Talk:José Raúl Capablanca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is in the list of Selected articles that are shown on the Portal:Chess.
Birds
Cuba Portal
José Raúl Capablanca is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

Contents

[edit] Vidmar

If Milan Vidmar is important enough to be of interest to a reader reading about Capablanca, the link should be in the main text of the article ChessPlayer 05:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User US Chess Federation created the entry Jose Capablanca, which was distinct to this page and was just a copy of [1]. The page is now redirected to here. Its previous content is below in case any of it is useful in expanding the current article. --Dmr2 09:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(article removed)

[edit] removed doubtful assertion

I learned the rules of chess (including en passant, castling and pawn promotion) by watching my grandfather play and argue with his fellow pensioners about the intricacies. I was six at the time. It's quite possible that Capablanca the Chess Prodigy was capable of doing the same at four. Therefore, I removed the following doubtful assertion, which didn't say much anyway. Zocky 10:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, it is doubtful that one could learn all the rules just by watching, e.g. he might have accused his father of making an illegal move by taking en passant, something that happens only rarely with weak players, or learned all the intricacies of castling or pawn promotion.
To my knowledge, no one but Capablanca was a witness to these events. That alone makes the claim highly suspicious in my opinion. I've made an edit to note that it was Capablanca telling the story. If someone can come up with some other, third-party sources (and not just sources who are basing their claims on Capa's testimony), please feel free to mention them. --Malathion 06:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for your doubts, if that is the only source of the story then you should mention the source not directly undermine its credibility. It Should stay as is.--

[edit] Chess grandmasters

I noticed that very few of the grandmasters are actually listed in Category:Chess_grandmasters, so I have been adding them. I am not going to add Capablanka right now though because I was wondering. When was the current system/title set up? Obviously he would have been awarded the title, but the article on International Grandmaster does not state when it was instituted. Can someone who knows possibly add that information and if applicable add the catagory here? Thanks Dalf | Talk 12:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Was able to answer my own question here by reading more carfully. Dalf | Talk 06:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I recall, the first grandmaster titles were awarded by the Czar of Russia, to the people whom he (quite accurately) viewed to be the strongest chessplayers at the time. I'll take a look at the International Grandmaster article and see if I can add something about that. --Malathion 05:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks like that info is already there. Double-check the International Grandmaster article. It's in the middle. --Malathion 07:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

This article is excessively adulatory. It sounds like a fan wrote it. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Are there any actual mistakes? Why not balance it if you feel that way? 220.245.180.130 03:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I do plan to try to improve this article, but some of the improvements I have made in the past were undone. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I'm in school now so my time is limited. This article is on my watchlist and I'll try to take a crack at it this weekend. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Given the POV you had inserted into Bobby Fischer, I'm not sanguine about this prospect. One of the sentences you removed from this article in the past is "Capablanca is still widely regarded as one of the greatest players ever." which is clearly true beyond any doubt whatsoever. Ironically even your hero Fischer would agree with this statement. Quale 16:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Um, what? --Ryan Delaney talk 19:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought looking at this article history that you had removed the true and NPOV statement "Capablanca is still widely regarded as one of the greatest players ever." I also thought that you had made a couple of additions to the Bobby Fischer article. One was "Of all World Champions of chess, the skill gap between him and his contemporaries was the largest in history."[2] Absolutely outrageously POV, an opinion stated as a bald fact with the only attribution being buried in a footnote. I thought you also added this: "In particular, his introduction of the so-called "poisoned pawn" variation of the Najdorf Sicilian (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd5 4. Nxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6!) revolutionized both the particular variation, and the way chess professionals viewed opening theory in general." [3] incorrectly attributed to John Watson. It's not that this is POV, it's that it is untrue. It also isn't what Watson wrote as he very explicitly says Fischer didn't introduce the Poisoned Pawn. Ironically Russians had played it before Fischer. Quale 05:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Uhh, I think this probably ought to go to the talk page of Bobby Fischer. I'm not sure why you are bringing it up here. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right of course. I should never have made this personal, nor introduced the past of other articles instead of concentrating on the present and future of this one. Ultimately, both of those additions to the Fischer article did improve it once the POV statement was attributed to Kasparov in the text and the erroneous part of the Poisoned Pawn discussion was fixed, so the result was positive. I don't think we share the same understanding of POV. It's not POV to say that the earth is round even though a few people may believe it's flat. Capablanca's place in chess history is the equivalent of the place of Mozart or Beethoven in music, and it's not POV to point that out in the article. Quale 06:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to alter some of the adulatory statments and remove the inappropriate notice. Note that most of the positive assesments about Capablance are directly attributed specific commentators (Botvinnik, Alekhine etc) so can stay unchanged. It would help matters if any remaining criticisms are outlined specifically so we can all work towards improving the article. Lisiate 21:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the goal of improving the article, but unfortunately changes like replacing "brilliancy" with "game" aren't improvements. Quale 05:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bernstein-Capablanca, Moscow 1914

The POV police are at it again. I see that

Then he won another brilliancy against Bernstein in Moscow,

was reverted to

Then he won another game against Bernstein in Moscow,

There are problems here. First, the replaced text is so limp as to be a horrible read, and doesn't even make sense in context. So he won another game? Good chess players win games all the time—why was this win important?

