Russian sources reported that unknown burglars have broken into Karpov’s apartment while he was playing “Chess Champions League” in Vitoria earlier this month. Fortunately, alarm system was on and police rushed to the site, but thieves had enough time to steal samples of some rare chess pieces. This was third robbery in the same building over the last eight days. Karpov said that lighting in the house is awful.

Garry Kasparov, the Russian chess champion turned opposition leader, was detained by police and charged with public order offenses after an anti-government rally in Moscow today, a week before parliamentary elections.

Kasparov and some of his supporters tried to march through central Moscow to hand in a petition at the central election commission following an hour-long demonstration by his loose opposition coalition, The Other Russia. A brawl ensued between demonstrators and police, and Kasparov and his bodyguards were bundled into a bus by OMON special police and driven a short distance. It’s the second time he’s been arrested this year.

Kasparov was then taken to Moscow’s Meshchansky court and charged with two breaches of public order, Lyudmila Mamina, spokeswoman for The Other Russia, said in an e-mailed statement. He was ordered to be detained for five days, a later statement from Mamina said.

Read More

The Stonewall Attack is a chess opening; more specifically it is a variation of the Queen’s Pawn Game. It is characterized by White playing 1.d4, 2.e3, 3.f4 and 4.c3, usually playing 5.Bd3 as well, even though the moves are not always played in that order (see transposition). The Stonewall is a system White sets up, rather than a specific variation. If White puts up the Stonewall formation it is called a Stonewall regardless of how Black chooses to defend against it. When Black sets up a Stonewall formation, with pawns on c6, d5, e6 and f5, it is a variation of the Dutch Defense.

General remarks
As the name implies, the Stonewall setup is a solid formation which is hard to overrun by force. If Black fails to react energetically to the Stonewall setup, White may launch a lethal attack on the Black king, typically by bringing a rook to h3, advancing the g-pawn, and making a well timed bishop sacrifice at h7. Often this attack is so powerful that White does not need to develop the knight and bishop on b1 and c1. Traditionally, chess computers have been vulnerable to the Stonewall because the positions are usually without clear tactical lines. White simply prepares for an assault by bringing pieces to aggressive posts, without making immediate tactical threats. By the time the computer realizes that its king is under attack it is often too late.

The downsides to the Stonewall are the hole on e4, and the fact that the dark squared bishop on c1 is completely blocked by its own pawns. If Black defends correctly against White’s attack, these strategic deficiencies can become quite serious. Because of this, the Stonewall Attack is almost never seen in master-level chess anymore, although it is seen occasionally among club players. However, Black playing the Stonewall Variation of the Dutch Defense is seen occasionally at master level.

Black has several ways to meet the Stonewall. One choice which must be made is whether to fianchetto one or both bishops. Another is how to play the pawns in the centre. Black often meets the Stonewall with a …b6 and …Ba6 aiming to trade off the dangerous White bishop on d3.

Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings
Since the Stonewall system is used against a variety of Black defenses, the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings has trouble classifying it. Among the codes used are D00 (when Black has played …d5), A45, and A03, the code for Bird’s Opening.

Sample game
Final position, after 16. g6.
This sample game illustrates what can happen if Black defends poorly.

1. d4 d5 2. f4 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Nbd2 b6 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. g4 Qc7 11. g5 Nd7 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Qh5+ Kg8 14. Rf3 f6 15. Rh3 fxe5 16. g6, 1-0

I learned a ton about the Alekhine’s Defense preparing for Joe Fromme -
I won with both sides our last two games. I expected another thematic
debate on old Ale and Wine but Joe played 1 e4 e5. For a quarter century
I played the Danish Gambit so I was a little relieved when my new book
gave me an excuse to play an animal opening, the Clam. After 25 years
of whiteknuckling the opening with a lost game I was like a pilot who
had flown too many missions, I could not hold my coffee cup without
my hand shaking. The problem with the Lemmiwinks Clam Opening is that
it puts no pressure on Black - with the Danish I get a quick win 90%
of the time and a lost position 10%. With the Clam everybody gets a
a good solid structure with zero tough decisions. 9 year old Jackson
Chen beat my Clam in my Poor Richard’s Lion simul. Joe Fromme had a
great game for 20 moves.

