Capablanca's motivation for creating this more complex version of chess was his belief that traditional chess would be "played out" in a few decades, leading to a "draw death" among grandmasters. He experimented with different setups, including a 10×10 board size, before settling on the 10×8 format. The new variant introduced some additional rule changes, for instance the king moving three squares when castling instead of two, the pawns being able to move one, two or three squares, and being able to promote to archbishop or chancellor in addition to standard promotion options.

The Archbishop and Chancellor designed by Matt Hucke, built from standard pieces using handheld cutting tool and glue; the starting position of Capablanca Chess.

Capablanca Chess sets can be obtained from The Chess Empire and The House of Staunton.

Capablanca's chess variant did not gain widespread popularity. It was supported by Edward Lasker and Géza Maróczy, who played test games with Capablanca.  Comprehensive note on reactions to Capa's invention can be found on this Chess History page. 

The account below is excerpted from a translation first published in C.N. 1053 (November-December 1985). It also appeared on pages 128-131 of Edward Winter's 1989 book on Capablanca. This compendium provides an enormous amount of documentary data, usefully organized, much of it unseen since original (and often obscure) publication.

Writings are by and about Capablanca; the minute details of his life and games proceed chronologically; the controversies of his career are especially well documented. The book has a games and positions index, an index of openings, a general index, and 26 rare photographs on glossy plates.

In his account of Moscow 1925 Capablanca writes that with the tournament under way he, as World Champion, was faring very badly, that for the first time in his life he was virtually at the tail-end of the list. Similarly Dr Tartakower, who had been playing with greater precision than anybody else, was not obtaining such good practical results as the others. For his own part, Capablanca did not understand why it should be impossible for him to concentrate his faculties for four hours at a time:

"Then there was a sudden change. The tension caused by struggles of this kind took as its first victim Rubinstein. He began losing one day after another, and was soon left behind. Marshall and Torre had their setbacks. Then suddenly it seemed that Lasker too could not stand the pace. As to myself, I at last succeeded in entering into the spirit of the battle, and day after day I not only improved my tournament position but was even finally attaining my maximum strength. By winning seven and drawing two in my last nine games, I reached third place."

After this final spurt Capablanca drew certain conclusions:

"There is cause for concern with regard to draws. It may be that we have not yet reached the point of being able to make draws at will, but if we have not arrived, we are not far away. At the end of the Moscow tournament, it was impossible for me to understand how I could be beaten in a game as long as I was confining myself to scoring a draw.

Let us accept that we have not yet reached that point, that is to say that there is absolutely nobody today who is capable of making a draw at will. Even so, we find that technique has advanced in such a way that today there are players of the second category who, by dint of their encyclopaedic knowledge, make themselves virtually invincible. And if this is the case now, and three-quarters of the process has occurred only in the past 20 years, what will happen within 50 years?

Consider the fact that the great masters of truly superior class, like Alekhine and Bogoljubow, young men, know every opening variation that has been frequently used by other masters; that Alekhine, for instance, who is only 33, knows every game played in any tournament or match in the past 25 years; that the similarity of the technical development of the majority of openings is such that even when one transposes the order of moves or plays something new or unknown, it is relatively easy to find the correct reply.

Consider all this, ... and you will reach the conclusion that it is necessary to think very seriously about the question of draws if one does not wish to reach the point where there are several players who are completely invincible. That would make chess rather similar to what the game of draughts is today."

As a possible solution to the problem Capablanca suggests "increasing the field of operations." He suggested that instead of 64 squares there should be 100, that chess should be played on a 10 x 10 board instead of 8 x 8. There would be two extra pawns and two more major pieces behind them. One of these would combine the moves of the bishop and knight, and the other those of the rook and knight. And instead of having the option of moving one or two steps, pawns would be able to move one, two or three.

The remaining rules would stay the same. Chess would be played in two classes: one would be in the classical form, the other, more advanced form would be reserved for masters. "But it could be understood by everyone familiar with the present game."

Capablanca's report appeared in the Revista Bimestre Cubana of the Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País, Volume XXI, Number 2, March-April 1926. The translation was made by chess historian Edward Winter and can be read in full on his Chess History site.