Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 20th 07, 01:14 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

In the fifth game of the Lasker-Capablanca World Championship match
(1921), the same position[1] occurs after Black's 34th, 36th and 38th
moves but the draw was not claimed and Black went on to lose. Does
anyone know why?

Winter says that the threefold repetition rule dates back to London
1883[2] so it seems likely that it applied to this match.
Chessgames.com[3] quotes Capablanca's notes on the game and he doesn't
mention the repetition; nor does Kasparov in volume I of _On My Great
Predecessors_.


Dave.

[1] 5k2/p4p2/1p2q3/5RQp/6n1/4P3/PP6/6K1 w - - 0 39
[2] http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/w...61._Repetition
[3] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1241495


[Event "World Championship"]
[Site "Havana CUB"]
[Date "1921.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Black "Lasker, Emanuel"]
[ECO "D63"]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nc3 O-O 7.Rc1 b6
8.cxd5 exd5 9.Qa4 c5 10.Qc6 Rb8 11.Nxd5 Bb7 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.Qa4 Rbc8
14.Qa3 Qe6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Ba6 Bxf3 17.Bxc8 Rxc8 18.gxf3 Qxf3 19.Rg1
Re8 20.Qd3 g6 21.Kf1 Re4 22.Qd1 Qh3+ 23.Rg2 Nf6 24.Kg1 cxd4 25.Rc4
dxe3 26.Rxe4 Nxe4 27.Qd8+ Kg7 28.Qd4+ Nf6 29.fxe3 Qe6 30.Rf2 g5 31.h4
gxh4 32.Qxh4 Ng4 33.Qg5+ Kf8 34.Rf5 h5 35.Qd8+ Kg7 36.Qg5+ Kf8 37.Qd8+
Kg7 38.Qg5+ Kf8 39.b3 Qd6 40.Qf4 Qd1+ 41.Qf1 Qd7 42.Rxh5 Nxe3 43.Qf3
Qd4 44.Qa8+ Ke7 45.Qb7+ Kf8 46.Qb8+ 1-0


--
David Richerby Hilarious Unholy Postman (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail but
it's also a crime against nature and
a bundle of laughs!
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 20th 07, 02:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,931
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

On Apr 20, 8:14 am, David Richerby
wrote:
In the fifth game of the Lasker-Capablanca World Championship match
(1921), the same position[1] occurs after Black's 34th, 36th and 38th
moves but the draw was not claimed and Black went on to lose. Does
anyone know why?


An interesting point, Dave. In his annotations to the match,
Capablanca does not even mention the repetition. It would have been up
to Lasker, as the player making the move that creates the third
iteration, to claim the draw before making his 38th move. It is
possible that he failed to notice threefold repetition, but it seems
unlikely, since the repetitions occur in direct sequence. I would
suggest that perhaps he chose not to claim the draw, because he
believed he had winning chances. Capablanca's note to Black's 45th
move inclines me to this opinion:

"He had little time to think and, furthermore, by his own admission,
he entirely misjudged the value of the position, believing that he had
chances of winning, when, in fact, all he could hope for was a draw."

Winter says that the threefold repetition rule dates back to London
1883[2] so it seems likely that it applied to this match.
Chessgames.com[3] quotes Capablanca's notes on the game and he doesn't
mention the repetition; nor does Kasparov in volume I of _On My Great
Predecessors_.

Dave.

