Capablanca vs Alekhine

Who was the superior player an why?

Alekhine won WC title from Capa which is the clear evidence he was superior at that time.

Both players were chess geniuses with very sharp tactical eye and great endgame technique. I think however Alekhine as more complete as he studied openings deeply, too. Capa played simple classical openings while Alekhine brought many new ideas in modern lines (just to mention Alekhine defence which was a completely new opening he invented).

I prefer Alekhine, he was more human for me. He worked hard to achieve his highest level, faced many problems that I personally have (like having many periods of much weaker play (frequently related to alcohol), searching for beautiful moves during the whole game and wasting his time when they appeared to be false - he wrote about that in his books).

On the other side, there was Capablanca who did not work too much - he was extremely gifted player, he just played brilliantly without much fighting for progress. Capa was a natural chess machine, unbeatable for 10 years (if I recall correctly), self-confident, nearly perfect.

Alekhine risked very much to challenge Capa for WC match. He was though able to prepare for playing the monster, found his weaker sides and exploited them. For this, he has more respect from me than "Chess God" whom he managed to beat.

Was there ever a more talented player than Alekhine?

pdve wrote:

Was there ever a more talented player than Alekhine?

"With his death (Capablanca), we have lost a very great chess genius, the likes of whom we shall never see again."

Alexander Alekhine.

I think Alekhine thought so :)

Capablanca was a genius the greatest endgame player of all time and a monsterous tactician his faults were personal his arrogance and ego his laziness he didn't like to study chess or work hard.

Like Humpty Dumpy he fell off his wall and Alekhine never allowed him to climb back up there were flashes of his brilliance here and there but his play declined the post 1927-38 Capablanca was a shadow of the 1910-1927 Capablanca.

when you look at the games of these two masters, you note that alekhine's games were way more complicated yet capablanca seemed to outplay his opponents in seemingly simple positions he would produce a brilliant play.

Slightly off the topic but just one more thought.

If the question were "who of the pre-USSR world champions was superior?" I would no doubt say: Lasker!

He lost his title to Capa but since then came before him in final standings in all tournaments they both played. He continued to play very strong in his late 60s which is just unbelievable (as alec40 points out, Capa fell down and never recovered). Probably Kortchnoi could be compared to Lasker at this point.

Comparing those 3 giants:

Lasker was a scientist and psychologist. He always played against opponent's weakenesses (simplifying against Alekhine or Marshall, complicating against Capa or Tarrasch who were materialists)

Capablanca was a surgeon and chess machine. His correlation to the strongest chess engines is amazing, endgame technique unreachable for anyone

Alekhine was a chess artist. Always looking for beautiful moves, deciding his games in brilliant attack with storm of sacrifices. Provided Capablanca was a better calculator, Alekhine was much more imaginative and even less sound sacrifices succeeded. This was further developed by Tal (he was supposed to hypnotise his opponents but then Alekhine had his magical cat)

Of those Trinity, I love Alekhine's games best but Lasker is my favourite. I love to crush my opponents by psychology as well ;)

dzikus wrote:

Slightly off the topic but just one more thought.

If the question were "who of the pre-USSR world champions was superior?" I would no doubt say: Lasker!

He lost his title to Capa but since then came before him in final standings in all tournaments they both played. He continued to play very strong in his late 60s which is just unbelievable (as alec40 points out, Capa fell down and never recovered). Probably Kortchnoi could be compared to Lasker at this point.

Comparing those 3 giants:

Lasker was a scientist and psychologist. He always played against opponent's weakenesses (simplifying against Alekhine or Marshall, complicating against Capa or Tarrasch who were materialists)

Capablanca was a surgeon and chess machine. His correlation to the strongest chess engines is amazing, endgame technique unreachable for anyone

Alekhine was a chess artist. Always looking for beautiful moves, deciding his games in brilliant attack with storm of sacrifices. Provided Capablanca was a better calculator, Alekhine was much more imaginative and even less sound sacrifices succeeded. This was further developed by Tal (he was supposed to hypnotise his opponents but then Alekhine had his magical cat)

Of those Trinity, I love Alekhine's games best but Lasker is my favourite. I love to crush my opponents by psychology as well ;)

I believe Capablanca eventually came ahead of Lasker in Moscow 1936 and Nottingham 1936.

I agree with dzikus about Lasker, he really is underestimated. One of my pet peeves is seeing people make lists of the ten greatest players ever achievement wise where they rank players like Kramnik and Anand far ahead of Lasker, something that is surprisingly common.

A big flaw to Lasker's reign as champion is that for at least 10 years of his record 27 year reign he didnt defend his title . In his day the champion could practically hand pick his opponents and avoid playing his most dangerous rivals if he so desired . Steinitz played more and didnt have a long period in which he didnt defend his title and he didnt duck anyone ... Take away Lasker's decade in which he didnt put his title on the line and his reign is reduced to 17 years , or add a 10 year stretch of not playing for the title to the reign of Steinitz and what would his record be ? 

