Talk:José Raúl Capablanca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capablanca's nationality[edit]

Capablanca's nationality would be become clearer. Actually he wasn't cuban, not UNTIL Cuba was declared an independient republic in 1902. Rather he was spaniard, he was born in 1888, at Spain, the territories of "ultramar" (overseas) named "Virreinato de Nueva España" and he legally had the spanish citizen (not the cuban nationality). Besides the spanish extra-peninsular territories, in "stricto sensu" and by legal conditions officially weren't and aren't even considered colonies, on the contrary, they're Spain itself, like nowadays it happens with Canary Islands or Ceuta and Melilla (canarians, melillenses and ceuties of course have spanish nationality) He was spaniard not only by birth, he only had a nationality until he was 14 years old, the spanish nationality, not the cuban one. Like is recorded in Wikipedia's spanish article http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ra%C3%BAl_Capablanca during his life he had two nationalities: spanish and cuban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.9.93 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]




Vidmar[edit]

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)

removed doubtful assertion[edit]

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)[reply]

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.--

Chess grandmasters[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Tone[edit]

This article is excessively adulatory. It sounds like a fan wrote it. ⟳ausa کui × 23:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. ⟳ausa کui × 05:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Um, what? ⟳ausa کui × 19:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ⟳ausa کui × 07:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bernstein-Capablanca, Moscow 1914[edit]

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)[reply]

Saying it was brilliant is POV. It may be better to say that Nunn, Emms, and Burgess regarded it as a brilliancy. ⟳ausa کui × 03:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What is the tone concern with the original, true, statement? Quale 05:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

Eight year unbeaten streak[edit]

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)[reply]

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

formality[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

Capablanca-Alekhine after the World Championship match[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lazy?[edit]

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)[reply]

I now have a reference (Chess: A History by Golombek) that says that he never studied opening books but that he did study endgames and endgame books. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat by Alekhine[edit]

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)[reply]

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.

Capablanca's competitive career now fully documented[edit]

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)[reply]

Chessmetric.com[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chessmetrics.com (with an S)[edit]

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)[reply]

Why not do it yourself? 22:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessCreator (talk • contribs)
But it seems to have merit. It's up to readers what they make of it, so don't censor this information.58.174.73.247 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions needed (very few)[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The date styling should be consistent throughout, regardless of which method is used-at times it's in the American form (dd/mm/yyyy), others it's done as (mm/dd/yyyy) Hushpuckena (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring is incomprehensible to laypeople.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is pretty standard though. Many chess articles would become bloated if they had to explain things like that. But what about a "chess scoring" page that is linked from the first example, e.g. to the +2−0=8 ? 58.174.73.247 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood Section - Unclear[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Useful snippets[edit]

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

Thanx for that. BTW, this is in Winter's compendium on Capa. 58.174.73.247 (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widow[edit]

Perhaps not central to Capablanca's career, but interesting nonetheless, is that his widow I believe survived him by 50 years or so, interacting with modern chess players such as Seirawan. I think a section about this might be an interesting addition to the article.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her name was Olga Capablanca Clark. Somewhere I saw an article about her, but I can't remember where, unfortunately. Krakatoa (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is a pretty long article which could be referenced here if it is thought appropriate, but in other bios I have seen it questioned whether widows/offspring who are not in themselves independently notable should be mentioned.--Jrm2007 (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom tournaments[edit]

I've removed the claim in the article that Capablanca went 9-0 in a second 1913 tournament in Havana. It is supported by Chessmetrics - Havana, 1913 - but no other source AFAIK. No such tournament is shown in Fred Reinfeld, The Immortal Games of Capablanca, Macmillan, 1974, p. 17; nor in Harry Golombek, Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess, David McKay, 1978, pp. 36-37, ISBN 0-679-14044-1; nor in David Hooper and Dale Brandreth, The Unknown Capablanca, R.H.M. Press, 1975, p. 170, ISBN 0-89058-207-3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum; nor in Rogelio Caparros, The Official Games of Jose Raul Capablanca, Caissa Editions, 1991, p. 115, ISBN 0-939433-12-5. Nor is Capablanca's alleged 9-0 victory shown in any list of perfect scores that I know of. I know it is not in the perfect score lists in Hooper and Whyld's Oxford Companion to Chess, Sunnuck's Encyclopaedia of Chess, and Soltis' Book of Chess Lists. I assume Sonas is not just making this up, but given the total lack of support in books that should reflect such a tournament, I don't think it is reliable enough to include. See WP:RS.Krakatoa (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have since learned that this was a series of three three-game clock simultaneous matches. Capablanca won all nine games. See Winter, "Capa's Clean Sweep", February 1986 British Chess Magazine, pp. 58-60; Winter, Capablanca, pp. 69-71. Krakatoa (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this from the article: "Capablanca won at Stockholm 1928 with 4/4, ahead of Erik Lundin and Gosta Stoltz." A check of the following books shows no such tournament: Harry Golombek, Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess, p. 19; Fred Reinfeld, The Immortal Games of Capablanca, p. 17; Rogelio Caparros, The Official Games of Capablanca, p. 115; David Hooper and Dale Brandreth, The Unknown Capablanca, p. 170. Krakatoa (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Phantom tournaments"? Is this the traditional Christmas ghost story? Merry Christmas, everyone. --Philcha (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

move to José Capablanca?[edit]

I think it would be better to move this to José Capablanca. His middle name is almost never used in text. 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. "José Raúl Capablanca" is way more common than "José Capablanca" in my experience. See e.g. FIDE press report[4], and look through the titles at Books about Capablanca and Alekhine compiled by Edward Winter (chess historian). Peter Ballard (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no move. Bubba73 (talk), 04:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1919 versus Kostic[edit]

The match result versus Boris Kostic, 1919, is incorrect. It was a best of 10 games match, which Capablanca won with a score of 5 wins, 0 losses, 0 draws. After the 5th win, Kostic resigned the match. I don't feel like citing this from books, so someone else do so, and fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.16.180 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Companion and Golombek's encyclopedia mention the match, but they don't say anything about it being the best of ten. Bubba73 (talk), 00:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't. "There was a purse of 2500 dollars and the first to win eight games would be the winner. Kostic was put firmly in his place; he lost the first five games in succession and resigned the match." Edward Winter, World Chess Champions, p. 58. Krakatoa (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

As there were no official ELO ratings in 1924, the sentence relating to ratings below should be removed.

Capablanca was second, with 14½ points, behind Lasker's 16, at the elite New York 1924 chess tournament, one of the greatest ever staged, and again ahead of third-placed Alekhine. In this tournament, his loss to Reti was his first in eight years. His performance was still a superb 2792.

Abenr (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, I don't know how or when it slipped through, and have removed it.
It's not Elo, as historical Elo ratings are based on each player's best 5-year period. The only source I know that rates indiv performmances is Chessmetrics.
In any case this is the wrong place, the "Assessment" section deals with statistical rating systems. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in José Raúl Capablanca[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of José Raúl Capablanca's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WinterCapablancaVsAlekhine1927":

  • From World Chess Championship: Winter, E. "Capablanca v Alekhine, 1927". Retrieved 2008-06-09. Regarding a possible "two-game lead" clause, Winter cites Capablanca's messages to Julius Finn and Norbert Lederer dated 15 October 1927, in which he proposed that, if the Buenos Aires match were drawn, the second match could be limited to 20 games. Winter cites La Prensa 30 November 1927 for Alekhine's conditions for a return match.
  • From FIDE: Winter, E. "Capablanca v Alekhine, 1927".
  • From Alexander Alekhine: Winter, E. "Capablanca v Alekhine, 1927". Retrieved 2008-05-23. Original sources include:
    • "(unknown title)". Ajedrez American: 66. 1927. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help);
    • Sergeant, P.W. (1926). "(unknown title)". British Chess Magazine: 454. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help);
    • "(unknown title)". La Prensa. September 14, 1927.;
    Immediately after his victory, Alekhine announced his terms for a rematch, reported in: "(unknown title)". La Prensa. November 30, 1927.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lasker's purported 1920 resignation of title, and 1921 match[edit]

I have edited the bit about Lasker's purported 1920 resignation in favor of Capablanca, and Capablanca's acceptance of that. I added a sentence from Winter to the effect that the chess world regarded this as illegitimate, considering that the champion can't designate his successor, and thus regarded Capablanca as being champion only by virtue of having won their 1921 match. I think if one looks at the reference books, they will show universal agreement on that. Capablanca's reign is always given as beginning in 1921, not 1920. Note that the sentence about Capablanca being the only one besides Kramnik to take the title without losing a game only makes sense if one is talking about a challenger wresting the title. If Capablanca is deemed to have been the reigning champion, and Lasker the challenger, one would also have to mention Lasker-Marshall 1907 and Lasker-Janowski 1910; in both of those matches, Lasker (like Capa in '21, if Capa was already the champion) successfully defended his title without losing a single game. Krakatoa (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about "Capablanca's reign is always given as beginning in 1921, not 1920". In fact I think the article should explicitly say that, and a 1 ref tag that includes a few sources will verify well enough. The problem is where to place this material, as we now have 2 parallel threads: resignation -> match -> one-sided result; and resignation -> match -> Capa's championship started 1921. How about placing the world's disapproval of L's nominating a successor and the start date of Capa's championship after the "one-sided result" para? --Philcha (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Career Records Vs Top Grandmasters[edit]

While editing this article in recent days, I have striven to confirm/deny some of the data given in text, re Capa's overall mark in games with some of the greatest players of his time.

In each case, I cite the statistics given in the piece on Capablanca, compared with the scores listed by chessgames.com: 

              article             cg.com

Alekhine +9 -7 =33/ +10 -7 =33; Marshall +20 -2 =28/ +21 -2 =28; Lasker +6 -2 =16/ same; Spielmann +2 -2 =8/ same; Keres -1 =5/ same

Near as I can tell, the info cg.com gives for all these opponents is correct, with the possible exception of the W-L vs Alekhine.

Both games between Capa and Alekhine in 1913, as well as one from 1914, were exhibitions, all of which were won by Capablanca. It hardly seems correct to count these as part of their overall results.

As an aside, cg.com gives an overall mark between Botvinnik and Capablanca of +2 -1 =5 in favour of the former, though their first game was clearly the well-known simul encounter. Hushpuckena (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I cite the statistics given in the piece on Capablanca, compared with the scores listed by chessgames.com" suggests a table, but that's not what I'm seeing. You need to use either a table (mark-up) or a PRE block to make this legible.
Re the actual numbers:
  • How reliable is chessgames.com on this kind of analysis? chessgames.com is partly a forum, and the forum sections are not acceptable sources.
  • What other sources have you checked?
  • What if sources apparently conflict? --07:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Spassky[edit]

"Boris Spassky, World Champion from 1969 to 1972, considered Capablanca the best player of all time."

Didn't Spassky also declare Alekhine the greatest player ever? Toccata quarta (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

This article states: '...because of having been disturbed in time trouble by the bystanding Max Euwe.' Is this correct English, or can someone understand and correct the syntax (bystanding is fine with me)? Geologist (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Human" Chess Machine?[edit]

In all the articles about Capa I've only seen him called the "chess machine" (sometimes just "the machine" if a second reference) by his contemporaries, never as the "human chess machine" as in the intro here. He lived long before chess programs or dedicated chess computers. Dunno about the capitalization though. --72.70.20.69 (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capablanca was the only amateur world champion[edit]

Major house reorganization atm but Golembek's book on Capablanca's 100 best games -which I still have somewhere is unequivocal that he was always a professional Cuban diplomat & this helped him travelling round. Please advise if I've missed something on the talk page, or I'll put it in. JRPG (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at since I don't see that claim in the article. The distinction between amateur and professional doesn't mean a lot in chess. FIDE briefly had an amateur world champion, but abandoned it. Max Euwe is sometimes considered an amateur world champion. Quale (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Quale & sorry I wasn't exactly clear,-last edit before watching footie! I've now found the book which says he entered the Cuban Foreign office in 1913 in a well paid job which allowed him substantial travelling. Whilst amateur/professional distinction is irrelevant at this level except perhaps in the UK, the job was a significant part of his life & I had expected it to be included. Unless its been discussed & excluded, I'll add a snippet which I hope will improve the article. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops ..I'd missed the bit under world title contender. JRPG (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capablanca -Alekhine bitter enemies.[edit]

@Laval: Re your good faith comments about bitter enemies, the description was about right, The article already says Their relationship became bitter.