[1] 5k2/p4p2/1p2q3/5RQp/6n1/4P3/PP6/6K1 w - - 0 39
[2]http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter02.html#3461._Repetition
[3]http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1241495

[Event "World Championship"]
[Site "Havana CUB"]
[Date "1921.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Black "Lasker, Emanuel"]
[ECO "D63"]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nc3 O-O 7.Rc1 b6
8.cxd5 exd5 9.Qa4 c5 10.Qc6 Rb8 11.Nxd5 Bb7 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.Qa4 Rbc8
14.Qa3 Qe6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Ba6 Bxf3 17.Bxc8 Rxc8 18.gxf3 Qxf3 19.Rg1
Re8 20.Qd3 g6 21.Kf1 Re4 22.Qd1 Qh3+ 23.Rg2 Nf6 24.Kg1 cxd4 25.Rc4
dxe3 26.Rxe4 Nxe4 27.Qd8+ Kg7 28.Qd4+ Nf6 29.fxe3 Qe6 30.Rf2 g5 31.h4
gxh4 32.Qxh4 Ng4 33.Qg5+ Kf8 34.Rf5 h5 35.Qd8+ Kg7 36.Qg5+ Kf8 37.Qd8+
Kg7 38.Qg5+ Kf8 39.b3 Qd6 40.Qf4 Qd1+ 41.Qf1 Qd7 42.Rxh5 Nxe3 43.Qf3
Qd4 44.Qa8+ Ke7 45.Qb7+ Kf8 46.Qb8+ 1-0

--
David Richerby Hilarious Unholy Postman (TM): it'swww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail but
it's also a crime against nature and
a bundle of laughs!



  #3   Report Post  
Old April 20th 07, 03:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

Taylor Kingston wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
In the fifth game of the Lasker-Capablanca World Championship match
(1921), the same position[1] occurs after Black's 34th, 36th and
38th moves but the draw was not claimed and Black went on to lose.
Does anyone know why?


An interesting point, Dave. In his annotations to the match,
Capablanca does not even mention the repetition.


I'd be interested to know if any commentators have mentioned it. As I
said, Kasparov also says nothing about it. I guess this isn't one of
the games he analyzed with Fritz: I `found' the repetition when going
through the game using Fritz as a board and it informed me the
position was drawn. My initial thought was that I'd been careless and
turned a two-fold repetition into three-fold.


It would have been up to Lasker, as the player making the move that
creates the third iteration, to claim the draw before making his
38th move. It is possible that he failed to notice threefold
repetition, but it seems unlikely, since the repetitions occur in
direct sequence.


True. On the other hand, the moves that bring about the repeated
position are a pawn move and two king moves -- maybe that threw him
off.


I would suggest that perhaps he chose not to claim the draw, because
he believed he had winning chances.


That's also a possibility, with Capablanca miscalculating. Does Capa
usually come across as being fairly honest in his annotations? Do we
infer that he probably wasn't aware of the possibility of Lasker's
claiming the draw when he wrote the notes?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Laptop Drink (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage that you
can put on your lap!
  #4   Report Post  
Old April 20th 07, 05:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,931
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

On Apr 20, 10:53 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

David Richerby wrote:
In the fifth game of the Lasker-Capablanca World Championship match
(1921), the same position[1] occurs after Black's 34th, 36th and
38th moves but the draw was not claimed and Black went on to lose.
Does anyone know why?


An interesting point, Dave. In his annotations to the match,
Capablanca does not even mention the repetition.


I'd be interested to know if any commentators have mentioned it. As I
said, Kasparov also says nothing about it. I guess this isn't one of
the games he analyzed with Fritz: I `found' the repetition when going
through the game using Fritz as a board and it informed me the
position was drawn. My initial thought was that I'd been careless and
turned a two-fold repetition into three-fold.

It would have been up to Lasker, as the player making the move that
creates the third iteration, to claim the draw before making his
38th move. It is possible that he failed to notice threefold
repetition, but it seems unlikely, since the repetitions occur in
direct sequence.


True. On the other hand, the moves that bring about the repeated
position are a pawn move and two king moves -- maybe that threw him
off.

I would suggest that perhaps he chose not to claim the draw, because
he believed he had winning chances.


That's also a possibility, with Capablanca miscalculating. Does Capa
usually come across as being fairly honest in his annotations?


I am certainly not aware of any deliberate dishonesty in any
Capablanca annotations I have ever read.

Do we
infer that he probably wasn't aware of the possibility of Lasker's
claiming the draw when he wrote the notes?


