Winter-Capablanca, Nottingham 1936
Taylor Kingston
Nottingham 1936, claiming that Winter, in a probably won position, may
have agreed to a draw to help Botvinnik, in order to aid the cause of
World Communism (Winter, though British, was an ardent Red). The draw
allowed Botvinnik to tie with Capablanca for 1st place, the first time
a Soviet master won or co-won a major international tournament.
This prompted me to look at another game from that tournament,
Winter-Capablanca. If Winter felt obliged to help Botvinnik, then it's
reasonable to infer that he also felt obliged to do his very best
against Botvinnik's main competitor. But examining the game, it
certainly does not look like he did.
The game was played in the 12th round (of 15 total). Going into the
round, Botvinnik, with a 7½-2½ score, was ½-point ahead of the field,
with Capablanca, Euwe, Fine and Reshevsky right behind him. Clearly it
was in World Communism's interest for Winter to defeat the great
Cuban. Here's the game, with comments at critical points:
[Event "Nottingham"]
[Site "Nottingham"]
[Date "1936.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Winter, William"]
[Black "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A30"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[EventDate "1936.08.10"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "14"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 c5 5.O-O cxd4 6.Nxd4 Bxg2 7.Kxg2 g6
8.b3 Bg7 9.Bb2 O-O 10.c4 d5 11.cxd5 Nxd5 12.e4 Nb4 13.Qd2 N8a6 14.Rd1
Rc8 15.Na3 Rc7 16.Nab5 Rd7 17.Qe2 Nc5 18.a3 Nbd3 19.Nc6 Qa8 20.Bxg7
Qxc6 21.Nd4 Qb7 22.Bxf8 Rxd4 23.Bh6 Rxe4 24.Qf3 f6 25.Kg1 Ne5 26.Qg2
g5 27.Rd8+ Kf7 28.f4 Ne6 29.Rb8 Qd5 30.Rf1 Qd4+ 31.Kh1 Ng4 32.Qh3
In the tournament book, Alekhine gives this a "!", saying it's
"stronger than 32.fxg5 Qd3!" with no further explanation. Actually,
32.fxg5 was objectively best, and after 32...Qd3 33.gxf6 Nxh6 34.Rb7
Nf5 35.fxe7 Ke8 36.Rxa7 White would still have some advantage. The
text move allows White to draw.
32...Nxh6?
But Capablanca, going all-out to win, does not take the draw, which
he could have forced by 32...Nf2+ 33.Rxf2 Re1+ 34.Rf1 Qe4+ 35.Kg1 Qe3+
36.Kh1 Qe4+ etc. For unknown reasons, Alekhine does not point this out
in the tournament book.
33.Qxh6 Re2??
It seems amazing that someone of Capablanca's stature could play
this terrible move. Necessary was 33...Ng7 or 33...Qd3.
34.Qxh7+??
Perhaps the most egregious move of the game. Somehow everyone —
Winter, Capablanca, and even Alekhine, annotating at leisure later —
missed the elementary 34.Qh5+ Kg7 35.Qxe2, and White is up two rooks
for a knight with an easily won game.
34...Ng7 35.Qg8+ Kg6 36.f5+ Kh5 37.Qh7+??
White still could have won with 37.Qc4 Qxc4 (most other queen moves
allow 38.Rh8#) 38.bxc4 leading to a fairly easy Exchange-up ending. An
important point: this move was made /after/ time control was reached
(first TL was 36 moves in 2 hours). White may have been under time
pressure at, say, move 34, but not for this move.
37...Kg4 0-1
Black forces mate in a few more moves.
Frankly, this game looks a lot more suspect than Winter-Botvinnik.
Though he stood better, Winter allowed Capablanca a draw, which Capa
did not take. Why? Because he knew he was guaranteed more? Then,
though Capablanca was still losing (hanging a rook even!) he suddenly
was the beneficiary of two colossal blunders that handed him the game
on a silver platter.
As GM Hans Ree said of another game, this is like a man climbing
into a coffin and closing the lid on himself. Looks suspicious as
hell! Did Winter take a dive to advance the cause of World Cubanism?
