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.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?
Harry Golombek, Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess (1947)
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).
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.
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.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+
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.
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
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 offers no further comments on the game.
Capablanca, My Chess Career (8).
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment