lichess.org
Donate

chess fundamentals of Capablanca (page 35) end game situation

#1
In page 35 of the ibook the position is as follow:
white: K d4, Pawns at f4 and g4
black: K d6, pawn at g7

The book reads: “White can't win by 1 P - B 5. Black's best answer would be P - Kt 3 draws. (The student should work this out.) He cannot win by 1 P - Kt 5, because P - Kt 3 draws. (This, because of the principle of the "opposition" which governs this ending as well as all the Pawn-endings already given, and which will be explained more fully later on.)"

I am confused, I plug the position into board analysis by stockfish and pawn to f5 actually wins, am I missing some thing ? is Capablanca making a mistake ?
#3
Well, I know that book. If one says Capablanca (et al.) played like a „machine“ you should take this rather metaphoric nowadays. At his time there was simply no evidence against.

Thats‘s why it is nonsense to bury out those old guys, let them play and win against contemporary masters. They would fail miserably - the forums are full with such discussions.
#4
Needless to say that in case of TB positions or insanely complex games the verdict is not only inaccurate but often plain wrong from scratch.
#5
I have this book - both the original and revised algebraic and I don't see this diagram or wording anywhere?

---

@Sarg0n "Thats‘s why it is nonsense to bury out those old guys, let them play and win against contemporary masters. They would fail miserably - the forums are full with such discussions."

I'm not sure whether or not Capablanca made this mistake (or whether this is a transcription error or something of the like), but in any case this would not support your claim. Kasparov is arguably the greatest player of modern times, and he has stated that after the advent of the machine he was surprised how completely awful all of his analysis was. In his words, instead of going into battle with a mighty sword as he thought, he was bringing a rusty dagger!

The point there is that much of the computer-accuracy of writing of today is not because players are just that much stronger. If there are no glaring mistakes in a chess book, that means that the author has checked it with a computer.

Let's put this another way. Decades from now there will likely be programs that will be able to go something near 100-0 against Stockfish. And we'll undoubtedly find that much of our checked analysis is completely wrong. And our writings and play of today (which is often based upon that analysis) will look quite silly. That does not necessarily mean that the champions of the future will just be inherently so much stronger than e.g. Carlsen or Kasparov or whomever. They might indeed be, but the improved analysis would not be a product of them - but of the software of the time.
#6
Just to clarify:

The TB should be timeless, so the result for 7 pieces will remain forever. In my opinion the errors (otb) were worse in earlier times, more blundering. Compare otb play today and in the past with a machine. Outright wrongly assessed openings, middlegames, endgames. It is is not long ago that BB-N was thought to be a theoretical draw, many openings refuted... they had no idea how much air was over their heads...
#7
I would separate player knowledge from player skill. What I mean here is that if we play Fischer random, somehow a player that is stronger than another player in regular chess will also generally be comparably stronger in Fischer random. There's this less tangible aspect of skill in chess that is difficult to qualify. Many of the things you're talking about are matters of knowledge. Does knowing that BB-N is a theoretical win make you stronger? No, of course not. Even in times when it was thought to be a draw there is nobody that would happily accept a draw there. Similar to the reason people play out RB v R today.

Some knowledge, like openings, can give equally matched players an edge - but that's again a bit of knowledge that players would quickly and easily adapt to. And it would likely go both ways to at least some degree as I do not agree with your statement that 'many openings have been refuted'. The opening zeitgeist has changed, but more as a matter of trends than necessity.

There was a paper that did compare OTB play past and present using computer analysis: en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player- The most 'computer like' player of all time was Capablanca, by a pretty wide margin. Of course such a statement means very little due to the fact he was playing weaker players than e.g. Carlsen is, and his style also led to simple positions that are easier to play accurately in. But it goes against the hypothesis that the kings of older time were more blunder prone.

Ultimately my view on the 'old masters vs new' is that it's really just impossible to answer, one way or the other. It all comes down to this intangible aspect of skill and measuring that in any way is going to be subject to errors of countless sorts.
#9
we can not attach pictures to the forum ? anyway, I was trying to copy a snap from the book with the diagram, from the web I downloaded it, its an ebook epub format. I believe it is authentic and correct.

The mistake would not bother me if it was in a complex position, but this is a simple pawns ending.

I am no of a master, yet when I read it I was like wait a second, count along 2 or 3 moves and I did not see where the hell this idea of pawn f5 is not winning !

I am thinking now that it might be a mistake in the book, but i am not believing Capablanca had missed this.

Otherwise I clearly miss something, without computer is anyone seeing why this could be true ? f5 not winning for white ?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.