Sunday
Dec062015
This Week's World Chess Column: Capablanca vs. Fischer vs. Kasparov
Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 12:28AM
In which I muse about the strengths of players from different eras, and take a look at one of the Nimzowitsch-Capablanca games from New York 1927, where according to Ken Regan's Intrinsic Performance Ratings Capa played chess like a 2936-rated player.
tagged AGON, Capablanca
Reader Comments (5)
Dennis as always a very nice column. The annotated game was a great choice. I know I have seen the game before but to see how out-classed Nimzovitch actually in the game was startling. If memory serves me Capablanca never had a hard time playing against him. him. While it takes a bit effort to understand what Mr. Regan is doing, his work seems to be worth considering. It does corroborate some of the general judgements made by great chess players about the masters from the past. Certainly Capablanca's accuracy was always considered his finest attribute. To see his play was on several occasions comparable to the level of a strong chess engine (over 2900) is amazing. While Morphy was a bit of a surprise in how relatively low he was rated on accurate play. Many modern masters have felt he was a bit over rated. However, in historical terms, it appears that Morphy was the first to play like a master/IM in todays terms.
I replied to your post there, Dennis, but to repeat, I like your differentiation of talent and skill. It's ridiculous to compare the 'skill' of today's players to the 19th century players. In particular, people who use computer engines to say that Lasker, or whoever, doesn't compare in accuracy to, say, Carlsen, according to Houdini. Yeah, no [kidding]....because the modern players are using Houdini's moves through move 20. Big surprise that they are more 'accurate'. (i.e., their moves agree with the current strongest engine) I don't think Carlsen or anyone else is more 'talented' than Morphy, Lasker or Capa et al. I think most of the very top historical players are basically equally 'talented', even if the most modern players are the most 'skilled'.
[DM: Your point is a bit different than mine, though it also plays a role. Contemporary chess players aren't playing more accurate chess solely because they are cribbing moves from Komodo et al; they simply understand a lot more than the old-timers. Knowledge builds, and there are positions where the old-timers would make positional errors that even contemporary club players know to avoid.]
I am not sure if Mr Regan's methods cover this,but it seems to me that Capablanca's opponents up or 1927 were playing too simply , just think how many games started d4 d5 or e4 e5 so Capablanca's moves are more likely to be the best . Once Alekhine had demonstrated he could be vanquished with more dynamic play then top class chess became a much more difficult game.
[DM: I'd disagree with some of the particulars of your post, but your general point is a very good one: it's easier to play strong chess when the position is simpler and/or when one's opponent doesn't put up especially strong resistance. Ken has indeed been trying to incorporate that into his model.]
IMO, in comparing great chess players of different era, their endgame techniques must be used for comparison for fairness. I believe Capablanca is a favorite to win greatest chess player of all time if based on endgame prowess.
[DM: There's a big problem with including endgames, and it's that they have been conducted very differently over the years. For starters, there used to be adjournments, so in those times the players had hours, even days to analyze (with helpers), not to mention the opportunity to rest up first. Moreover, rather than playing on the dregs of an increment, they enjoyed the stately time controls of an hour for 16 moves, which would repeat forever. (One might also dispute the stature of Capablanca as an endgame super-genius, as Alekhine did, but the point is that even if it's granted the necessary conditions for a comparison aren't present.]
Alekhine wasn't the only one to question whether Capa was really the endgame wizard that many have made him out to be. Fischer wrote in his (controversial) list of the 10 greatest all-time greats, that contrary to popular belief, Capa's strength was the middle game--not the endgame.