1921 Capablanca - Lasker, Game 10

The second game in this mini-series on More Capablanca Annotations is game ten from the 1921 Capablanca - Lasker Title Match and game 90 in Kasparov's Predecessors I. With the score +1-0=4 in Capablanca's favor after Game 5, there were four more draws. Game ten was a classic endgame that is quoted in many books specializing on that phase of the game. Years ago, when I first played through it, I was amazed at how Lasker's position crumbled in the face of Capablanca's lengthy maneuvers.

There are many points in the game worthy of examination, but I'm particularly interested in differences of opinion between Capablanca and Kasparov. As I mentioned in 'More Capablanca Annotations',

To locate differences of opinion required comparing punctuation and identifying obvious discrepancies, e.g. Kasparov's '?!' vs. Fischer's '!'. Comparing Capablanca's notes to Kasparov's proved to be more difficult because (1) Capablanca didn't use punctuation, and (2) Kasparov never referred to Capablanca's notes.

The only way to overcome point (1) was to assign punctuation according to Capablanca's notes. I came up with the following, shown along with Kasparov's punctuation.

[Event "wcc"]
[Site "Havana"]
[Date "1921.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Lasker Em"]
[Black "Capablanca J"]
[Result "0-1"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 O-O 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Qc2 c5 {KAS: '!'} 8.Rd1 Qa5 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bh4 cxd4 11.exd4 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nb6 13.Bb3 Bd7 14.O-O Rac8 15.Ne5 Bb5 {CAP: '!'} 16.Rfe1 Nbd5 17.Bxd5 {KAS: '?'} 17...Nxd5 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Qb3 Bc6 20.Nxc6 bxc6 21.Re5 Qb6 22.Qc2 Rfd8 23.Ne2 {CAP: '?'; KAS: '?'} 23...Rd5 {KAS: '!'} 24.Rxd5 cxd5 25.Qd2 Nf5 26.b3 {KAS: '?!'} 26...h5 {CAP: '!'} 27.h3 {CAP: '?'; KAS: '?'} 27...h4 {CAP: '!'; KAS: '!'} 28.Qd3 Rc6 29.Kf1 g6 30.Qb1 Qb4 31.Kg1 {CAP: '?!'} 31...a5 {KAS: '!'} 32.Qb2 a4 {CAP: '!'} 33.Qd2 Qxd2 34.Rxd2 axb3 35.axb3 Rb6 {CAP: '!'; KAS: '!'} 36.Rd3 Ra6 {KAS: '!'} 37.g4 hxg3 38.fxg3 Ra2 39.Nc3 Rc2 40.Nd1 Ne7 41.Nc3 Rc1+ 42.Kf2 Nc6 43.Nd1 {KAS: '!'} 43...Rb1 {KAS: '!'} 44.Ke2 {CAP: '!?'; KAS: '?'} 44...Rxb3 {KAS: '!'} 45.Ke3 Rb4 {KAS: '!'} 46.Nc3 Ne7 47.Ne2 Nf5+ 48.Kf2 g5 49.g4 Nd6 50.Ng1 Ne4+ 51.Kf1 Rb1+ 52.Kg2 Rb2+ 53.Kf1 Rf2+ 54.Ke1 Ra2 55.Kf1 Kg7 56.Re3 Kg6 57.Rd3 f6 58.Re3 Kf7 59.Rd3 Ke7 60.Re3 Kd6 61.Rd3 Rf2+ 62.Ke1 Rg2 63.Kf1 Ra2 64.Re3 e5 {CAP: '!'} 65.Rd3 exd4 66.Rxd4 Kc5 67.Rd1 d4 68.Rc1+ Kd5 0-1

Since the punctuation of the two World Champions compares fairly well, I think my approach is usable, and since the only real difference of opinion is on 44.Ke2, I'll look at that move in another post.

While looking at Kasparov's notes, I was surprised that he quoted Capablanca a few times, which contradicts my point (2) above. Moreover, although the quotes were not in the Cuban's notes to the 1921 match, they sounded familiar to me. A web search on one of the quotes ('against one of the strongest players the world has ever seen') revealed that Capablanca also annotated the game in his 'Primer of Chess', which I read long ago and which was likely my introduction to the game.

Against Capablanca's notes to 54...Ra2, I also found a familiar phrase -- 'All these moves have a meaning. The student should carefully study them' -- the same key phrase behind my series on Capablanca's Games 'To be studied very carefully'. To play through the complete game, see...

Emanuel Lasker vs Jose Raul Capablanca; World Championship Match 1921 [g.10]
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1241504

...on Chessgames.com.

Cathedral Square, Christchurch

Chess, Cathedral Square, Christchurch, New Zealand 2005 © Flickr user kdewhunter under Creative Commons.