[Event “Poor Richard’s Restaurant Wednesday Night Chess Tournament”]
[Site “324 North Tejon Street, Colorado Springs, CO”]
[Date “2007.11.14″]
[Round “2″]
[White “brianwall”]
[Black “Joe Fromme”]
[Result “1-0″]
[ICCResult “Black checkmated”]
[WhiteElo “2200″]
[BlackElo “1668″]
[Opening “KP: Indian opening, Clam Opening”]
[ECO “C20″]
[NIC “KP.07″]
[Time “19:04:18″]
[TimeControl “Game/85 plus 5 second delay”]

Poor Richard’s Restaurant, Bookstore and Toy
Store 7 PM Wednesday Night Chess Tournament

Game 85
plus 5 second delay

Cold night

Afterwards I drank and played poker with Josh Bloomer and his buddies
all night at the Finish Line. I argued God with 22 year old Pearl for
an hour. I listened to Josh and his young friends Karaoke. Josh took
everyone’s money at cards and then he won some Pia Sprong Chess postcards
from me too. Tom Mullikin and Joe Fromme paid for theirs. I talked boxing
with a guy who was a many time Golden Gloves Champion of Boston, sparred
with Marvin Hagler for 13 years, a guy who lost 3 out of 132 professional
fights. He trains boxers at the Olympic Center while Daniel St. John, a
chessplayer, trains the wrestlers. This guy had to imitate the style
of Marvin’s next bout. One time he “wobbled Marvin with a left hook. “
He was an Italian American named John, I think. I asked John if speed
with his main weapon - he was 44, fought at 175 and looked very wiry.
Our kids are about the same ages with sexes reversed. John said he had a
tough jaw and could punch hard. He almost never got hit. He was proud of
wobbling Marvin because Marvin is world famous for his rock jaw.
In the morning I reported to an AA meeting I had been attending for 6 months
that I had spent my last $10 on a pitcher of beer. One time I started the
meeting with - Hi, my name is Brian, I am a foodaholic and it has been
3 minutes since my last meal. My poker was over quick after I went all in 3
times in a row in Texas Hold ‘em - Results - first all in - my 88 held up
against A,5 - second all in - my straight lost to a higher straight -
third all in - the flush I flopped was beaten by a higher flush on the flop.
Done. Put a fork in me. This is why I miss being married. Without God, wife
and children men have scant protection against every vice.

White - Brian Wall 2200

Black - Joe Fromme 1668

1. e4! e5! 2. d3!!

The Clam has no brain and no eyes.

2 … Nc6! 3. Nf3!

I considered 3 f4 but then I remembered how a girl named Devon in the
2007 Jemez Springs, New Mexico Hummingbird Chess Camp would close her eyes
and play Nf3, Be2, 0-0 or Nf3, g3, Bg2, 0-0 imitating the sightless
clam. She was a delight. She liked to close her eyes, fumble for a rook,
knock all of Black’s pieces over with it, scream ” Suicide Clam!!!!!!!”
and run around the dining hall screaming ” Suicide Clam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I really liked talking to Devon. She convinced me to dance a few at the
Hummingbird Final Dance night. Devon said, ” You make up your own Chess
openings, why not make up your own dance moves?” so I did.

3 … d6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2! Bg7! 6. O-O! Nge7! 7. Nfd2

After 14 minutes thought I decided I must combat .. f5 with f4.
I liked the move visually because it looks like the last move
your average development freak would make.

7 …O-O! 8. f4 f5! 9. Nc3! Be6 10. Nf3 Kh8

I used to do this a lot on the black side of the
1 e4 c6 2 d3 d5 Caro-Kann, prepare a spot on
g8 for the bishop.

11. Be3

Thinking maybe Qd2, fe and Bh6.
The position is way too boring to analyze
but I amused myself by noting the two armies
were almost completely symmetrical except for
the Kings and their Knights.

11 … Qd7

Amusing - even the plans are symmetrical -
is he plannng … fe and … Bh3 too?

12. Ng5 Bg8 13. Qd2 h6! 14. Nf3! Kh7 15. Rf2

Trying to play like Botvinnik in the
Botvinnik system of the English.

15 … Nd4 16. Bxd4

I decided to create some “action” here.

16 … exd4! 17. Ne2! c5! 18. c3! Nc6

So far I have not managed to achieve anything but don’t worry -
I have been beating 1600’s for 35 years. It doesn’t take much to confuse
them. Joe hasn’t done anything special yet except develop his pieces.
Equality unearned contains the seeds of future defeat.

19. exf5 gxf5?

The confusion starts here and ends with a lost
game 5 moves later. This leads to 4 weak isolated
pawns. I would have nothing after 19 … Q:f5!

20. cxd4! Nxd4?

The mistakes are coming fast now that Joe
can’t hide behind general principles.
After 20 … cd! it is hard to activate
my e2-knight and Fromme’s two bishops cover
every sin.

21. Nexd4!

This knight was hopelessly mired a ply ago.

21 … cxd4! 22. Re2

It was hard to choose a move because picking on d4
with 22 Qb4 leads to nothing after 22 … a5!
I sort of need my a1-rook to guard a2 for the moment.

22 … Rfe8 23. Nh4

A poker bluff in anticipation of my night with Josh.
23 Nh4 Bf6 24 N:f5 Q:f5 25 Be4 R:e4 26 de
favors Joe. My move does attack everything I can
and strain the defense a bit.

23 … Rxe2?

Coloradans have been trade-trade-losing to me for 4 decades.

24. Qxe2!

With threats of N:f5 or Qh5 or Re1

24 … Re8?

It seems all Joe can do is develop
but 24 … Rf8 was better. The former
Marine has fallen apart the last 5 moves
because I created imbalances for his
faulty judgement to flounder on.

25. Qh5!

f5 falls

25 … Bf7 26. Qxf5+! Qxf5! 27. Nxf5! Re2!

A pig on the seventh often neutralizes
a missing pawn but not two pawns.

28. Nxd6! Kg8! 29. Nxf7!!

I see a way to neutralize Joe’s 7th rank rook.
Opposite colored bishops can lead to draws
two pawns down but I don’t think that applies here.
This is where human insight is better than
computer bean counting.

29 … Kxf7! 30. Bxb7!! Rxb2! 31. Bd5+!! Kg6 32. Rf1!!

Fritz 6 is still giving lousy advice but I have everything worked out.
There is no defense to Rf2 followed by advancing my King and Kingside
pawns up the board, whether Joe trades rooks or not.

32 … h5 33. Rf2!!

All part of the inevitable juggernaut formulated after 28 … Kg8.
My Queenside is invulnerable and my Kingside is rolling.

33 … Rxf2! 34. Kxf2! Kf5! 35. Kf3! Bf6?

A funny way to die because now I will have three connected passed pawns
or force an immediate checkmate. Joe always gets down to his final minute
in our games. I think he enjoys playing a Chessmaster and tries to get
the most out of it. Joe started chuckling to himself and allowed the
mate with 50 seconds left. Joe was a good sport, bought a packet of Pia’s
Chess postcards and praised my play. I told him he was fine but somewhere
around move 22 he made some mistakes.

36. Bf7!!

How do you want to protect the h5-pawn?

36 … h4 37. g4#
———————————————————-
———————————————————-

[Event “Poor Richard’s Restaurant Wednesday Night Chess Tournament”]
[Site “324 North Tejon Street, Colorado Springs, CO”]
[Date “2007.11.14″]
[Round “2″]
[White “brianwall”]
[Black “Joe Fromme”]
[Result “1-0″]
[ICCResult “Black checkmated”]
[WhiteElo “2200″]
[BlackElo “1668″]
[Opening “KP: Indian opening, Clam Opening”]
[ECO “C20″]
[NIC “KP.07″]
[Time “19:04:18″]
[TimeControl “Game/85 plus 5 second delay”]

1. e4 e5 2. d3 Nc6 3. Nf3 d6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O Nge7 7. Nfd2 O-O 8.
f4 f5 9. Nc3 Be6 10. Nf3 Kh8 11. Be3 Qd7 12. Ng5 Bg8 13. Qd2 h6 14. Nf3 Kh7
15. Rf2 Nd4 16. Bxd4 exd4 17. Ne2 c5 18. c3 Nc6 19. exf5 gxf5 20. cxd4 Nxd4
21. Nexd4 cxd4 22. Re2 Rfe8 23. Nh4 Rxe2 24. Qxe2 Re8 25. Qh5 Bf7 26. Qxf5+
Qxf5 27. Nxf5 Re2 28. Nxd6 Kg8 29. Nxf7 Kxf7 30. Bxb7 Rxb2 31. Bd5+ Kg6 32.
Rf1 h5 33. Rf2 Rxf2 34. Kxf2 Kf5 35. Kf3 Bf6 36. Bf7 h4 37. g4#

The Sicilian Defence is a chess opening that begins with the moves 1.e4 c5.