It isn't just a question of World Championships though. Lasker wasn't World Champion in 1924 but won a long, super strong tournament far ahead of Capa and Alekhine in spite of being past 55. He finished ahead of Capa also in Moscow the next year. During a period of 30 years I think he finished second in one tournament and won all the rest he played. As late as in 1935 he still scored great results after an eight year long break 1926-34, and was undefeated in a very strong tournament in Moscow, only 0.5 behind Botvinnik. Then he wasn't far from 70 years old. It was first around then, when he was in his high 60s, he finally lost a game to Alekhine for the first time, and finished behind Capablanca in a tournament.

Savage wrote:

Alekhine trounced Capablanca when they played for the world championship, so there's that... the rest is a matter of personal preference. Alekhine was a combinative genius, Capablanca a bats**t-boring positional/endgame player, so if their respective game collections were lying side-by-side on a coffee table, I know which one I'd pick up. But that's just my opinion.

Um, Capablanca was not simply a "boring" positional player. When the position called for it, he could create combinational masterpieces. I keep trying to post games, but my IPad keeps messing up. I'll post games in later posts.

I suppose I could just edit my original post with games.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1094815

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1228468

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1094817

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1130742

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1264025

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011878

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1260576

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011923

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1265585

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095025

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1007840

Perhaps these aren't all "combinational," but the point I'm making is that Capablanca wasn't just a " boring" positional player.

Everything dzikus says is true, but Alekhine dodged a rematch against Capablanca. Staunton dodged Morphy and his reputation suffers for it. Would Capa have prepared better for a rematch and won? We will never know, and that's the way Alekhine wanted it.  

"I did not believe I was superior to him. Perhaps the chief reason for his defeat was the overestimation of his own powers arising out of his overwhelming victory in New York, 1927, and his underestimation of mine." – Alexander Alekhine (on Capablanca)

checkevrytim wrote:

"I did not believe I was superior to him. Perhaps the chief reason for his defeat was the overestimation of his own powers arising out of his overwhelming victory in New York, 1927, and his underestimation of mine." – Alexander Alekhine (on Capablanca)

+1

Or he was being honest, because it was the truth.

Capablanca convincingly won the NY tournament (which included Alekhine), and went into the WC match with little preparation and a casual attitude. Alekhine did just the opposite -- he toiled heavily in his preparation. The result was 6-3 after 34 games. Yes, Alekhine barely edged out Capablanca in that match. It does not mean he was the better player, though.

Savage wrote:

chessman1504 wrote:

Um, Capablanca was not simply a "boring" positional player. When the position called for it, he could create combinational masterpieces.

Of course he had some gems, but those were the exeption. By and large his style was to get into an endgame and win with technique. But in their match Alekhine outplayed him there too.

As for that Alekhine quote, he was just being polite/modest. The result speaks for itself.

-_-

I am actually studying Alekhine's games for the first time and loving them!  Not just for the shocking moves but for the lessons in tempo tempo tempo!

I have read through Capablanca's games but not studied them!  He is next on my list. 

My take is that it is hard to compare them because they were so different and they both dominated the chess scene in a certain way.  Too bad there wasn't a rematch.  Or even a couple of rematches!  They could have been the Ali vs. Frazier or Celtics vs. Lakers of chess! 

That would have been some history!

This is why, despite its flaws, the current system is not that bad.  For the MOST part players have decide OTB who gets to challenge the champ and then the champ has to defend against that person lose the title (ala Fischer!)

They do need to tweak the system a bit to get a few more top candidates into the candidates tourmanent.  A few of the guys are draw machines.  Would love to see Nakamura get invited next time!  Not sure if we would make it on through to the end but he would make it a fighting tournament!  That is why is was great to see Ivanchuk in the candidates tournament!  He is such a fighter that the throws the equilabrium off and he was a main reason why this tournament was exciting to the end!

I personally can't wait for the Carlsen-Anand match!  I don't know who the root for and I like that!!

On another note I think Anand has to go down as one of the all time great champs!  He has won the championship in three different formats, has been one of the top players for almost two decades, and has now successfully defended his title TWICE!  Which is rare!

That is why this upcoming match is so exciting!  Can Anand hold of the future one more time?  Or is it Carlsen's time?  That is super intrigueing and exciting since both players seem likeable (at least from a distance).

When looking at Carlsen's games I have the feeling that he follows Lasker and Karpov with his style.

He plays rather simple openings without searching for advantage but for getting a playable position and outplay the opponent in the endgame. This is what Lasker did - his openings did not change for 4 decades but he could beat anyone with them (look like he employed the reverse London setup against Reti at NY 1924 and outplayed the hypermodernist in classical style).

As for Karpov, he is the greatest master of converting micro-advantages into whole points. He exploited the smallest inacurracies unmercifuly and his opponents were not even aware which moves they could play better. Carlsen's technique is very similar. He waits for many moves until the opponent weakens his position minimally and then converts that slight advantage. He can find a plan to win even when the position looks like dead draw.

Carlsen is a great tactician ("calculator") anyway and burns his opponents in flames when the position calls for combinative  play (Karpov did exactly the same - never risked if he could positionally pressure but won several beauty prizes when he found tactical approach giving him sure win and being faster than positional one).

As both Karpov and Lasker are my favourite WCs I wish Magnus wins the match and become the champion at similar age as his mentor Kasparov