Capablanca should have the title for more than 20 years

Is known that Capablanca onwed the title from 1921 to 1927 but i believe he could be the champion ten years earlier (since 1911) and continue having it ten years later(untill 1937).The summary?1911-37 instead of 1921-27

At the start,he won the 1911 strong tournament of San Sebastian (a lot of great players except Lasker) so Capablanca challenged Lasker for the world championship..Lasker accepted his challenge but proposed seventeen conditions for the match. Capablanca disapproved of some of the conditions and the match did not take place...Since then Lasker avoiding Capa saying that is not experienced yet and defending his title with easier opponents.At 1914 WW I started for Capablanca's bad luck,but he continued to win almost every tournament until....

1921 (ten years at the top but without the title..) where finally a game arranged between them (after 10 years that Capablanca first challenged Lasker!!!) and Capa won Lasker with the convincing score (4 wins 10 draws no loss).

At 1927 Capablanca had overwhelming success with six of the world's top players in New York. He was undefeated, with 14/20, and 2½ points ahead of the second-placed Alekhine.He was the ultimate favorite at the title game against Alekhine,but he had prepared well, played with patience and solidity, and won the match.Since then,as another Lasker,Alekhin refused to play a return match even if Capablanca winning ceaselessly a lot of tournaments between 1927-1937.

So this was a story of a true gentleman whose opponents weren't as gentlemen as he was...

In a tribute to Capablanca after his death, Alekhine wrote:

How did it happen that he lost to me? I must confess that even now I cannot answer that question with certainty, since in 1927 I did not believe that I was superior to him. Perhaps the chief reason for his defeat was his over-estimation of his own powers arising out of his overwhelming victory at New York 1927, and his underestimation of mine...

Your opinions are welcome

Capablanca was the best ever. Alekhine dodged him once he had the title and Lasker delayed him getting the the title. Things could really have been different.

Lasker delayed him a lot!

It could be argued a lot of players could have done better had circumstances been kinder: Morphy, Tarrach, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, Tarketower, Reshevsky, Bronstein, Tal, Fischer...

Capablanca was not the best between 1910-1920 (perhaps some of 1915 only). Interesting how you purposely omit the tournament that Lasker and Capablanca both played, and which Lasker scored 1st. Lasker vs Capablanca was 1.5-0.5 (St. Petersburg 1914).

Is that the Ruy Lopez Exchange one?

Yep.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258181

 Brilliant, one of the best games ever

I believe that Capablanca did not have the ( or did not want to bet ) money to play Lasker for the title!

Yes but at this tournament Capa came first surprising everyone.And Capa was the best player between 1910-1920.Maybe some facts from wikipedia would convince you:

In 1913, Capablanca won a tournament in New York tournament with 11/13, half a point ahead of Marshall.In a second 1913 tournament in New York, Capablanca swept the field +13 -0 =0,this was one of only a handful of perfect scores ever in high-level chess tournaments.

In October 1913 to March 1914 Capablanca traveled to Europe on his way to the Consulate at St Petersburg to play matches or exhibition games against their leading masters. In serious games, he scored nineteen wins, four draws, and one loss during that period. First, he defeated Jacques Mieses and Richard Teichmann in Berlin. Then in St. Petersburg, he played a six-game series, two games against Alexander Alekhine, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky and Fyodor Dus-Chotimirsky, losing once to Znosko-Borovsky and winning the rest—his first encounters with Alekhine, who was outclassed; next he beat Nimzowitsch in an elegant opposite-colored bishops endgame in Riga. In 1914, he beat Bernstein in Moscow in a game listed in many anthologies as a brilliancy for winning move 29...Qb2!! and for the new strategy with hanging pawns. In Kiev, he won among others against Fedor Bogatyrchuk. Then in Vienna he won one game from Richard Réti and defeated Savielly Tartakower 1½-½.

At the great St. Petersburg 1914 chess tournament,Capablanca made Lasker fight hard to draw. He had some highly regarded wins against David Janowsky, and Alekhine Nimzowitsch. The top five players (Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, Tarrasch, and Marshall) qualified for the final stage of the tournament. Capablanca entered with a seemingly insurmountable lead of 1½ points over Lasker.However,Capablanca finished second to Lasker with a score of 13 points to Lasker's 13½, but far ahead of third-placed Alexander Alekhine (10 points)

Alekhine reports:

His real, incomparable gifts first began to make themselves known at the time of St. Petersburg, 1914, when I too came to know him personally....He was already playing as well as Lasker.