At the master level, the Sicilian is the most popular and best-scoring response to White’s first move 1.e4. One sixth (17%) of all games between grandmasters, and one quarter (25%) of the games in the Chess Informant database, begin with this opening. Grandmaster John Nunn notes that the reason for the Sicilian Defence’s popularity “is its combative nature; in many lines Black is playing not just for equality, but for the advantage. The drawback is that White often obtains an early initiative, so Black has to take care not to fall victim to a quick attack.” The earliest recorded notes on the Sicilian Defence date back to the late 16th century by the Italian chess players Giulio Polerio and Gioachino Greco.

By advancing the c-pawn two squares, Black asserts control over the d4-square and begins the fight for the centre of the board. This move thus fulfills the same purpose as the move 1…e5, the next most common response to 1.e4. Unlike 1…e5, 1…c5 also breaks the symmetry of the position, which strongly influences the future actions of both players. Having pushed a kingside pawn, White tends to hold the initiative on that side of the board. Meanwhile, Black has advanced a pawn on the opposite wing, giving him an advantage in space on the queenside, and provides a basis for future operations on that flank. Often, Black’s pawn on c5 is traded for White’s pawn on d4 in the early stages of the game. This opens the c-file for Black, who can place a rook or queen on that file to aid his queenside counterplay.

History
The Sicilian Defence was named by Giulio Polerio in his 1594 manuscript on chess. It was fairly popular in the nineteenth century; Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais, Howard Staunton and Louis Paulsen all played it with some consistency. It went through a period of relative neglect in the early twentieth century. Capablanca, the third world chess champion from 1921 to 1927, famously denounced it as an opening where “Black’s game is full of holes.” Its fortunes were revived in the 1940s and 1950s by players such as Isaac Boleslavsky, Alexander Kotov and Miguel Najdorf. Afterwards, Bent Larsen, Ljubomir Ljubojevic, Lev Polugaevsky, Leonid Stein, Mark Taimanov, and Mikhail Tal all made extensive contributions to the theory of the defence.

Through the efforts of world champions Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, the Sicilian Defence became recognized as the defence that offered Black the most winning chances against 1.e4. Both players favoured sharp, aggressive play and employed the Sicilian almost exclusively throughout their careers, giving the defence its present reputation. Today, most leading grandmasters include the Sicilian in their opening repertoire. Some of the current top-level players who regularly use it include Viswanathan Anand, Boris Gelfand, Vassily Ivanchuk, Alexei Shirov, Peter Svidler and Veselin Topalov.

Source

The Ruy Lopez, called the Spanish Opening or Spanish Game outside of English speaking countries, is a chess opening characterised by the moves:

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bb5
The Ruy Lopez is one of the most popular openings. It has such a vast number of variations that in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings all codes from C60 to C99 are assigned to them.

History
The opening is named after the 16th century Spanish priest Ruy López de Segura. He made a systematic study of this and other openings in the 150-page book on chess Libro del Ajedrez written in 1561. However, although it is named after him, this particular opening was known earlier; it is included in the Göttingen manuscript, which dates from around 1490. Popular use of the Ruy Lopez opening did not develop, however, until the mid-1800s when Carl Jaenisch, a Russian theoretician, “rediscovered” its potential. The opening is still in active use as the double king’s pawn opening most commonly used in master play; it has been adopted by almost all players at some point in their careers and many play it from both the white and black sides.

Basics
At the most basic level, White’s third move attacks the knight which defends the e5 pawn from the attack by the f3 knight. It should be noted that White’s apparent threat to win Black’s e-pawn with 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 is illusory — Black can respond with 5…Qd4, forking the knight and e4-pawn, or 5…Qg5, forking the knight and g2-pawn, both of which win back the material with a good position. 3.Bb5 is still a good move, however: it develops a piece, prepares castling, and sets up a potential pin against Black’s king. However, since White’s third move carries no immediate threat, Black can respond in a wide variety of ways.

Source

As exasperating as he is talented and as determined as he is eccentric, Bobby Fischer promises to become the game’s most respected and least understood champion.

RUSSIA’S traditional hold on World Championships in chess is about to be challenged by the United States in the person of an eighteen-year-old boy from Brooklyn named Bobby Fischer. Bobby has been United States Chess Champion for four years. He won the title at the age of fourteen, the youngest player ever to do so. He has since successfully defended his title three times and has won virtually every major chess title in the country.

In an international tournament at Bled, Yugoslavia, last summer, he astonished the chess world by defeating Russia’s Mikhail Tal in his only game against this former World Champion. The present World Champion, Mikhail Botvinnik, did not participate in the tournament. Fischer is aching to play Botvinnik. “I know that I deserve to be World Champion and I know I can beat Botvinnik,” he has said. “There’s no one alive I can’t beat.”

