Capablanca Chess Fundamentals Midlle game blunder?

Hello Chess Addicts 

I am reading the book of one of the greatest mind of chess ever been, mainly the Chess Fundamentals written by J. R. Capablanca.  I believe that I have found a tactical blunder made in Example 43' Section 17, Chapter 3. ( [IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/rsbqsy.jpg[/IMG] )

The best move for black shown in the example is Rdg8. For the first glance it look fine as the explanation says that black will be winning after the move. But what if white just played Bxg5? Taking the whole rook?

I am little confused with that simple miscalculation. Maybe I just don't understand the position ? What do You think ?

I think that the black rook is supposed to be on g4 in that example, the way it is in the copy of Chess Fundamentals available at Gutenberg.org.  

It looks like somebody made a mistake publishing whatever update it is you are looking at.

You are right, it does look like a mistake. Even if there is a tactic that I still can't see, it should have been noted down.

Apart from this, how are you finding this book?

 Just a Google search.

 Thanks notmtwain for quick answer. So again the publisher made an error. How could I even assume that player of such a calibre as Capa had done such a blunder .  Thanks once again it clears everything.

Bad proofreading when the algebraic edition was published- the diagram is wrong, as notmtwain explained.

 Thanks for answer.

I find it a little bit severe for beginner like me. Not much is explained so the basic has to be learned somewhere else. Just raw knowledge running through with some examples. But this is the way that Capa learned how to play, so he believed that this is the best way - through the deduction, self experience etc,.

I know, it's typical of chess books to not explain certain things. When I was a weaker player I would go through a chess book and every 2 sec "why is he not doing that instead" and the move wasn't even mentioned.

That's because they count on you have pre-existing knowldge, and not just of tactics. For instance an opening book wouldn't describe a certain moves if it transposed to a different line down a tempo, with the idea that it would never be played in a game because they would have done the other line instead.

 Thanks for answers.  Very sloppy move from the publisher .  This is my second book with this kind of  problem and it is really annoying. Imagine how crucial this mistakes are for a beginners like me. Someone could assume that such blunders not happen in publishing  and  took that bad position to the heart.

 Yeah, totally agree . By the way that descriptive notation is not that bad for beginners. Forces focus and by that probably  better understanding of a position.  Algebraic is for lazy ones