More on Capablanca-Molina

The 13. of May ChessCafe - http://www.chesscafe.com/ published one more great article on ”Attacking Chess” by my (almost) family namesake, GM Larry Christiansen. No, we are in no way related, apart from perhaps some spiritual relationship in our attitude to chess (and maybe to life in general?). I also by far prefer to err from boldness rather than from fear.
In the article Larry deals with the famous game Capablanca-Molina, which featured the well known bishop sacrifice at h7. It was played as some kind of exhibition game in Buenos Ayres, 1911. It should be kept in mind that, according tol Hooper and Brandseth, Capablanca took these games very seriously, as he was on his way to build a reputation as a worthy challenger to Lasker.
Analysing such classical, archetypical attacking games is first of all a great joy, maybe the greatest you can have from chess apart from playing it. And I also believe it is very profitable activity for every chess player who wants to improve.
But it is of paramount importance that you do the analysis “OTB” – “Over The Board”, as they say. Nowadays it is far to easy to switch on your computer chess engine and let it do the job. Sad to say, I have the feeling that many, especially young players do this far too much, there by depriving them self of a lot of joy and profit.
Larry´s analysis on the game in question seems to indicate that he is of the same opinion. From what I put forward beneath, I believe that he has done most of it OTB, and not checked it very thoroughly with his engine (I suppose he has one). And he is not at all to blame for that. His analysis is, as such, a fine job, and it raises some questions for the rest of us to go on with – and so it should be.
By the way, my advice to the few students I have and have had is always, when an interesting position gets your attention, to spend at least some 20-30 minutes on some OTB-analysis before switching the engine on – if you have to do that at all. And – can you keep a secret? – I am now at my advanced age once again thinking about staging a moderate comeback, so I am at least trying to follow my own advice. Ok, I am 56, and at that age Lasker won New York 1924 – so what?
What first drew my attention in the article was a curious omission in the comments/analysis. By coincidence I recently – for who know which time? – browsed though Laskers “Manual of Chess”. You should all do that now and then, all of you, including GMs like Larry! I remembered that Lasker also dealed with Capablancas combination/attack against Molena and had some critical remarks on it.
So – off to my library, and I also fetched Capablancas “My Chess Career” and Hooper & Brandreth´s “The Unknown Capablanca”. And there it was:
Lasker claimed that 15.-,f4! in stead of Kh6 would have kept the balance. He gave the line: 16.exf4,Nf5 17.Qg4,Nh6 18.Qg3,Nf5 etc. with repetition of moves. Against the bold try 18.Qh4 he gave 18.-,Qd2 “…and the attack has passed to black”.
NOW I was – by inertia, I also, admittedly, suffer from this chess-engine-oracle-mania – just about to switch on my engine to check these lines. But luckily my chess set was ready to go on my working table with some reminiscences of yesterdays analysis of some obscure endgame (something I also still need to learn). And at almost the same page I read Lasker´s wise words (years ago already underlined by me): “…the chess student should not trust an analysis merely because he sees it in print. He must examine, he must do his own thinking and by conscientious work he must form his own judgement.”
So – OTB! – after some pondering I found out that Laskers 18.-,Qd2 can be strongly met by 19.g4! fi. 19.-,Qxf4 20.Nh7+ and Qxc5+. Of course black has other options, but white seems to have quite an impressive attacking position after 18.Qh4!, fi. 18.-,e5 19.Rad1,Nd3 20.Nf3 aso.. So it is not at all proven that Laskers 15-,f4!? Leads to a forced draw, but maybe the move is after all the best.
OTB I also had a look at the position after 21.-,Ngf4! (also mentioned by Capablanca as a possible improvement) in stead of the game´s 21.-,Ndf4. After 22.Qg3,Rh8 Larry recommends 23.Nf3! followed by a rather forced line that leads to a drawish endgame. But why move the well placed knight? I recommend 23.Rfe1!? with the idea Re3 amo.. If 23.-,Re8 24.Re3!,Rxe3 25.fxe3,Ng6 26.Nb5 blacks position is rather precarious and at least demands very accurate defending. Also 23.h4!? is to be considered, fi. 23.-,Be6 24.Nxe6,Kxe6 25.Qxg7 and what is this?
Ok, after the, by my self recommended, half an hours analysis OTB, I did put the game into my chess engine, just to check. By the way, I am still using Fritz-8 on a half old PC, which should in some way signal that I am not that nerdish.
Most of my findings were confirmed, most affirmatively those on Lasker´s old analysis. And the engine very quickly came up with the defence 15.-,f4!?. The later lines from move 23 are very complex, and I would need to have my PC running on the task for a much longer time than I find interesting, to really prove something. Maybe someone would try these lines out with Rybka (or what ever they are called) on one of these fast running modern monster machines? I will and can not, mostly because I dont find it interesting at all (and I do not have Rybka).
But, as indicated by Capablanca and analysed by Larry, in the game 19.f4! should have been much better than the actually played 19.exf5?. Larry goes on with 19.-,Qd4+? And with some fine lines proves that whites wins after this. Sad to say, my little silicon helper quickly comes up with 19.-,Ncxe4! 20.Ncxe4,fxe4 21.Nxe4+, and all white can do is to give perpetual check.. I do not think there is much to do about that, so in fact 19.f4!? is not as challenging as 19.exf5. However, my engine suggests 19.Tad1!? – fi. 19.-,Nd3 20.f4,Qb6+ 21.Kh1,Ndxf4,g3 22.Rh8,e5+! and it could be that white is on top.
So, above there is maybe some new insights into one of the classsics. And that’s how it is: You can never really close the book when it comes to such a complex game.
And I personally spent some hours of joy and – if possible at all? – probably gained a little in tactical sharpness and feeling for attacking chess.
Thanks for the lesson, Larry. And keep it up – we are many waiting for more to come.