Fischer may have his chance early in 1963 when the triennial chess World Championship will be played. He will first have to win two preliminary international tournaments, the Inter-Zonal and the Candidates, in 1962. Many of America’s leading chess authorities agree with Lisa Lane, the twenty-four-year-old Women’s Chess Champion of the United States. “I’m sure that Bobby can beat Botvinnik,” she has said. “There’s never before been a chess player with such a thorough knowledge of the intricacies of the game and such an absolutely indomitable will to win. I think Bobby is the greatest player that ever lived.”

John W. Collins columnist for Chess Life and Chess Review and one of the country’s most highly respected chess annotators, has written: “Bobby is the finest chess player this Country ever produced. His memory for the moves, his brilliance in dreaming up combinations, and his fierce determination to win are uncanny. Not only will I predict his triumph over Botvinnik but I’ll go further and say that he’ll probably be the greatest chess player that ever lived.”

Frank Brady, business manager of the United States Chess Federation, the governing body of American chess, has said: “Russians have held chess World Championships in all but three of the past thirty-four years. Bobby is the man who will break that chain. Definitely. Maybe not in 1963, maybe not even in 1966, but eventually, for sure.”

Read More…

Carlsen lives in Lommedalen, Baerum, near Norway’s capital, Oslo. He played his first tournament at the age of eight and was coached at the Norwegian Sports Gymnasium led by the country’s top player, International Grandmaster(GM) Simen Agdestein. Agdestein put his civil worker and master player Torbjorn Ringdahl-Hansen, currently a FIDE master with IM and GM norms, as his coach and they had one training session every week, together with one of Magnus’ close friends. The young International Master was given a year off from elementary school to participate in international chess tournaments during the fall season of 2003. In that year, he finished third in the European Under-14 Boys Championship.

In the October 2006 FIDE ratings, Carlsen advanced to world number 22 with a rating of 2698. In the January 2007 ratings he dropped to 2690 and rank 24. In the April 2007 ratings he regained number 22, now with a rating of 2693. And in the July 2007 ratings, after a series of strong results, Carlsen advanced to become world number 17 with a rating of 2710, his highest rating so far.

Source

Trajan vs. BDub-The Power of Knights

Often I see that people neglect their knights, or their opponent’s knights, in favor of the farther-reaching bishop. They either throw their knights on the 3rd or 6th rank and forget about them, or sometimes not move one of them at all. Other times they neglect to see threats posed by their enemy’s knights until it is too late. Maybe it’s because the bishop is a long range piece and the knight is more of an in-fighter, or because inexperienced players don’t quite understand the knight. Perhaps it’s because it can be harder to coordinate an attack with two knights instead of two bishops. Many times a player will throw out a bishop as soon as they can in an attempt to start an immediate attack with little back up. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to put the bishop down, he’s a useful guy. I’m just trying to stand up for the little guys (in case you haven’t noticed, knights are my favorite pieces).

My opponent in this game is BDub, and as worthy an adversary as he is, he did neglect the threat my knights posed until it was too late.

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 Nc6
6. Bg5 e5
7. Bxf6

No, I’m not neglecting opening theory for the second time now just for the fun of it. I want to double black’s pawns and leave him with no solid place to castle with ideas of Nxc6.

7. … Qxf6
This move here is the beginning of my opponent’s disregard for my knights. Better would have been 7. … gxf6 8. Nf5 Bxf5 9. exf5 Rc8 10. Bb5 a6 11. Bxc6+ bxc6 is better, as well as 7. … gxf6 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9. Bc4 Qb6 10. Bb3 Rg8 11. 0-0 Bh3.

8. Nd5 Qd8
This was most likely reactionary to the idea of the fork at c7, not realizing that I have another knight that I can bring to bear on that square, forcing the issue. Qg6 would have been better as there is no real way to stop the fork.

9. Nb5 Rb8

Ooops. Ok, it may seem as though I’m picking on poor BDub, but I’m not. Everyone has good and bad days. Here again he tries to get out of the fork only to step into more troubles. Now he has no choice but to lose the queen for a knight. 9. … Be6 10. Nbc7+ Kd7 11. Nxa8 Qxa8 12. Bb5 g6 13. 0-0 f5 14. exf5 gxf5 15. Qd2 Bg7 16. c4 e4 would have been better, it loses a rook for a knight, but the queen remains and the fight can continue somewhat.