Do I really believe the above hypothesis? No. My point is to show
the pitfalls of using conspiracy theories to explain chess moves. But
you can bet that if Cuba, rather than the USSR, had been the center of
World Communism in 1936, Sloan would be claiming Winter threw this
game.
ChessFire
wrote:
> In another thread Sam Sloan discussed the game Botvinnik-Winter,
> Nottingham 1936, claiming that Winter, in a probably won position, may
> have agreed to a draw to help Botvinnik, in order to aid the cause of
> World Communism (Winter, though British, was an ardent Red). The draw
> allowed Botvinnik to tie with Capablanca for 1st place, the first time
> a Soviet master won or co-won a major international tournament.
> This prompted me to look at another game from that tournament,
> Winter-Capablanca. If Winter felt obliged to help Botvinnik, then it's
> reasonable to infer
?
according to? and in appreciation of the psychodrama and time
expenditure at move 32...?
> and after 32...Qd3 33.gxf6 Nxh6 34.Rb7
> Nf5 35.fxe7 Ke8 36.Rxa7 White would still have some advantage. The
> text move allows White to draw.
given, as Tal says, enough time, anyone could beat him
> 32...Nxh6?
>
> But Capablanca, going all-out to win, does not take the draw, which
> he could have forced by 32...Nf2+ 33.Rxf2 Re1+ 34.Rf1 Qe4+ 35.Kg1 Qe3+
> 36.Kh1 Qe4+ etc. For unknown reasons, Alekhine does not point this out
> in the tournament book.
>
> 33.Qxh6 Re2??
>
> It seems amazing that someone of Capablanca's stature could play
> this terrible move. Necessary was 33...Ng7 or 33...Qd3.
Can it be that the thesis is nutz? Not political. And if Winter wanted
to throw the game, Capablanca was incapable of seeing how to accept
the offer?
> 34.Qxh7+??
>
> Perhaps the most egregious move of the game. Somehow everyone —
> Winter, Capablanca, and even Alekhine, annotating at leisure later —
> missed the elementary 34.Qh5+ Kg7 35.Qxe2, and White is up two rooks
> for a knight with an easily won game.
That then is the throwing move, so that commies could score, Russian,
Cuban and English, to benefit the Soviet?
> 34...Ng7 35.Qg8+ Kg6 36.f5+ Kh5 37.Qh7+??
So many fuck-ups in this game that you wonder if the players were
perhaps not as invested in the internationale, than tired as dogs?
> White still could have won with 37.Qc4 Qxc4 (most other queen moves
> allow 38.Rh8#) 38.bxc4 leading to a fairly easy Exchange-up ending. An
> important point: this move was made /after/ time control was reached
> (first TL was 36 moves in 2 hours). White may have been under time
> pressure at, say, move 34, but not for this move.
>
> 37...Kg4 0-1
>
> Black forces mate in a few more moves.
>
> Frankly, this game looks a lot more suspect than Winter-Botvinnik.
> Though he stood better, Winter allowed Capablanca a draw, which Capa
> did not take. Why? Because he knew he was guaranteed more?
Let us also think the players OTB could not objectively determine
their own chances, or for personal reasons not take a sure draw
against Botvinnik, or were pawns of the Comintern
> Then,
> though Capablanca was still losing (hanging a rook even!) he suddenly
> was the beneficiary of two colossal blunders that handed him the game
> on a silver platter.
Red-trash? Or Winter's lapsus?
> As GM Hans Ree said of another game, this is like a man climbing
> into a coffin and closing the lid on himself. Looks suspicious as
> hell! Did Winter take a dive to advance the cause of World Cubanism?
>
> Do I really believe the above hypothesis? No.
What hypothesis does Taylor Kingston have?
> My point is to show
> the pitfalls of using conspiracy theories to explain chess moves.
O. He doesn't have any.
> But
> you can bet that if Cuba, rather than the USSR, had been the center of
> World Communism in 1936, Sloan would be claiming Winter threw this
> game.
