Capablanca

I renoun player of the early 20th century.  I like his style, totally backboned and in complete trust of his tactics and fundamentals, always knowing he does not have to find the winning move just play according to solid strategy and it proved well for him

He is interesting, sometimes moving a knight three times to get it to one particular square, also knowing which lines are popular, which are overlooked, and which ones win.  His style is simply.

He recognizes the power of a strong piece right away (or where it may become strong) and vice versa saying that in the process of attacking a weak point another may pop up somewhere else in the process.

What else do I consider a valuable contribution from JR?  He was not afraid to admit that he overlooked great moves yet he knew they were great... basically meaning he took great pride in studying his games afterward.  Well versed in the simple strategies of the game, passed isolated pawns, centre control, bishops on the main open diagonals, pins, would never lose an exchange if it was his move to decide, visionary way beyond points and even position, and if I may point out something specific from a book, a very cool queen sacrifice.  He wasn't flashy but had the ability to be.  He focused not on how to defeat someone by certain strategies or lines, but on how to play great chess, something often overlooked by many great players or computers I mean in that way.  He played the game and a wonderful time, too, and did win a lot.  He is just simply put someone you would love to play or watch.  He embodies certain aspects of the game you cannot teach or learn else where.

Lastly, I have seen many of his games and teachings and I wish he would have written one more small but short book maybe just on three or four more ideas.  Thanks JR, thanks a lot, Mike B

He had a natural talent for chess. Capablanca was an excellent endgame player. Also he could calculate variations very quickly. I read about him that he played 5 players simultaneously giving 5-1 odds in time and winning all of them.

A freakish natural talent. 'I was not yet 5 years old when by accident I came into my father's private office and found him playing with another gentleman. I had never seen a game of chess before; the pieces interested me, and I went the next day to see them play again. The third day, as I looked on, my father, a very poor beginner, moved a knight from a white square to a white square. His opponent, apparently not a better player, did not notice it. My father won, and I proceeded to call him a cheat and to laugh. After a little wrangle, during which I was nearly put out of the room, I showed my father what he had done. He asked me how and what I knew about chess? I answered that I could beat him; he said that was impossible, considering I could not even set the pieces correctly. We tried conclusions, and I won. That was my beginning.' From My Chess Career 1920.

Yes, if I remember well Fine said he had played many blitz games vs. Capa and Alekhine in the 30's, and the score was more or less even vs. AAA, but Capablanca crushed him like a grape.

Pulpoferia wrote:

Capablanca crushed him like a grape.

Aah, echoes from my professional gunslinger past.

"I will crush you like a proverbial grape"

There's always one...

Time odds are always an element of simuls by the very nature of the event.  Reuben Fine gave a blindfold rapid transit simul in September of 1945 at the conclusion of the USA-USSR Radio Match.   Fine played 4 boards at 10 sec./move.  His opponents could think until he reached their board, essentially giving them  time odds of 30 sec./move to his 10 secs./move.  Fine won all four games.

Fine played five blitz games against Fischer in 1963, winning one and losing four. Not too shabby for someone who was out of chess for so long against an active super grandmaster.

One gets the impression from "My 60 Memorable Games" that they played only the game contained therein, but chessgames.com has all five.