10. Nbc7+ Kd7

OUCH! BDub, not aware of the danger posed by my knights, and most likely in an effort to save the queen, walks into mate. Qxc7 is better, seeing as you can’t do worse than checkmate.

11. Qg4+ f5
12. Qxf5#

And the queen steps in to take all the glory, when really the knights do all the work. In all fairness, BDub is playing better in our other games. Maybe its because I smacked him awake in this one, who knows. So, do I overvalue my knights? I try not to, but usually do to a slight degree. Can you blame me; they’re the fun pieces. I’m not saying to attack with reckless abandon with them either, just stop ignoring them and have more fun with them. See where it takes you.

Article contributed by Trajan

Referred to by many chess historians as the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart of chess, Capablanca was a chess prodigy whose brilliance was noted at an early age. Richard Reti said about him ‘Chess was his mother tongue’.

According to Capablanca, he learned the rules of the game at the age of four by watching his father play. He said he noticed his father make an illegal move with his knight, accused him of cheating, and then demonstrated what he had done.
Capablanca was taken to the Havana Chess Club when he was five, where the leading players found it impossible to beat the young boy when giving him the Chess handicap of a queen. In 1901, just turned 13, he defeated Cuban national champion Juan Corzo by the score of 4 wins, 3 losses, and 6 draws.

He later began a semester as an undergraduate student of chemical engineering at Columbia University in New York City, but did not complete it, and chess became his profession.

In 1909, at the age of 20, Capablanca won a match against US champion Frank Marshall by +8-1=14. This was a comparable margin to Marshall’s World Championship loss (+8-0=7) to Emanuel Lasker in 1907. Marshall insisted that Capablanca be allowed to play in a tournament at Donostia|San Sebastian, Spain in 1911. It was one of the strongest tournaments of the time. All of the world’s leading players except world champion Emanuel Lasker were in attendance. At the beginning of the tournament Ossip Bernstein and Aaron Nimzowitsch objected to Capablanca’s presence because he had not won a major tournament. But after Capablanca won his first round game against Bernstein, capturing the tournament’s brilliancy prize, Bernstein quickly acknowledged Capablanca’s talent and said that he wouldn’t be surprised if Capablanca won the tournament. Nimzowitsch took offense when Capablanca made a comment while watching one of his blitz games, and remarked that unproven players should hold their tongue in the presence of their betters. Capablanca quickly challenged Nimzowitsch to a series of fast games, which he won “with ridiculous ease.” The assembled masters soon concluded that Capablanca had no equal at fast chess, a distinction which was to remain his until virtually the end of his life. Capablanca went on to win his tournament game with Nimzowitsch as well, using an opening setup much admired by Mikhail Botvinnik. By tournament’s end, Capablanca had astounded the chess world by taking first place at San Sebastián, with a score of +6 -1 =7, ahead of Akiba Rubinstein, Carl Schlechter and Siegbert Tarrasch. The one game he lost was against Rubinstein, one of the most brilliant chess creations of the latter’s career.

In 1911, Capablanca challenged Emanuel Lasker for the world championship. Lasker accepted his challenge but proposed seventeen conditions for the match. Capablanca disapproved of some of the conditions and the match did not take place.

In 1913, Capablanca played in his home town of Havana where he came in second to Frank Marshall. He lost one of their individual games after having a much better position. Reuben Fine claimed that Capablanca had the mayor clear all the spectators so they wouldn’t see him resign, and this story has uncritically circulated in books and around the Internet. However, Winter’s book below (pp. 47-48) documents that Fine’s story has no basis whatever. Instead, there were 600 spectators present, who naturally favored their native hero, but sportingly gave Marshall “thunderous applause”. Marshall’s own notes corroborated this-when he heard the roar, he thought that the crowd was going to kill him, and he asked for security escort “and quickly rushed over to my hotel. Afterwards I was told they were cheering for me.”

Then Capablanca scored +13 -0 =0 in a tournament in New York, although Oldrich Duras was the only International Grandmaster class opponent. This was World records in chess#Perfect tournament score|one of only a handful of perfect scores ever in high-level chess tournaments.

In September 1913, Capablanca secured a job in the Cuban Foreign Office. He appears not to have had any specific duties other than playing chess, but what he had he was reported to have carried out conscientiously. For many years, he was the most famous Cuban alive.