This is a nice photo of the Chess Set Available for Use, here shown actually in use. For more images of the lovely cathedral, which was badly damaged in the earthquake of 22 February earlier this year, see Christchurch Cathedral on Google Images.

Tablebase 1 - Capablanca ½

The endgame in 1921 Capablanca - Lasker, Game 5, plus the endgame from the next game in that series (game 10 of the same match), prompted me to look at other Capablanca endgames. My favorite resource for doing that is 'Capablanca's Best Chess Endings' by Irving Chernev, containing 60 complete games with an emphasis on endgame play. Janowsky is the opponent who appears most often in the book, losing every time, but he missed a draw in Chernev's game no.24, where a few moves earlier Capablanca had overlooked a theoretical win.

In the diagrammed position, White has just captured a Pawn on b4, leaving six pieces on the board and sending the game into the domain of the endgame tablebases. The players continued 80...Bd8 81.Bc3+ Kxg6, and after a further 82.b4 Kf5 83.Kd5, Janowsky resigned. Here Chernev quotes some analysis by Cheron & Averbakh showing that, at the moment of resignation, Janowsky had a draw in hand with 83...Kf4 84.Bd4 Kf3 85.b5 Ke2 86.Kc6 Kd3 87.Bb6 Bg5 88.Kb7 Kc4 89.Ka6 Kb3 90.Bf2 Bd8 91.Be1 Ka4. This is confirmed by the tablebase.

The drawing procedure involves realizing that the main battle will be to move the b-Pawn through the critical square b6. To do this, White must have the Pawn on b5 and the King on a6, then play Ba5. This forces the Black Bishop off the a5-d8 diagonal, allowing the b-Pawn to march unhindered to the promotion square b8. The drawing sequence demonstrated by Cheron & Averbakh shows that Black has just enough time to play the King to a4, thereby preventing Ba5 and securing the draw.

New York 1916
Janowsky, D.

Capablanca, J.R.
After 80.Bd2-b4(xP)

What Chernev didn't point out, but the tablebase finds immediately, is that Capablanca's 81.Bc3+ is a mistake that throws away the win. If White plays instead 81.Be1, Black lacks an important tempo attacking the Bishop while the King travels from g6 to a4. The move 81.Bd2 also wins because it prevents the Black King from passing through f4; the extra tempo is enough to make the Black King arrive one move too late on the Queenside. Correct play is thus a close counting exercise : how many moves for White to set up the winning formation vs. how many moves for Black to prevent it.

To play through the complete game, see...

Jose Raul Capablanca vs David Janowski; New York 1916
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1064779

...on Chessgames.com, where one of the kibitzers also comments on the tablebase's discovery.

CJA 2011 Awards

In the past few years, the group Chess Journalists of America (CJA) has fallen on hard times. CJA President Jerry Hanken died in October 2009, and CJA Editor John Hillery died in September 2010. The group's quarterly magazine, The Chess Journalist, hasn't appeared since July 2010, which was the publication date for the March 2010 issue. The last time I wrote about the CJA, 'It Speaks Volumes', was for the 2010 CJA awards, when its most prestigious award, 'Chess Journalist of the Year', was presented by default after receiving only a single nomination.

The string of bad luck hasn't stopped the CJA from continuing with its annual award program, announced on the home page of its web site, Chessjournalism.org: see also 2011 Awards Program Instructions [PDF] and Award Schedule. Worth noting is that 'Journalist of the Year' will not be awarded unless at least two entries are received. For some reason, the PDF file doesn't allow copy, so here is a snapshot of the paragraph pertaining to blogs.

If you think you have a great chess blog, here's your chance to prove it.

1921 Capablanca - Lasker, Game 5

The first game in this mini-series on More Capablanca Annotations is game five from the 1921 Capablanca - Lasker Title Match (game 89 in Kasparov's Predecessors I), where the first four games were all drawn. In the fifth game, Lasker found himself in a difficult position and on his 16th move sacrificed the exchange for a Pawn and an attack. Of the ensuing play, Capablanca wrote,

[After 21.Kf1] The play was extremely difficult. I probably did not find the best system of defense. I can not yet tell which was the best defense here, but it is my belief that with the best play White should win.

He forced the exchange of a pair of Rooks, leaving him with Queen and Rook against Queen and Knight. A few moves later the game reached the diagrammed position.

Havana 1921 (g.5)
Lasker, Em.

Capablanca, J.R.
After 31.h2-h4

Of Black's 31...gxh4, Capablanca noted,

This was Lasker's sealed move. It was not the best. His chance to draw was to play 31...Kg6. Any other continuation should lose.

He gave no variations to support his opinion. In fact, he gave no variations in any of his ten notes to the game. Kasparov's note to 31...gxh4, quoting Lasker, is more helpful.