I find it hard to believe that someone of Capa's chess ability would
not notice it. I would therefore tend to think he simply chose not to
mention it, perhaps not considering it relevant.
Interestingly, I recently came across another instance of a missed
draw opportunity, in Lasker-Blackburne, 10th match game, London, 1892:

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 5. Bf4 c6 6. e3 Nh5 7. Bg5
Be7 8. Bxe7
Qxe7 9. Bd3 g6 10. Qe2 O-O 11. O-O f5 12. Rfd1 Ndf6 13. Rac1 Bd7 14.
Ne5 Be8
15. Qc2 Rd8 16. a3 Nd7 17. Nf3 Ng7 18. Re1 Nf6 19. b4 Ne4 20. Ne5 Nxc3
21. Qxc3
Nh5 22. a4 Nf6 23. b5 Nd7 24. Nf3 dxc4 25. Qxc4 Nb6 26. Qb3 cxb5 27.
axb5 Bf7
28. Ne5 Rc8 29. Ra1 Ra8 30. Re2 Rfc8 31. Rea2 Qc7 32. g3 Qc3 33. Qxc3
Rxc3 34.
Rxa7 Rxa7 35. Rxa7 Rc7 36. Kf1 Be8 37. Ke2 Kf8 38. Kd2 Ke7 39. Ra3 Kd6
40. f3
Rc8 41. e4 Rc7 42. Ra1 Rc8 43. h4 Rc7 44. Rb1 Rc8 45. Ke3 Ke7 46. h5
Kf6 47.
hxg6 hxg6 48. Rh1 Kg7 49. Ra1 Ra8 50. Rc1 Rc8 51. Rb1 Kf6 52. Rh1 Kg7
53. Ra1
Ra8 54. Rh1 Rc8 55. g4 fxg4 56. fxg4 Ra8 57. g5 Ra3 58. Kd2 Ra2+ 59.
Ke3 Ra3
60. Kf4 Nd7 61. Bc4 Nf8 62. Rc1 Ra5 63. Bd3 Bxb5 64. Rc5 Ra4 65. Bxb5
Rxd4 66.
Rc7+ Kg8 67. Rxb7 1-0

Black's 54th move repeats the position after his 48th and 52nd
moves. It seems unlikely Blackburne felt himself to be winning; at
that point he's a pawn down and on the defensive. Either he missed the
threefold (it's a bit harder to see than in the Capablanca game), or
perhaps he just figured "What the hell" (he was down +0 -5 =3 in the
match at the time).
The most interesting case of threefold repetition I can recall was
in Fischer-Petrosian, 1971 Candidates Final, 3rd game. Petrosian had
the better of it, but his 33rd move allowed Fischer a move that
repeated the position after White's 30th and 32nd moves; Fischer
immediately claimed the draw. Petrosian may have missed this because
his 29th, 31st, and 33rd moves were all by different pieces, rather
than shuttling the same piece back and forth:

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6 gxf6 7. g3
f5 8. Nc3 Bf6 9. Nge2 Nc6 10. d5 exd5 11. Nxd5 Bxb2 12. Bg2 O-O 13. O-
O Bh8 14. Nef4 Ne5 15. Qh5 Ng6 16. Rad1 c6 17. Ne3 Qf6 18. Kh1 Bg7 19.
Bh3 Ne7 20. Rd3 Be6 21. Rfd1 Bh6 22. Rd4 Bxf4 23. Rxf4 Rad8 24. Rxd8
Rxd8 25. Bxf5 Nxf5 26. Nxf5 Rd5 27. g4 Bxf5 28. gxf5 h6 29. h3 Kh7 30.
Qe2 Qe5 31. Qh5 Qf6 32. Qe2 Re5 33. Qd3 Rd5 34. Qe2 1/2-1/2



  #5   Report Post  
Old April 21st 07, 05:31 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

On Apr 20, 8:14 am, David Richerby
wrote:
In the fifth game of the Lasker-Capablanca World Championship match
(1921), the same position[1] occurs after Black's 34th, 36th and 38th
moves but the draw was not claimed and Black went on to lose. Does
anyone know why?