Second, the victory was a brilliancy. The finishing stroke, 29...Qb2!!, is one of the most famous moves in chess history. Fine included this position in The World's Great Chess Games. A generation later in The World's Greatest Chess Games, Nunn, Emms, and Burgess selected the game as one of the 112 best games ever. The book says "The Cuban follows up by stunning the chess world with a new and somewhat controversial concept." Capablanca accepted hanging pawns, at that time almost universally condemned as weak. With 15...c4!, he willing weakened d4 in order to prove that hanging pawns can be a dynamic strength. Emms comments, "This powerful argument changed people's concept of this type of position, and influenced generations of grandmasters." He then gives examples showing how Fischer and Short were beneficiaries of Capablanca's positional insight. Emm's summation of the game ends with the sentence "Capablanca was a genius!". Quale 03:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Saying it was brilliant is POV. It may be better to say that Nunn, Emms, and Burgess regarded it as a brilliancy. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Saying it was a brilliancy is a fact, not POV. Nunn, Emms, and Burgess are not the only ones who consider it a brilliancy—that view is universal among those knowledgable in chess. Quale 05:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I made the edit as part of my attempt to meet the tone concerns raised above. I wasn't sure what exactly the original sentence was trying to say. Other sections speak of awards Capablanca received in tournaments for brilliant games. If this was the case against Bernstein then the relevant sentence could be changed to say that. Alternatively the opinion of later commentators that this was a brilliant game could be included. As I wasn't sure what the situation was I opted for the (admittedly tame) 'game'. Lisiate 04:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the tone concern with the original, true, statement? Quale 05:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't the tone as much as I just wasn't sure what the original wording meant. I can't find any article on brilliancy awards, perhaps it would help if you added one (I don't know enough about them to contribute)? Lisiate 21:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Winning a brilliancy in chess is like pitching a "perfect game" in baseball. It is a historic fact, not just a matter of opinion. A perfect game means a game where no batter reaches base, not a game without flaws. A brillancy is a game from a tournament that is awarded a 'brillancy prize' by a special committee. If the award was called a "Pickle" prize, then I suppose we would say Capablanca won a pickle against Bernstein. Whether or not some people now consider the game "brilliant" is irrelevant. It won the prize and is therefore a brillancy, regardless of the level of play exhibited (though this game is a classic). In fact, if the level of play in a tournament is very weak (perhaps a tournament for complete beginners), then a rather poor game may win the prize and would therefore be a brillancy; even though no one (including the judges) would say it was a "brilliant" game by some sort of universal standards. The sentence reads better with brillancy instead of just game and is perfectly accurate.

[edit] Eight year unbeaten streak

The article includes this statement: "He was undefeated for eight consecutive years, from 1917 to 1923 inclusive, a 63-game non-losing streak." At a quick glance, this seems contradictory, though I'm guessing that it's intended to mean that he was undefeated from mid-1916 to mid-1924 (I believe his streak was ended by Reti in the 1924 New York tournament). Seems like this could be clarified slightly. Dsreyn 04:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Found the details on this in (of all places) the Guinness Book of World Records. Dsreyn 18:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] formality

I don't see why the article was supposed to be insufficiently formal, so I've removed the {{cleanup-tone}} tag. If anyone still think the article needs to be more formal, can you elaborate on what specifically should be improved? Neilc 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did Capablance beat Corzo 4-2 or 4-3?

In this article, it says that Capablanca's win against Corzo in 1901 was 4-2-6. In the Juan Corzo article says the score was 4-3-6. If anybody knows the real score, it would be great if they fixed whichever article is wrong. Herostratus 10:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the match results. They should have read 4-3-6. All 13 games of that match may be viewed at the following url. Corzo won the first 2 games and the last game. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1005413

I also removed a piece of non sequitor speculation from the paragraph. No one, including Capablanca, claimed that he had mastered the game of chess at age 4. Adding the text about how Capablanca probably hadn't mastered en passant captures or underpromotion, and then citing some commentary about the lack of knowledge by Korchnoi adds nothing to the piece. You might as well have added that he also didn't know the subtleties of the poisoned pawn variation in the Sicilian.