It is usual to attach a "?" to this move. "31...Kg6 was better. Then if 32.hxg5 Ne4 33.Qd3 Qg4+ 34.Rg2 Qh4 35.Qb1 Kg7, the Pawn at g5 falls and Black has a good position" [Lasker].

At first sight here it is indeed impossible to convert the exchange advantage: the White King is exposed, and Black's Queen and Knight dominate. And yet White has a way to gain an advantage: 36.Qd1 Kg6 37.Qf3! (threatening Qf4) 37...Nxg5 38.Qg3, with good winning chances. So that 31...Kg6 was by no means better than the move in the game.

What does the engine say? First, it favors three moves over all others, with 31...h6 a definite favorite before both the game continuation 31...gxh4, and the suggested alternative 31...Kg6. After 31...h6, White has 32.h5, and Black has no way to break the pin of the Knight. In the time I had to look at the position, I couldn't determine how White should continue, but I'll trust the judgement of Capablanca, Lasker, and Kasparov, and assume that there is an obvious winning procedure.

As for the game continuation 31...gxh4, Capablanca and Kasparov agree that after the next moves 32.Qxh4 Ng4 33.Qg5+ Kf8, Capablanca's 34.Rf5 was not the best. The move 34.Rd2 was better. Kasparov again quotes Lasker -- '34.Rd2! was very strong. 34...f6 must be played and Black's King becomes exposed to attack.' -- without adding any additional comments of his own, except to give the next move, 35.Qf4. Black's problem is that White can eventually force a Queen swap, after which the Knight is no match for the Rook with Pawns on both the Kingside and Queenside.

That leaves 31...Kg6. The engine agrees with Kasparov's analysis, except after 37.Qf3!, it attempts to improve with 37...Qe1+, instead of 37...Nxg5. This lets Black prolong the game, but the constant threat of a Queen exchange again leaves Black without a solid defense.

Now if I could only understand the procedure after 31...h6, I would understand the diagrammed position. To play through the complete game, see...

Jose Raul Capablanca vs Emanuel Lasker; World Championship Match 1921 [g.5]
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1241495

...on Chessgames.com. The comments there point out another curious aspect of the game: a triple repetition on Black's 34th, 36th, and 38th moves, unclaimed by either player.

***

Later: This appeared in Chess Improvement Carnival V: The Jedi Knight School Edition.

Robot Chess Army

I've already used several robot clips for Video Friday, but this one is different.

A Monster Robot Chess Army (8:49) • 'A Monster Robot Chess Army Based On LEGO's Latest Technology.'

See also Cool Robots (CoolRobots.net) and previous robot clips on CFAA:-

• 27 Apr 2007 : Bughouse for One
  
• 04 Jan 2008 : Robot Learns to Move a Chess Piece
  
• 30 Jul 2010 : Chess Playing Robots Don't Like Magnets

This latest edition to the series reminds me of a short story I once read where all the pieces on the board come to life late at night.

Prattware Pot Lids

The item shown in the image, titled 'Prattware Pot Lid FALSE MOVE Bishop Plays Chess COMICAL', was far from the the most expensive chess item sold on eBay during the preceding fortnight, but it was certainly the most unusual. It received 18 bids and sold for US $485.00.

Its description said,

I believe this is one of the harder to find Prattware pot lids. It is titled "False Move" and a man plays chess with what looks like a Bishop or some clerical man in robes. The quotes to the comical scene are "Check to your Queen, John" and John responds, "Pooh, Pooh - Your Bishop is out of his place man."

This would have been made in the Staffordshire region of England in the mid 19th century. This is a larger lid, with an old frame. The frame is just shy of 7" at about 6 7/8". So the lid is about 5 1/4" wide. This is in very nice condition with no visible chips, cracks or repair. Of course, I can't see behind the backing of the frame. It is beautifully and tightly mounted, so I don't want to disturb things. But I would think it was fine. There are no scratches or wear to the surface, just typical glaze crazing. The frame is in very nice condition too, with no chips, cracks or repair, just a bit of scuffing to high spots.

For more images related to 'Prattware pot lids', see Google Images.

***

When I first started this series on Top eBay Chess Items by Price, it was meant to be a stopgap.

For the next month or so, my time for blogging is going to be extremely limited, but I'm reluctant to stop completely. Instead, I'll concentrate on topics that don't take much effort, like photos and videos. Another area that requires minimum effort is eBay.

Not being a collector, I've learned a lot by posting on objects about which I had little knowledge. On top of that, my stats tell me that the posts in the series make up half of my top-10 posts of all time. Since it looks like many people, probably chess collectors, are interested in this sort of thing, I'll continue the series until I run out of interesting items on which to comment.