Lasker-Capablanca solved!

In chess history, there are games that are particularly important and influence the development of chess thought and our deeper understanding of the game. From Morphy to today, great players have created great games – ones that changes how we think about how chess should be played. Chess players, through careful analysis, make conclusions from such games and then apply them in their own games.

Adolph Anderssen and Paul Morphy showed how open games should be played, and those principles are still valid today. Steinitz is called the father of modern chess because of his great influence (both, theoretical and practical) on the development of chess. And again, many of his principles remain valid to the present day.

In his games, Lasker showed that fighting is of great importance in chess and that the possibilities of defence are endless. Capablanca created monumental games with his intuitive style, and who doesn't remember at least some of his small combinations? We should not forget Nimzowitsch and his eternal book "My System", ... and so on until today. Who does not recall, for example, the famous game Karpov-Kasparov, 16/1985, in which Kasparov showed the power of dynamism? Also, for example, Game 6 in the Fischer-Spassky 1972 match, where Fischer showed the potential weakness of hanging pawns.

Of course, these games need to be carefully analyzed to make a proper conclusion. We have analyzed some of the most important games in the history of chess here (for instance Fischer-Petrosian, 6 and 7/1971, or Botvinnik-Bronstein, 23/1951), and showed the endless possibilities of chess. Links are given below.

One of the games that changed the understanding of chess is certainly our game Lasker-Capablanca, 10/1921. The second part of this game is considered an example of how to play when one side (Black, Capablanca) has a better pawn structure (only one pawn island). There is almost no significant book about the middlegame that does not analyze this tremendous game. Commentators (a large number of them, from Lasker and Capablanca to Kasparov and Shereshevsky) thought that Capablanca played the second part of the game in an ideal fashion.

However, it is always necessary to critically analyze such games, and possibly find some weaker moves or mistakes, which can help inform the development of chess – and how modern chess should be played. One of the main questions that appears is: is Black's advantage enough to win? If White has certain opportunities to improve on his play, it would mean that the chances of defence (according to Lasker!) are greater than commonly thought.

This is exactly the reason for my analysis (the development of chess and finding the truth) and in no way diminishes the value of the players. The names of Lasker and Capablanca are rightly crowned with glory and will live as long as chess art lives.

More recent studies of this game show slightly different results than the previous ones, and I would like to share these studies with Chessbase readers.

Although the entire game is worth investigating, our analysis begins with move 39.Nc3. The assessment of all respectable annotators, from Lasker and Capablanca to modern commentators (for example, Kasparov and Shereshevsky) is that Black’s game was long lost by this stage, and that Capablanca showed his famed chess ingenuity and technique to gradually realise his advantage and complete the victory.

However, is it so? The assessment of the position after 39.Nc3 is that Black is indeed strategically won. A better pawn structure and more active pieces guarantee that. But the question remains: did Capablanca in fact play the second half of the game ideally?

Black played 39…Rc2, and we should ask the question: is this move by Black good or bad? Until now, this question has barely even been considered, and many authorities in their comments have awarded this move with an exclamation mark. My analysis says, however, that this move is weak and leads to a draw! It was correct to play, let's say, 39...Ra1 or 39...Ra3 (some other moves are also possible – see analysis below), and, as long as Black plays the rest of the game soundly, he can expect to win.

The second critical moment in this part of the game is White's move 40.Nd1. As far as I know, none of the authoritative annotators questioned this move (Capablanca wrote that the position was already lost, and Kasparov wrote something similar). However, according to my analysis, this is a serious mistake that leads to a losing position. White had an excellent chance to reach an even position with 40.Nb5!! preventing, say, Nd6-e4. Also, one of White's ideas is active counterplay by attacking the f7 point with the help of the rook and knight. The position after proper play should lead to an equal game (see analysis).

Black played 40…Ne7 which is a fine move (many commentators give this move an exclamation mark). It should be said that probably simpler was 40...g5 fixing White's pawns on the kingside.

White played 41.Ne3, and it is interesting to note that in some sources the move 41.Nc3 is recorded as the game move (for example, Kasparov, Lakdawala). We stick to the original sources (Lasker, Capablanca) in which the move 41.Ne3 is played – I believe that the authors of the game must have known which move was executed.

The third critical moment: according to my analysis, 42...Nc6, is a serious mistake that gives White a chance to equalize. Better is 42...Nc8!, after which Black has excellent chances to win.

And the fourth and last critical moment, also an undiscovered issue until now, is the move 43.Nd1, which in my opinion is a serious mistake that loses the game. After the active 43.Ng4, White has excellent chances for salvation (see analysis below).

After the move 43.Nd1 White is lost: although Black may have had some more precise moves – after this point, the result of the game was not affected.

The following analysis shows that the weaker side's chances in defence are greater than previously thought. As the analyses of previous annotators are subject to my criticism and commentary, this analysis of mine is also subject to criticism, and some new analysts may perhaps find errors of my own. As I wrote above, this is how chess progresses, and the truth is revealed.

It should be said that ChessBase readers (for example Krennwurzn and Michael Taktikos gave many lines) are keen fans of chess analysis and that they solved all the puzzles in this game with enthusiasm.

In the replayer below you can start an engine to follow the analysis provided. You can adjust the layout of the display by clicking the layout button, and adjust the width of the notation and size of the board.

Previous riddles

• Endgame riddle: Botvinnik vs Pachman
• Riddle solved: Botvinnik vs Pachman
• Endgame riddle: M. Tal vs O. Panno
• Riddle solved: M. Tal vs O. Panno
• The historical puzzle: Botvinnik vs Bronstein 1951
• Historical riddle: Was Fischer’s 22.Nxd7 winning?
• Petrosian could have held!
• Endgame riddle: The eternal duel – bishop vs knight
• The Iniyan Challenge
• Riddle solved: 50 moves are just enough
• Endgame riddle: Did Kasparov miss a chance?
• Riddle solved: Kasparov could have drawn
• Endgame riddle: Botvinnik's most subtle rook ending
• Riddle solved: Smyslov could have drawn!
• Endgame riddle: Petrosian vs Tal, Curacao 1962
• Riddle solved: Tal could have drawn!
• Endgame riddle: could Kramnik have defeated the computer?
• Riddle solved: Kramnik could have defeated Fritz