Winter says that the threefold repetition rule dates back to London
1883[2] so it seems likely that it applied to this match.
Chessgames.com[3] quotes Capablanca's notes on the game and he doesn't
mention the repetition; nor does Kasparov in volume I of _On My Great
Predecessors_.


One of the odd things about this match was that Lasker
failed to win even a single game. Hence, without hindsight,
it would seem to be unwise for him to make any claim of a
draw, as this would only serve to help Capablanca get a
lock on the title.

Another point is that, according to the rules of the game,
a draw is not some clever way of pocketing prize money
while avoiding a real struggle, but rather it is supposed to
be what happens when neither player can make progress
on the board or when the position is so simple as to
make the odds of winning very, very small.

Looking at the numbers of the moves: 34, 36, 38, it may
be that one side or the other was trying to make the time
control.

-- help bot









  #6   Report Post  
Old April 21st 07, 01:28 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,931
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

On Apr 21, 12:31 am, help bot wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:14 am, David Richerby
wrote:

In the fifth game of the Lasker-Capablanca World Championship match
(1921), the same position[1] occurs after Black's 34th, 36th and 38th
moves but the draw was not claimed and Black went on to lose. Does
anyone know why?


Winter says that the threefold repetition rule dates back to London
1883[2] so it seems likely that it applied to this match.
Chessgames.com[3] quotes Capablanca's notes on the game and he doesn't
mention the repetition; nor does Kasparov in volume I of _On My Great
Predecessors_.


One of the odd things about this match was that Lasker
failed to win even a single game. Hence, without hindsight,
it would seem to be unwise for him to make any claim of a
draw, as this would only serve to help Capablanca get a
lock on the title.


Two points:
1. At that point in the match, neither player had won a game -- the
first four were drawn. So one more draw at that point would not have
helped Capablanca win the match.
2. In a way, Capablanca already had "a lock on the title." Lasker
had earlier resigned his World Championship title and given it to
Capa. Therefore, technically, in this match Capablanca was the
defending champion, Lasker the challenger.

Basically, in 1921 Lasker was burnt out. His play in the 1921 match
was way below his usual standard. The war had been hard on him, he was
tired of chess, and after 27 years of him as champion, the chess world
was pretty tired of him. Fortunately, he did recover, extended his
career another 15 years, and restored his standing to go out with
"grand old man" or "beloved elder statesman" status.

Another point is that, according to the rules of the game,
a draw is not some clever way of pocketing prize money
while avoiding a real struggle, but rather it is supposed to
be what happens when neither player can make progress
on the board or when the position is so simple as to
make the odds of winning very, very small.

Looking at the numbers of the moves: 34, 36, 38, it may
be that one side or the other was trying to make the time
control.

-- help bot



  #7   Report Post  
Old April 22nd 07, 06:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

On Apr 21, 8:28 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Two points:


1. At that point in the match, neither player had won a game -- the
first four were drawn. So one more draw at that point would not have
helped Capablanca win the match.


Hmm. I didn't realize they drew so many games in
a row. Still, my other point remains to be answered;

the one about obeying the rules of the game instead
of cheating at will, as is the fashion today.


2. In a way, Capablanca already had "a lock on the title." Lasker
had earlier resigned his World Championship title and given it to
Capa. Therefore, technically, in this match Capablanca was the
defending champion, Lasker the challenger.


That's one take on the issue. My take is that such
a "gift" of the title is quite the opposite; as we saw
with GM Karpov "inheriting" the title from GM
Fischer, the backlash can be worse than hell. The
only surefire way to avoid this kind of thing is to beat
the man, to be the man. Also consider this: if GM
Capablanca were really considered the title-holder
before this match, why go to such lengths to try
and play GM Lasker? Any old challenger would do,
and there were plenty available who would jump at
the chance to get crushed by JC. And take a good,
hard look at the distribution of the prize money: how
to explain this if you really believe your own story?