At New York 1915, he won with 13/14, a point ahead of Frank Marshall. At New York 1916, Capablanca won with 14/17, ahead of David Janowsky (11)Then at New York 1918, Capablanca won with 10½/12, ahead of Kostic and Marshall.Capablanca also won the Hastings 1919 Victory tournament with a dominant 10½/11, a point ahead of Kostic. In 1920, Lasker saw that Capablanca was becoming too strong, and resigned the title to him, saying, "You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery." Capablanca wanted to win it in a match, but Lasker insisted that he was now the challenger.

Whom do you suggest as the best player between 1911-20?I am just saying that Lasker and Capa were the best at this period and should have a match for WCC much more earlier than 1921..

That's true.This was a problem for many chess players,especially at the old times..Rubinstein was another victim of money.When WW I started things became even more difficult for Capa to arrange a match...

The same scenario will face again with Alekhin.From Wiki:

Alekhine refused to play a return match, even though doing so had been a pre-condition of the match. Despite the collapse of the financial markets in 1929, Alekhine continued to insist on the London conditions, with a $10,000 purse to be secured by the challenger. Capablanca found it difficult to satisfy this condition, because the world's economy was mired in what became known as the Great Depression...

That's not all you're saying. Your title clearly claims that Capablanca should have had the title for more than 20 years when he was only #1 for 7 years (mostly in 1920s). Your wikipasting doesn't refute anything I've said. Lasker beat Capablanca in 1914!

Not accidental, but regrettable, according to Wikipedia.

"However, Pal Benko said that Fischer later reconsidered, telling Benko that 'Lasker was a truly great player.'" [107]

[107] Benko, Pal; Silman, Jeremy (2003). Pal Benko: My Life, Games and Compositions. Siles Press. p. 429.

I am saying that Capa was the best between 1910-1920,he deserved the title for that period and also a match against Lasker(i am guessing the winner).Even if Lasker beat Capa at 1914,Capa was second so once again he deserved a title match..

You said:Capa was not the best player between 1910-20.So,my wikipasting refute just this you already said,i suppose..If not i am asking you one more time who was FOR YOU the best player for this period?

Lasker's situation in 1910s wasn't very unlike Alekhine's situation in 1940s: a World War broke out, halting much of the chess activity in Europe. So it's not entirely his 'fault' that Capablanca finally became a World Champion only in 1921.

And Alekhine put a string of sensational tournament performances after beating Capablanca: San Remo 1930 (3.5 points ahead of Nimzowitsch), Bled 1931 (5.5 points ahead of Bogoljubov) just to name a few. Alekhine was really strong at the time, so Capablanca might have or might have not succeeded in the return match.

Lasker: 1st throughout the 1910s. Capablanca and Rubinstein (for a short stint) share 2nd place.

I couldn't agree more..

This is all very interesting. I have read Kasparov's 5 volumes on his great predecessors and he talks at length about the problems between Alekhine and Capablanca as well as their chess.... It seems that Capablanca demanded Alekhine jump through certain "hoops" before agreeing to play a match against Alekhine and the bad blood between began growing. After winning Alekhine then tried to make Capablanca jump through certain hoops as well and wasnt eager at all to play Capablanca again. The two really started to hate each other and even avoided tournaments where the other one was playing. As for Lasker and Fischer's opinion of him.... Fischer has always been a chess "purist" seeking the "truth" in any given position and believes championship chess should be played in this manner and not by using "psychology". Lasker was well known to use psychology and even to intentionally play bad (or weaker than available) moves just to force his opponents into positions they didnt like and/or didnt play well. Fischer detested this kind of chess and saw it as "coffeehouse" chess. Fischer once said he didnt believe in psychology on the chess board, only good moves......

I believe much of Fischer's "psychological" weapons in his games were unintentional. The manner in which he used "psychology" , intentional or unintentional, never influenced the move he chose on the board. He always played what he believed was the best move in the given position. I think if he had lost game 3 of the match with Spassky he would probably have returned home. Down 0-3 to a man he had never beaten would simply be too much for him to overcome I think.