Some of the comments in this talk page show a striking absence of knowledge about chess and one wonders why you would choose to edit a page about a subject you know little about. The point of view changes over the word brilliancy are a case in point. The term is a chess term used to describe a game of unusual merit. It is not the same as saying the game was excellent, or good, or "I like it".

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857442741/104-6014569-2387946?v=glance&n=283155 For a modern interpretation on the issue.

[edit] Capablanca-Alekhine after the World Championship match

The article stated that: "Throughout his tenure as champion, Alekhine refused to play in the same tournaments as Capablanca."


While Alekhine certainly avoided playing in the same tournaments, he still agreed to play in Nottingham 1936 and AVRO 1938. It seems a little misleading to say he refused to play when he agreed to do so at least twice to my knowledge.

But Alekhine was not the champion was at the time of the Nottingham 1936 tournament; he had lost the title to Euwe the prior year. He did, of course, regain the title in 1937, but his stature by then was much diminished and he could no longer dictate to tournament committees as he had in the early 1930's. Pat Finley 208.50.14.246 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well 1938 was during his tenure as world champion, so the original sentence (quoted above) was incorrect. I changed it to say Alekhine only refused during his first tenure as champion (1927-35), which is correct. Peter Ballard 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lazy?

The article says that Capa was lazy, and I've heard this from several sources. On the other hand, several sources say that he studied 1,000 rook and pawn endgames. I need to find one of them (for contrast). Bubba73 (talk), 05:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defeat by Alekhine

The April, 1955 issue of Reader's Digest contained an article from The Rotarian by Joseph Phillips, called: "Chess: They Call It a Game."

In this article Phillips tells how the great chess champion, Capablanca, was so superior to all competition that it was believed by experts that he would never be beaten in match play. Yet, he lost the championship to a rather obscure player, Alekhine, who had given no hint that he even posed a serious threat to the great Capablanca. The chess world was stunned by the upset, which today would be comparable to a Golden Gloves finalist defeating the heavyweight champion of the world. Phillips tells us that Alekhine had trained for the match very much like a boxer conditioning himself for a fight. He retired to the country, cut out smoking and drinking and did calisthenics. "For three months, he played chess only in his mind, building up steam for the moment when he would meet the champion."

Kendirangu 10:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Alekhine was the #2 or #3 player in the world in 1927, so it was hardly as if he was an unknown; the reference to a 'rather obscure player' given above is nonsensical. What made the match victory by Alekhine all the more impressive was that he had never defeated Capablanca in a game prior to the match. Alekhine had apparently worked very hard, and studied Capablanca's games in exceptional detail, while preparing for the match, and found some weaknesses he felt he could exploit, which proved to be the case. Alekhine also adopted Capablanca's positional style for the match, putting aside his own sharper, 'danger is my business' method, and this may have thrown Capablanca off his game somewhat. One could also argue that a player of Alekhine's exceptional stature was due to start winning at least some games against Capablanca, after more than ten years of trying unsuccessfully to do so. The match was very hard-fought, and it wasn't as if Capablanca played like a chump, losing only six of 34 games while winning three. One must look to the form of the winner in a match such as this, rather than look too critically at the loser's form. Capablanca continued to play exceptional chess for the next several years after losing the match, as did Alekhine, so the win by Alekhine was not a fluke. I think the Reader's Digest article is too superficial, and does not probe sufficiently deeply into the situation at the time.

[edit] Capablanca's competitive career now fully documented

I spent quite a bit of effort digging out the full details of Capablanca's competitive career, and have included this information in the article, as of the week of September 17th, 2007. The article is now complete in this respect, and it shows that Capablanca had only ONE minus score, and only ONE placing out of the top four in a tournament, IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER!! These were both at AVRO 1938, where he suffered a stroke during the tournament.

Cheers, FrankEldonDixon, Kingston, Canada, Sept. 19th, 2007, GMT +5, 17:17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankEldonDixon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chessmetric.com

Please stop using Chessmetric.com as a source. That site was built blindly by a computer from a raw Chessbase database! Please use books! -Chvsanchez 06:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

chessmetric.com is not a registered domain name. The site doesn't exist, so your comment doesn't make sense. ChessCreator 12:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chessmetrics.com (with an S)

Chessmetrics.com is some lame guy who got a minor in statistics from a shitty university and is trying to give himself free plugs to EVERY chess-player article I have seen on wikipedia.