Basically, in 1921 Lasker was burnt out. His play in the 1921 match
was way below his usual standard.


Everyone has a poor performance now and then;
this is no proof of being burnt out. For such a
proof we might look at GM Lasker's lifetime rating
curve, searching for a final, sharp drop from which
he never recovered. And running into JC and AA
is not the same as burning out.


The war had been hard on him, he was
tired of chess, and after 27 years of him as champion,


LOL Right -- we are to imagine that the poor man
burned himself out with his multitudinous title defenses
over the course of 27 years! LOL

the chess world was pretty tired of him.


I for one was sick and tired of his incessant winning!
Can't the man learn to lose like a fish once in a while? ;D

Fortunately, he did recover, extended his
career another 15 years,


So then, either he was not really burnt out, or
else he installed a new/rebuilt chess engine.

and restored his standing to go out with
"grand old man" or "beloved elder statesman" status.


Well, even GM Spassky is so described, and yet his
results were vastly inferior to GM Lasker's toward the
end of their respective careers. Many, many history
books simply ignore the hard facts when glorifying the
world champions and their careers. As IM Winston
Churchill so succinctly put it: "Chess history is bunk".

-- help bot




  #8   Report Post  
Old April 22nd 07, 10:39 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 346
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

On Apr 21, 10:32 pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:28 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
As IM Winston
Churchill so succinctly put it: "Chess history is bunk".

-- help bot


bot, have you seen the articles by chess statistician Jeff Sonas on
the greatest champions ever? The research that 'backsolved' GW games
using computers to show which GMs made the fewest errors (both in
winning AND in losing games)? That showed Capa (and Lasker) and
Kasparov (and Karpov) and Fischer (and Petrosian) to be the greatest
players ever?

RL




  #9   Report Post  
Old April 22nd 07, 03:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,931
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

On Apr 22, 1:32 am, help bot wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:28 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Two points:
1. At that point in the match, neither player had won a game -- the
first four were drawn. So one more draw at that point would not have
helped Capablanca win the match.


Hmm. I didn't realize they drew so many games in a row.


The match went D-D-D-D-W-D-D-D-D-W-W-D-D-W, so there were two
streaks of 4 draws in a row. Then, with the score 4-0 in Capa's favor,
Lasker resigned the match, even though it had been planned to last up
to 30 games, says Hannak. Besides feeling he had no chance to beat
Capablanca, Lasker found the Havana heat unendurable, in fact he was
hospitalized for some time after returning to Europe.

Still, my other point remains to be answered;
the one about obeying the rules of the game instead
of cheating at will, as is the fashion today.


I will leave that question to others, since its relevance to Lasker-
Capablanca eludes me.

2. In a way, Capablanca already had "a lock on the title." Lasker
had earlier resigned his World Championship title and given it to
Capa. Therefore, technically, in this match Capablanca was the
defending champion, Lasker the challenger.


That's one take on the issue.


No, it's an historical fact. For example the Hannak biography, page
195, says "Finally, after long and fruitless efforts to come to
mutually satisfactory terms, Lasker threw quite a bombshell by
publishing a statement solemnly renouncing his title for good and
all." This was in 1920, I believe.

My take is that such
a "gift" of the title is quite the opposite; as we saw
with GM Karpov "inheriting" the title from GM
Fischer, the backlash can be worse than hell. The
only surefire way to avoid this kind of thing is to beat
the man, to be the man.


Capablanca obviously felt the same way, and so pressed Lasker all
the more, aided by popular opinion, and also by the hyper-inflation of
German currency in the years immediately following WW I. This pretty
much evaporated Lasker's savings, so when a Havana casino offered him
a minimum guarantee of $11,000, win or lose, Lasker could not afford
to refuse.

Also consider this: if GM
Capablanca were really considered the title-holder
before this match, why go to such lengths to try
and play GM Lasker?


