Originally posted by MarinkatombBut so was my favourite player, Alekhine!
Capablanca is just invincible in this tournament
Originally posted by Fat LadyBut isn't that exactly what Carlsen does? Exchange down into a level end game and out play his opponent. There are marked similarities between the two. Capablanca can only play the position his opponent creates, it's very hard to say what his true strength would be given opportunities to play stronger opposition. Don't get me wrong, i'm not about to knock Alekhine, i enjoy playing though his games too. It just strikes me that Capablanca/Carlsen are both excellent at allowing their opponents enough rope to hang themselves with. Instead of forcing the issue, they invite their opponents to force the issue while setting up neat refutations. Gelfand also, he is brilliant at this sort of refutational chess.
I can't help thinking that Capablanca would be much less successful if he was transported to nowadays as even bog standard 2400 rated Grandmasters have excellent technique and Capa would get precious few easy points just by wobbling his pieces around and waiting for his opponents to blunder.
Originally posted by Fat LadyCapa probably wouldn't fare well today, but I would say his study habits would be his undoing rather than players being better. By all accounts, he hated to study. You can't be a grandmaster today without spending thousands of hours on memorization.
But so was my favourite player, Alekhine!
Capablanca was superb at beating weaker players and I think that was the main difference between the two in this tournament. Alekhine took risks and played double-edged chess, and that resulted in him drawing the odd game against second rate players. Here is one example from this tournament:
http://www.chessgame ...[text shortened]... ous few easy points just by wobbling his pieces around and waiting for his opponents to blunder.