?
A strange post: Nothing was revealed. [except of course, on the Blair
scale, when 60,000+ contextual words are said to represent no
opinion.]
LOL
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
<onec...@comcast.net> wrote:
>A strange post: Nothing was revealed...
>LOL
>
>Phil Innes
Revelation? No, Phil, it was analogy. Oh yeah, you have trouble with
analogy don't you? Think parable, Phil. Think parable.
Offramp
All Limeys are pinkos!
Andrew B.
At http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008269, it has Capa's
33rd and 34th moves switched, so 33. ... Ng7 is indeed played.
The comments there agree that 37.Qc4 leaves Black in trouble.
Taylor Kingston
>
> At http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008269, it has Capa's
> 33rd and 34th moves switched, so 33. ... Ng7 is indeed played.
That would make more sense. The queen fork would be prevented, since
the knight covers h5. Yet the tournament book clearly has 33...Re2
34.Qxh7+ Ng7. Wouldn't be the first time a tournament book got some
moves wrong. Checking the October 1936 BCM, I see it has 33...Ng7
34.Qxh7 Re2, so I am inclined to think that this is indeed the correct
move order.
Taylor Kingston
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:17:29 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
>
> >A strange post: Nothing was revealed...
> >LOL
>
> >Phil Innes
>
> Revelation? No, Phil, it was analogy. Oh yeah, you have trouble with
> analogy don't you? Think parable, Phil. Think parable.
Bingo!
ChessFire
wrote:
And it be true that Taylor [vaguer] Kingston once again presents no
content in the current post, no more than his previous one which i
challenged.
Here he engages one sentence of mine, while ignoring all the other
ones [actually cutting them without notice of doing so, a Blair-
trick],
((this is a challenge to him to respond to them, though he he merely
fucks them over as usual, then what sort of historical appreciation
has he?
Nuevo-Jesus? or should I say Palinesque? ))
and like so many other 'issues' he engages [not! but intercepts...],
not only does he misquote my 'revealed' for 'revelation' - which is
not a misquote but his own issue, [his own chosen word of mine to
'translate' for you, you dumb hick] but then he makes other's
understanding appear cheap, thereby this typical straw-man strategm,
for him to appear superior.
Taylor Kingston has been rubbishing other people public and privately
for 10 years [ I have the evidence of this he will not admit it the
proof of it ] and for his entire posting life. Here, as usual, nothing
is revealed to do with a topic that may be discussed, except that our
autodidact now wants to speak in parables!
Jesus? Christ!
:))
& Lordy, Lordy!
ROFL
Phil Innes
Chvsanchez
Taylor Kingston
> On Jan 4, 9:49 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 7:06 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:17:29 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
>
> > > <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >A strange post: Nothing was revealed...
> > > >LOL
>
> > > >Phil Innes
>
> > > Revelation? No, Phil, it was analogy. Oh yeah, you have trouble with
> > > analogy don't you? Think parable, Phil. Think parable.
>
> > Bingo!
>
> And it be true that Taylor [vaguer] Kingston once again presents no
> content in the current post, no more than his previous one which i
> challenged.
>
> Here he engages one sentence of mine,
Our Phil's tragic dyslexia strikes again.
None
wrote:
>
Our Phil's tragic dyslexia strikes again.-tk
Ah yes Robin, our own sheriff of Nottingham.
sd
>
> Taylor Kingston has been rubbishing other people public and privately
> for 10 years [ I have the evidence of this he will not admit it the
> proof of it ] and for his entire posting life.
Yes, the perpetual reference to damning emails that Innes doesn't
really have.
As to rubbishing people, Phil, pot, kettle, black.
Louis Blair
7 On Jan 3, 3:25 pm, Taylor Kingston
7 <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote
7
7 > ...
7 ...
7 A strange post: Nothing was revealed.
7 [except of course, on the Blair scale,
7 when 60,000+ contextual words are
7 said to represent no opinion.]
7
7 LOL
_
_
I do not know who you think "said"
something about "words" that
"represent no opinion", but I did not say
that.