You're right, Capablanca definitely wanted to win the title the
right way, by beating Lasker. I was merely reporting the fact that
Lasker *had* resigned the title before them match, and so,
technically, Capa was *already* champion.

Basically, in 1921 Lasker was burnt out. His play in the 1921 match
was way below his usual standard.


Everyone has a poor performance now and then;
this is no proof of being burnt out. For such a
proof we might look at GM Lasker's lifetime rating
curve, searching for a final, sharp drop from which
he never recovered.


No, for proof of his being burnt out, we can simply turn to the
testimony of those who knew him. To cite Hannak again, page 196: "So
Lasker went to Cuba to play the match, but he didn't feel very happy
about it ... he was far from being imbued with indomitable fighting
spirit that had carried through all his previous tests ..." Another
source is GM Ossip Bernstein, who reported this conversation with
Lasker shortly before he sailed for Havana:

B: "Have you made any preparations for the match?"
L: "No."
B: "Have you taken time out to rest?"
L: "No."
B: "At least you are taking along a chessboard in order to study
chess on the voyage?"
L: "No."
B: "Have you reviewed the openings you will play and studied the
games of Capablanca?"
L: "No."

If this laconic exchange does not indicate burn-out, then at least
neither does it indicate enthusiasm.

The war had been hard on him, he was
tired of chess, and after 27 years of him as champion,


LOL Right -- we are to imagine that the poor man
burned himself out with his multitudinous title defenses
over the course of 27 years! LOL


You have split that sentence improperly. It is a compound sentence,
the last sentence of which is "after 27 years of [Lasker] as champion,
the chess world was pretty tired of him." Anyone well read in chess
history knows this. The public gets tired of the same man winning all
the time, they want to see a new face. Similar situations were
Steinitz-Lasker 1894, Botvinnik-Tal 1960, Karpov-Kasparov 1985. And
the public can be quite fickle; attending the 2003 Kasparov-Karpov
exhibition match in New York, I noticed that most of the crowd who
expressed any favoritism were pro-Karpov, something unthinkable 20
years earlier.

the chess world was pretty tired of him.


As IM Winston
Churchill so succinctly put it: "Chess history is bunk".


That was Henry Ford. In the Chicago Tribune of May 25, 1916, he
said: "History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want
tradition. Want to live in the present and the only history that is
worth a tinker's damn is the history we make today."

  #10   Report Post  
Old April 23rd 07, 04:52 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Repetition in Capablanca-Lasker Wch game 5, 1921

On Apr 22, 5:39 am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Apr 21, 10:32 pm, help bot wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:28 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
As IM Winston
Churchill so succinctly put it: "Chess history is bunk".


-- help bot


bot, have you seen the articles by chess statistician Jeff Sonas on
the greatest champions ever? The research that 'backsolved' GW games
using computers to show which GMs made the fewest errors (both in
winning AND in losing games)? That showed Capa (and Lasker) and
Kasparov (and Karpov) and Fischer (and Petrosian) to be the greatest
players ever?


No, I haven't seen it.

How do you "back solve" a game, anyway?

How did the statistician decide which games to analyze,
and which to exclude? This seems to allow for human
bias to LEAP into the forefront. I would prefer a dufus
(who has no clue how to manipulate numbers) to decide
the matter, then enter the *competent* statisticians for the
number-crunching part.

Can I "back solve" my own games, or is there an upper
limit as to how many blunders the algorithm can handle?
;D

-- help bot

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang? [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 66 April 4th 07 02:14 PM
Interview with CJA Award Winning Historian in The Chess Journalist The Historian rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 215 November 16th 06 08:34 PM
Did Lasker get the Immortal Game wrong? Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 9 September 17th 06 06:24 PM
Lasker's time troble game 5 1921 Alan OBrien rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 June 22nd 06 01:53 PM
Looking for Capablanca Game mike rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 6 March 16th 06 02:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017