In October 1913 to March 1914 Capablanca traveled to Europe on his way to the Consulate at St Petersburg to play matches or exhibition games against their leading masters. In serious games, he scored 19 wins, 4 draws, and 1 loss during that period. First, he defeated Jacques Mieses and Richard Teichmann in Berlin, next beat Aron Nimzowitsch in an elegant opposite-colored bishop endgame in Riga. Then in Sankt Petersburg, he played a six-game series, two games against Alexander Alekhine, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky and Fyodor Dus-Chotimirsky, losing once to Znosko-Borovsky and winning the rest-his first encounters with Alekhine, who was outclassed;
Game 1
Game 2
In 1914, he beat Bernstein in Moscow in a game listed in many anthologies as a brilliancy for winning move …Qb2!! and for the new strategy with hanging pawns. In Kiev, he won among others against Fedor Bogatyrchuk. Then in Vienna he defeated both Richard Reti and Savielly Tartakower 1.5-0.5 each. Capablanca also gave many simultaneous exhibitions noted for their speed and very high winning scores.

In short, Capablanca was unrivaled as a fast chess player, even by the very best players of his own time (and perhaps of later times as well). Alekhine described with awe the feat of Capablanca playing simultaneous fast games between rounds of a tournament, giving five minutes to each opponent but taking only one for himself, and winning.

At the great 1914 tournament in St. Petersburg, with most of the world’s leading players (except those of the Austro-Hungarian empire), Capablanca met the great Emanuel Lasker across the chessboard for the first time in normal tournament play (Capablanca had won a knock-out lightning chess final game in 1906, leading to a famous joint endgame composition). Capablanca took the large lead of one and a half points in the preliminary rounds, and made Lasker fight hard to draw.
Game 1
Game 2
He again won the first brilliancy prize against Bernstein and had some highly regarded wins against David Janowsky[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1064762], Nimzowitsch and Alekhine.

However, Capablanca fell victim to a comeback by Lasker in the second stage of the tournament, including a famous victory by Lasker. Capablanca finished second to Emanuel Lasker with a score of 13 points to Lasker’s 13.5, but far ahead of third-placed Alexander Alekhine. After this tournament, Tsar Nicholas II proclaimed the five prize-winners (Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch, Marshall) as “International Grandmaster”.

In 1919, Capablanca overwhelmed the strong Serbs Borislav Kostic with five straight wins, whereupon Kostic resigned the match. Capablanca later wrote in 1927 that he had played the best chess of his life in this match.

In 1920, Lasker saw that Capablanca was becoming too strong, and resigned the title to him, saying, “You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery.” Capablanca wanted to win it in a match, but Lasker insisted that he was now the challenger. They played a match in Havana in 1921, and Capablanca defeated Lasker +4 -0 =10. This feat of winning the world title without losing a game to the incumbent went unequalled for almost eight decades, until Vladimir Kramnik’s win over Garry Kasparov +2 -0 =13 in 2000.

The new world champion, Capablanca dominated the field at London, 1922. There was an increasing number of strong chess players and it was felt that the world champion should not be able to evade challenges to his title, as had been done in the past. At this tournament, some of the leading players of the time, including Alexander Alekhine, Efim Bogoljubov, Geza Maroczy, Richard Reti, Akiba Rubinstein, Savielly Tartakower and Milan Vidmar, met to discuss rules for the conduct of future world championships. Amongst other things, one of the conditions proposed by Capablanca was that the challenger would have to raise at least ten thousand dollars for the prize money. That same year, he gave a simultaneous exhibition against 103 opponents, the largest in history up to that time, and scored 102 wins and 1 draw, losing none.

In the following years, Akiba Rubinstein and Aaron Nimzowitsch challenged Capablanca, but were unable to raise the stipulated funds. Alexander Alekhine’s subsequent challenge, in 1927, was backed by a group of Argentinian businessmen and the president of Argentina who guaranteed the funds.

Capablanca was second behind Lasker at New York 1924, and again ahead of third-placed Alekhine. In this tournament, his loss to Reti was his first in eight years. He was third behind Efim Bogoljubov and Lasker at Moscow 1925.

As World Champion, Capablanca also underwent major changes in his personal life. In December 1921, he married Gloria Simoni Betancourt. They had a son, Jose Raul, in 1923 and a daughter, Gloria, in 1925, but the marriage ended in divorce.

Capablanca had overwhelming success in New York 1927, a quadruple-round robin with six of the world’s top players. He was undefeated and 2.5 points ahead of the second-placed Alexander Alekhine. Capablanca also defeated Alekhine in their first game, won the first brilliancy prize against Rudolf Spielmann[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1007840] and won two games against Aron Nimzowitsch.
Game 1, Game 2.

