Yes, really nice, thanks.

Better hope kurogkug doesn't see it.

Many thanks for posting this, goldendog.

Very succinct, if compared with "My great predecessors" by Kasparov

Thanks for sharing that. Capablanca always strikes me as high minded and eloquent.

sorry - had to delete due to copyright infringement :(

Can you post a link to the article?

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablanca3.html

I had posted the link at the end of the article but I guess it inadvertently got caught up in the editorship.

Some Fair Use excerpts:

Steinitz was a better stylist at the beginning of his career than in his final period. He began as a brilliant player of open games and finished as a prototype of the extremely closed style. At some point he must have passed, however fleetingly, through the stage representing a happy medium, the perfect type of play.

.....................

Lasker, natural genius developed by very hard work in the early part of his career, never adopted a type of play that could be classified as a defined style. So much so, in fact, that this has moved some masters to declare that Lasker is absolutely lacking in style. The truth is that if his style had to be classified, it could only be termed “indefinite”. It has been said that he is an individualist, that he plays more against the player and his defects than against the position of the pieces. This is true to a certain extent with regard to many players, and there is perhaps a great part of truth to it in the case of Lasker, but I do not think that such things can be stated absolutely. In recent years, when I have had the opportunity to observe him in some of his games, it has seemed to me that he was often changing tactics, even against the same player. The defect of his style is that his play generally seems abnormal. One of the greatest players during the period when Lasker was champion has said that there was something mysterious in his play which he could not understand. On the other hand, Lasker has great qualities. He is very tenacious. He can defend bad positions admirably well. In this sense he had so much success during his long career as champion that finally it was transformed into a defect which sometimes led him to think that he could defend positions which really could not have been sustained against correct play. He could carry an attack through to the end in a way that very few other players could match.

In endings for a long time he maintained the reputation of having no equals. If he reached an ending in which he had a winning advantage, however small, it was almost a certainty that he would win the game. Very few victories escaped him in endings. On the other hand, if he had the worse of it, his opponent could not permit himself the liberty of conceding him the slightest chance. His combinative power in the middle game is also very great.

...............

But Morphy was not only doubtless the strongest player of his period; he was also a creator in chess and the prototype of what could be called the perfect style. Regarding the results of his battles, there are various points to consider. There is one, above all, that is hardly known at all. We refer to the fact that the great American master never played isolated games for amusement; every time he played, he put all his knowledge into the game. In other words, for him any game he played immediately assumed, so to term it, the proportions of a match game. We do not believe that any other player has done this. Consequently, he should be judged only on his great matches, especially those against Anderssen and Harrwitz. Simply playing through the games of those two matches will show that they hardly contain any so-called brilliant combinations.

they are my mentors! when i was starting to learn chess... i was lucky to have a collections of their games!