Louis Blair
7 On Jan 4, 9:49 am, Taylor Kingston7 Here he engages one sentence of mine,
7 while ignoring all the other ones [actually
7 cutting them without notice of doing so,
7 a Blair- trick],
7 ...
_
_
My practice has been to indicate cutting
with "...". I do not notice you identifying
any examples of me "cutting ... without
notice", but If I sometimes forget to use
"...", it is an accident, not a trick. There
is nothing to gain by such a "trick" as it
can easily be exposed by reference to
Google records.
ChessFire
> On Jan 3, 1:17=A0pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote
Well Louis, you really must get over this thing about if you said
something or if you were observed to behave in a certain way. As it
stands you have declared yourself in 60,000 words about what you did /
not/ say. One thing I note you did say is that you did not
[lol]
want a conversation with me about Morphy, etc, and yet your responses
are almost entirely addressed to me, and besides, once again this
morning you e-mailed me your comments above.
You might appreciate therefore that consciously or not, your actions
are not the same as your words.
If you actually do have a point to make, I have not understood it from
all these words you have presented here in cut-and-paste mode. If you
do not have any point at all, then what I say above stands as true in
respect of your behavior, not if you admit such behavior.
Phil Innes
ChessFire
> On Jan 4, 2:37 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote
> 7 On Jan 4, 9:49 am, Taylor Kingston
> 7 <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote
> 7
> 7 > ...
> 7 ...
> 7 Here he engages one sentence of mine,
> 7 while ignoring all the other ones [actually
> 7 cutting them without notice of doing so,
> 7 a Blair- trick],
> 7 ...
> _
> _
> My practice has been to indicate cutting
> with "...".
While you might indicate something is cut at the first instance, when
you repeat that "..." you do not since otherwise your every post would
be thousands of words long.
The 'trick' is to cut references to what you then respond to - and by
eliminating context or qualifying phrases, you mystify the message.
In the above example it would be impossible to react as TK did if he
left the additional phrase in.
> I do not notice you identifying
> any examples of me "cutting ... without
> notice",
Think content. You do not identify what you cut, nor the extent of it.
Then you reorder the comments that you want to respond to, and which
are drawn from multiple posts.
> but If I sometimes forget to use
> "...", it is an accident, not a trick. There
> is nothing to gain by such a "trick" as it
> can easily be exposed by reference to
> Google records.
Easily? I suppose so. But why is it necessary? Certainly TK cut
something in order to mock what I wrote. He has not denied this, and
what I am doing here is exposing this trick without need of google
records.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
>
> If you actually do have a point to make, I have not understood it from
> all these words you have presented here in cut-and-paste mode.
That's all right, Phil. Maybe you don't understand Dr. Blair (or
Mike Murray in an earlier post), but rest assured that absolutely /
nobody/ can understand you. So you're way ahead in the game! ;-)
Back when the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers were on their way to an 0-14
season, their head coach John McKay was asked if he thought his team
performed poorly at blocking in a certain game. McKay replied "No, we
didn't block, but we made up for it by not tackling."
Another analogy that will probably fly right over Phil's flat-top.
Taylor Kingston
>
> Certainly TK cut
> something in order to mock what I wrote. He has not denied this, and
> what I am doing here is exposing this trick without need of google
> records.
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, all you're exposing is your own inability to read. The post
you keep referring to was written by Mike Murray, not by me. Here it
is again in its entirety. Note the name at the top:
Mike Murray
P Innes is making a mountain out of a mohel hill. I stand by my
cuts.
ChessFire
Mike Murray stands by Louis Blair's cuts - the guy who writes so
far... 65,000 words, but is a bit vague about what he writes about -
or more than a bit.
Naturally, Murray supports this, since he has written even more on his
own single issue, the FSS, and his certainties about it. Other
people's contributions are rubbished, as if he, Murray was some sort
of arbiter of all opinion.
Both posters have no distinct or identifiably positive point of view,
they simply regret anyone else having one. This is their method.
Phil Innes