This made him the prohibitive favorite for his match with Alexander Alekhine, who had never defeated him, later that year. However, the challenger had prepared well, and played with patience and solidity, and the marathon match proved to be Capablanca’s undoing. Capablanca lost the first game in very lacklustre fashion, then took a narrow lead by winning games 3[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012490] and 7 - attacking games more in the style of Alekhine - but then lost games 11 and 12. He tried to get Alekhine to annul the match when both players were locked in a series of draws. Alekhine refused, and eventually prevailed +6 -3 =25.

Alekhine refused to play a return match, even though doing so had been a pre-condition of the match. Despite the collapse of the financial markets in 1929, Alekhine continued to insist on the London conditions, with a $10,000 purse to be secured by the challenger. Capablanca found it difficult to satisfy this condition. Instead, Alekhine played two matches against Efim Bogoljubov, a fine player, but one who posed no great threat in a long match. (Capablanca had a 5-0 lifetime record against him). Throughout Alekhine’s first tenure as champion (1927-1935), he refused to play in the same tournaments as Capablanca.

Years after he won the title, Alekhine was asked how he had beaten Capablanca. A man of no intellectual modesty, he nevertheless responded, “Even now I cannot explain that.”

After Capablanca lost the title, he won a number of strong tournaments, hoping that his showing would force Alekhine to grant him a rematch, but it was not to be. In 1931 Capablanca defeated the fine Dutch player Max Euwe +2 -0 =8. Also in 1931, he took 1st in New York, with Isaac Kashdan coming in 2nd. Then he withdrew from serious chess, and played only less serious games at the Manhattan Chess Club and simultaneous displays. Reuben Fine recalls that in this period he (Fine) could fight on almost level terms with Alekhine at blitz chess, but that Capablanca beat him “mercilessly” the few times they played.

In 1934, Capablanca resumed serious play. He had begun dating Olga Chagodayev, whom he married in 1938, and she inspired him to play again. In 1935, Alekhine, plagued by problems with alcohol, lost his title to Euwe. Capablanca had renewed hopes of regaining his title, and he won Moscow 1936, ahead of Botvinnik and Lasker. Then he tied with Botvinnik in the super-tournament of Nottingham 1936, ahead of Euwe, Lasker, Alekhine, and the leading young players Reuben Fine, Samuel Reshevsky (avenging a defeat here) and Salo Flohr.

This was Capablanca’s first game with Alekhine since their great match, and the Cuban did not miss his chance to avenge that defeat. He had the worse position, but caught Alekhine in such a deep trap, allowing him to the exchange, that none of the other players could work out where Alekhine went wrong except Lasker, who immediately saw the mistake. Capablanca recounted this episode in ”Capablanca’s Legacy: Capablanca’s Last Chess Lectures”, pp. 111–112, expressing his admiration for Lasker’s insight even in his sixties. But Capablanca didn’t mention that his opponent was Alekhine. Their feud was still intense, so they were never seen seated together at the board for more than a few seconds. Each man made his move and then got up and walked around.

In 1937, Euwe, unlike Alekhine with respect to Capablanca, fulfilled his obligation to allow Alekhine a return match. Alekhine regained the title. Thereafter there was little hope for Capablanca to regain his title, and Alekhine played no more world championship matches until the time of his death in 1946. The absolute control of the title by the title-holder was a major impetus for FIDE to take control of it, and try to ensure that the best challenger has a shot at the title.

Capablanca won Paris 1938 with 8/10. But then his health took a turn for the worse. He suffered a small stroke during the AVRO tournament of 1938, and had the worst result of his career, 7th out of 8. But even at this stage of his career he was capable of producing strong results. In the 1939 Chess Olympiad in Buenos Aires, he made the best score on top board for Cuba, ahead of Alekhine and Paul Keres. More drama was missed because he refused to play Alekhine in Cuba’s match with France.

On 7 March 1942, he was happily kibitzing a skittles game at the Manhattan Chess Club in New York when he collapsed from a stroke. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, New York|Mount Sinai hospital, where he died the next morning. Remarkably, the Cuban’s great rival, German-born Emanuel Lasker, had died in that very hospital only a year earlier.

His bitter rival Alekhine wrote on Capablanca’s death, “With his death, we have lost a very great chess genius whose like we shall never see again.”

source