Can an admin PLEASE DELETE all the advertisement for chessmetrics.com (with an S) not chessmetric.com it is chessmetrics.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.221.226.3 (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not do it yourself? 22:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessCreator (talk • contribs)

[edit] Revisions needed (very few)

This is a very thorough article - congratulations to all contributors! I think it needs 2 things: an assessment of Capa's playing style; conversion of all references to standard Wikipedia citation format (without this AFAIK it has no chance of reaching FA and little chance of reaching GA). I'll deal with playing style now. Philcha (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm not happy about the use of Keene & Divinsky's "Warriors of the Mind" in assessing Capa (or anyone)- I think there has to be something wrong with their method since it placed Steinitz somewhere around 50th, behind a host of obscure mid-1950s Soviet GMs. Philcha (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing - the article is overlinked. I think every time another player is mentioned, it is linked. There are far too many such links. Only the first time a person appears needs to be linked. Bubba73 (talk), 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Secondly - it needs a better photo of Capa. A magazine cover used to show the subject of the article is NOT supposed to be used. Bubba73 (talk), 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scoring is incomprehensible to laypeople.

The article is very hard to read if one does not know how to read tournament scoring. Would it be possible to slip in an explanation? If not, at least give us a link. When I see that +8-1=14 but +8-0=7, I have NO idea what they mean comparatively. And how does the +- relate to the n/m scoring? Then there is the sentence "Capablanca finished second to Emanuel Lasker|Lasker with a score of 13 points to Lasker's 13½." Does Lasker have 13 or 13 1/2????Kdammers (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that is a problem, and it is in a lot of chess articles. I'd like to fix it throughout. But "+8-1=14" means 8 wins (the +), 1 loss (the -), 14 draws (the =). A win counts 1 point, a draw counts half a point, a loss 0. Capablanca had 13 points, Laskar had 13½, Lascar was first place, Capa second place. Hope that helps, but we do need to fix that in hundreds of chess articles. (I don't know what you mean by "n/m" scoring.)Bubba73 (talk), 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't know if this was part of the confusion, but "Emanuel Lasker|Lasker" was supposed to be a link. It was an editing error. Bubba73 (talk), 04:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
By n/m, I mean where there are two numbers connected by a slash, looking like a fraction. Kdammers (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
What does "6-4 (+2 -0 =8)" mean? Okeh, two wins, no losses, and eight draws, but what is the 6-4, then?
Yes, it was (for me). I figured it was supposed to be a link, but what with the apparently bizarre arithmetic given above (now expalined by you), I didn't want to "correct" it incorrectly. Kdammers (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, 6/8 means that he got 6 points out of a possible 8. A win counts 1 point, a draw counts a half point, out of 8 games played. And "6-4 (+2 -0 =8)" - there were ten games played, with two wins at one point each and eight draws at 1/2 point each, that gives him a total of six points. Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we need to fix this. I'm not sure how we can create a central place to explain chess scores and link to it from the relevant articles. Bubba73, should we start a discussion at WT:CHESS about this? The +w−l=d notation is w wins, l losses, and d draws, as you've figured out. It's important to note that the + always comes first, but the − and = can be given in either order. The slashed notation, p/g indicates that the player received p points out of a total of g games. Each game is worth 1 point if won, ½ point if drawn, and 0 points if lost. This also applies to the dashed notation, although I think it is harder to read for tournaments but works well for matches. The notation player–opponents indicates the number of points the player earned and the number of points her opponents earned in their games against her. The sum of these numbers is the total number of games. You might be able to see why I think this works better for matches, as only two players are involved. So you have +2−0=8 (or +2=8−0) giving the most information, and 6–4 and 6/10 being different ways to express the same score of 6 points from 10 games. The dash and the slash give less information, because 6−4 or 6/10 could also be earned by +3−1=6, +4−2=4, +5−3=2, or +6−4=0. Quale (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think it does need to be brought up at the chess project. I certainly see how it would not make sense to someone not used to it. Correcting it is going to be a major piece of work, since it is in probably over 1000 articles. Bubba73 (talk), 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Childhood Section - Unclear

I wasn't sure what was meant in the sentence describing how other players couldn't beat him even when "giving him the handicap of a queen." I'm assuming this means he played without a queen, but wouldn't that usually be described as *him* giving *them* a handicap? - Peach (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A club expert gave young Capa Queen odds. i.e. Capa (black) had the Queen, the opponent did not. It is Capa's first recorded game, and can be seen at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1481959 . It is interesting because you can see the quality of his play at 4 years old. I remember one annotator (in a book, not at that web site) writing that he got the impression that Capa could have outplayed his opponent even if he didn't have the extra queen. Mind you, this explanation is so laboured, maybe it should be cut from the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful snippets

I'm busy trying to get Alexander Alekhine to GA. While searching for refs I found this about Capa: