6 31.a4 d5 32.b3

Sockfish deviated from Conde's play here.

32...Kd6

Conde played 32...d4

White to move

33.f4

The only winning move is fairly obvious. White must keep Black's king on his side of the board.

33...h5 34.g3

Komodo's postgame analysis offers another way to win: 34.cxd5 Kxd5 35.h4 Ke4 36.g4 Kxf4 37.gxh5

Black to move

Analysis Diagram

White's powerful doubled h-pawns remind me of a position in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual.

I opted to uncreatively strive for Capablanca's solution by advancing my backwards pawn.

34...Kc6 35.Kf2 d4 36.Ke2 Kd7 37.g4 h4 38.Kd3 Kd6

White to move

White to move

Capablanca's Position

My position differs from that reached by Capablanca, but the winning idea remains the same. White's king will be in the square of Black's passed pawns, while White will have passed pawns on both sides of the board.

39.b4!

This move was the critical idea that I missed when I answered that White should not exchange knights.

39...axb4 40.g5 fxg5 41.fxg5 Ke5

White to move

42.g6 fxg6 43.fxg6

With passed pawns on the g- and a-files, it is clear that White wins. Against Stockfish, I played the game out to checkmate.

Lasker Resigns the Match

One hundred years ago today, Emanuel Lasker submitted his resignation in the world championship match with José Raúl Capablanca. The referee also submitted to Lasker acceptance of his resignation. These two letters were printed in the May-June 1921 issue of American Chess Bulletin (101). They were then reprinted in Capablanca's book on the match, which ACB published in a limited edition of 600 copies.

Lasker's name was left off in ACB, but included in Capablanca's book.

There was no closing ceremony. It is reported in Miguel A. Sánchez, José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography (2015) that Capablanca refused to attend any ceremony. The new champion felt "outraged" by Lasker's behavior (251).

The two contestants would continue to dispute certain aspects of the match well into 1922, while also praising one another's play in their respective books on the match.

This post is number 26 in my centennial series on the match. I plan at least one more.

Championship Match Postponed?

Was the fifteenth game of the World Chess Championship scheduled for Saturday, 23 April 1921? Perhaps it was scheduled for Friday. In either case, it did not occur. It seems from the narrative in José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography (2015) by Miguel A. Sánchez that Capablanca appeared at the Casino de la Playa ready to play game 15, but that Lasker failed to appear. Sánchez is not explicit that Capablanca appeared and waited, but is quite clear that Lasker did not arrive. Newspapers covering the event reported that per Lasker's request, game 15 was postponed until Tuesday, 26 April 1921.

Sánchez presents an Associated Press story concerning this postponement, and asserts, "the explanation provided to the press was not true. It was a means to buy time, trying to save face for Lasker, and not inform the public or the press what was really happening" (250). He notes that Lasker had already decided to resign the match, but that Judge Alberto Ponce, the referee, and others of the committee, spent the weekend attempting to convince Lasker to continue.

I spent some time scanning the pages of the New York Evening Post, searching for what had been reported there. There was nothing specifically about the match between the conclusion of game 14 and an announcement of Lasker's pending resignation on 27 April. The lengthy Saturday edition did carry a game played in New York Metropolitan League competition that included a snarky comment about the style of play in Havana.

This post is number 25 in my centennial series on the World Chess Championship in Havana. 

Vigorous tactics, offering a refreshing contrast to the conservatism displayed at Havana, were the order of the day in the Metropolitan League match, which decided the interclub championship once more in favor of the I.L. Rice Progressive Chess Club. Among the most forceful attacks carried out was that by Oscar Chajes, champion of the club, against Alfred Schroeder of the Brooklyn Chess Club.
Herman Helms, "Over the Chess Board"

Chajes was a naturalized American originally from Austria, according to Sánchez (182). His loss to Capablanca in the Rice Chess Club Tournament (11 July 1913) is presented in the José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography. Also presented is his loss in the 1915 American National Tournament, where Chajes finished third behind Capablanca and Marshall (214-215). Schroeder also has a loss to Capablanca from the Rice Memorial Tournament (29 January 1916) in the book (218).

While neither are top masters, they occupy the tier below Capablanca and Marshall who helped keep the Cuban relatively sharper in his play through World War I, while Lasker suffered a lack of play and other stresses (see "Lasker arrives in Havana").

Helms, who annotated this game, was the founder and publisher of American Chess Bulletin. He had some competitive success over the board. Among his games at chessgames.com are a win over Frank Marshall and a draw with Capablanca.

Chajes,Oscar -- Schroeder,Alfred [C61]
Metropolitan League New York, 04.1921
[Helms,Herman]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4

A somewhat bizarre defence popularized by the late H.E. Bird of London, who played many stirring games with it against the veteran Blackburne in the long ago.

White to move

4.Nxd4

White more often continues with 4.Bc4 Nxf3+ (Bird was wont to play 4...Bc5 5.Nxe5 Qg5 and no doubt frequently caught an unwary opponent in this trap: 6.Nxf7 Qxg2 7.Rf1 Qxe4+ 8.Be2 Nf3#) 5.Qxf3 Qf6 6.Qg3.

4...exd4 5.0-0 g6

Not the most likely continuation. Preferable is 5...c6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.d3 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Re1+ Be6.

6.d3 Ne7 7.c3 Bg7

Black tries to avoid yielding the centre to his opponent, who invites 7...dxc3.

White to move

8.e5

A bold proceeding and worthy of the best tenets of the romantic school.

8...c6 9.Ba4 Bxe5

He must either do this or play 9...dxc3 which would have been the less valorous, but wiser.

10.Re1

Black to move

10...d6

If 10...Bf6 then 11.Bh6; or 10...Bd6;
Or if 10...Bg7 11.Qe2 f6 12.Bb3 d5 and White may continue with 13.cxd4 (or 13.a4 in either case giving Black a playable game.)

11.Bg5 Be6

If 11...f6 12.Bh6 -- threatening 13.h4

12.Bb3

Very well played and going directly to the heart of the conundrum.

12...h6 13.Bh4 g5 14.Bxe6

Black to move

14...fxe6

If 14...gxh4 15.Bh3 with the better game.

15.Bg3 Bxg3 16.hxg3 Qb6

If 16...Qd7 17.Qh5+ followed by cxd4.

17.Rxe6 Qxb2 18.Nd2 b5

In order to prevent Nc4 by White

White to move

19.Qh5+ Kd7 20.Rae1 Rh7 21.Qg4

This powerful stroke leaves Black without any defense.

Black to move

21...Kd8 22.Rxd6+ Ke8 23.Qd7+ 1-0

In my view this game is interesting, but sloppy. The dismissive, "refreshing contrast to the conservatism" of the world championship match, asks for a style of play that should horrify us at the top levels. I prefer the draws that come from accuracy.

Sources

Helms, Herman. "Over the Chess Board." New York Evening Post (23 April 1921), 20.

Sánchez, Miguel A. José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015.