This reference says Botvinnik observed that Alekhine had received much schooling from Capablanca in positional play, before their fight for the world title made them bitter enemies. I don't have it to hand but one of Harry Golombek's books -probably the Game of Chess -as I've checked and can't find it in Capablanca's 100 best games (Bell & Son 1959) -refers to their mutual hatred and describes them passing each other in a narrow corridor each trying to pretend the other didn't exist. This site says His bitter rival Alekhine wrote on Capablanca’s death, “With his death, we have lost a very great chess genius whose like we shall never see again.” Feel free to discuss but I'll add a link -which as you highlighted -is needed. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that popular chess writing is notoriously riddled with anecdotes and exaggerations when it comes to historical players, and it's difficult to sort out the facts from the fabrications. Edward Winter (pomposity and all) is one of the very few writers I trust in this regard. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have refound ref 2 in the article -Golombek's book Capablanca's 100 best games. The preface has a lengthy description which says "everyone is fully aware of the quarrel and even enmity .. between these two great masters" which split the chess world. It also refers to their "hated rival." Interestingly it also refers to the German edition of the 1927 New York tournament book as an "excellent illustration of the systematic deprecation employed by one of the worlds greatest annotators." This is now available in English complete with "an anti-Capablanca agenda." I'm happy to email a scan of pages ix-xi of the preface but it seems clear that the word enmity is appropriate. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

quoting percentages from chessgames[edit]

Chessgames.com is not a complete database of a player's games, nor is it a particularly reliable source. Also, it makes no distinction between formal or first-class games and off-hand games. A lot of Morphy's surviving games are offhand games, many of them involving odds. It is misleading to use figures from this site to compare players; besides this the editor who introduced these figures has a long history of pushing his "Morphy is the greatest of all time" POV, usually as an IP. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly thanks for the response. I reluctantly concede defeat as odds games and games against NN should not be considered. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concede defeat? Never mind that, nobody's trying to "win". The focus is on improving the encylopedia and presenting the facts without bias.MaxBrowne (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us consider the claim, recently inserted, removed, inserted again, and removed again. Everyone is aware that the proper sequence is insert, remove discuss, right? See WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD.

As for the discussion, the claim was "He has a winning percentage of 74.1% which is the second highest next to Paul Morphy (85%)"

Morphy was born in 1837 and died in 1884. Capablanca was born in 1888 and died in 1942. Do we know that the field of opponents in each era was equally strong?

A player who consistently seeks out strong opponents will have a lower winning percentage that one who avoids such opponents whenever possible. And the "whenever possible" part varies as the rules for who can challenge a champion have changed over time.

Furthermore, a player who plays many off-hand games against much weaker players and chooses not to embarrass them by publishing the games will have a lower winning percentage than a player who publishes every game he plays. The winning percentage could change completely because of the decision of a widow to let someone publish all of her husbands saved game records or to throw them out.

Furthermore, in some cases here are doubts about the actual records. See Alexander Alekhine#Accusations of "improving" games.

Finally, chessgames.com fails to meet our standards as a reliable source.

For all of these reasons, I conclude that comparing the winning percentages of players from different eras this way violates WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agree -I really don't think its worth spending too much time on comparisons as it will always end up as a matter of opinion. The modern grading systems would give an idea of relative strength and exclude odds games but they aren't available. Golombek's book p2 compares Capablanca & Morphy saying Morphy retired at 22 and had Capablanca retired at the same age he would also have been deemed invincible but defeat aged 38 by Alekhine had a very negative effect. Apologies to MaxBrowne if I seemed a little grumpy earlier -I'm told chess brings out the worst type of competitive edge in me. :) Regards JRPG (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engine analysis study[edit]

The study is controversial and comes with several caveats. It doesn't prove that Capablanca played better than the other world champions, only that of the world champions, his style was most similar to Crafty's (and later, Rybka's). The engines were running on a shallow depth of only 12 ply, and many of the "errors" that they picked up on probably weren't errors at all. Finally it's hardly surprising that Tal shows a higher error rate than Capablanca or Petrosian or Kramnik, this is simply a consequence of his attacking style and preference for complicated positions. Other "safe" players like Ulf Andersson and Wolfgang Uhlmann would probably score higher than Tal if they were included in the study, but that doesn't make them better players. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded lead per MOS:LEAD[edit]

I have expanded the lead based on the following scheme. The rough model is the Bobby Fischer article. 4 paragraphs per MOS:LEAD

  • Basic description
  • Early results, up to winning of world title
  • Loss of title up to death
  • Playing style, writing etc.

Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hkadira: Please see the scheme above for the lead. The first paragraph is basic description. One does not need to cram the 8 year undefeated record into the first paragraph. It comes naturally in the second paragraph in chronological order. The "human chess machine" claim is not sourced to WP:RS. chessgames.com isn't a reliable source for this claim. It is also not clear why one needs to put the "human chess machine" in the lead. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Bobby Fishers page.
Many consider him the greatest chess player of all time. In 1972, he captured the World Chess Championship from Boris Spassky of the USSR in a match held in Reykjavík, Iceland, publicized as a Cold War confrontation, which attracted more worldwide interest than any chess championship before or since. In 1975, Fischer refused to defend his title when an agreement could not be reached with FIDE, the game's international governing body, over one of the conditions for the match. This allowed Soviet GM Anatoly Karpov, who had won the qualifying Candidates' cycle, to become the new world champion by default under FIDE rules.

Do you honestly believe this follows what you have implied. Is this a basic description. (And here it claimed Bobby is the greatest chess player which is inaccurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkadira (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said above. I did not say I followed the exact model of the Bobby Fischer article: I said I used it as a rough model. I did not write the Bobby Fischer lead: if I had, I would have preferred that the article follow a similar model to this one. There are no "rules" for writing a lead - I used a scheme which seemed sensible to me. I am not sure why it is important to put the 8 year undefeated record in the first rather than the second paragraph. Also, I don't know who gave Capablanca the nickname "human chess machine" if it's even true, and why it should be mentioned in the lead. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8 years undefeated is the most phenomenal aspect of Caplabanca's play. No any human can replicate it. More impressive is it included the world champion match with Lasker.If people needs to know something it's about his undefeated streak. And I wonder as a chess contributor you never heard that Caplabanca is called "Human Chess Machine". Really????. Ok. for your knowledge read Caplabanca's Chess Biograpy in chessgames.com (Don't tell me that you have never heard of that site). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkadira (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that of reliable sourcing. Yes, I've heard the "human chess machine" nickname. That said we need to have solid cites for it. CG.com cannot be used as a reliable source for biographies. I'm not being disrespectful of them because a lot of their writing is good, but we have particular standards we have to meet in terms of backing up claims. As for the "greatest" claim, crucially it says "many consider". Yes it's a little wishy-washy, but it's pretty solid. I remember the comment elsewhere, that you don't need a cite to say the sky is blue. A few players can legitimately be talked of in this way. Jkmaskell (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So almost all the chess professional's look up for Chessgames for chess games, references and statics. Still it is not reliable source. So tell me a reliable chess source ???? I would really like to know one for my self. Regarding the greatest I remember you as one of the contirbutors backed Fishers bogus claim as the "greatest". So it's ok to say with out any stat that some one is "Greatest" in your worlds(Sky is blue. Yes Kasparov is the greatest.) but not good enough to publish Caplabanca's nick name. It's call double standards which as contributors we shouldn't never practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkadira (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chess professionals use ChessBase, also cg.com is the most incomplete online database; I am a registered user of that site and often log in, I've read a lot of their biographies, they are not reliable at all; several of them are outdated and contain serious mistakes. Sophia91 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about a reliable source with regards to biography. The games themselves can be linked from there acceptably, but the prose from the player bios would need checking. CG.com is well-known for being incomplete or not always accurate. It also doesn't meet the standards of a third party source. If you look up wikipolicy there's quite a lot of info of what a reliable source is. Certainly when I've gone through some bios there, I cannot find supportive evidence for it and so cannot include it here, however much I would want to quote CG. It simply doesnt meet that standard. As for demanding that I find one, think of all the biographies written (I'm talking books here) about, or referring to Capablanca using the term. Jkmaskell (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position, I am opposed to the inclusion of the "human chess machine" on both WP:RS grounds and WP:UNDUE grounds. To repeat, it is not clear to me who gave Capablanca this nickname, and why it should be mentioned in the lead, let alone the first paragraph. As to the 8-year-old undefeated claim, there are a few points. Firstly, it is already mentioned in the lead, in the second paragraph. One does not need to repeat it. Secondly, note that part of the time period overlaps with WW1 - it's not that Capablanca played continuously during the period. If you look at the streak of number of games instead of number of years, Mikhail Tal has the two longest streaks. Lastly, arguing over who's the "greatest" is a mug's game. Capablanca is my favourite player, but I don't consider him the greatest, whatever that term means. It is already mentioned in the lead that "many consider" him the greatest, and that is good enough. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly reliable sources for the name "the Chess Machine". Edward Winter cites the American Chess Journal 1921 here. A search on "chess machine" + "Capablanca" on google books also turns up Chess Review 1943 and British Chess Magazine 1944. There's also a Reinfeld book from 1952. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

proposal about alekhine-capablanca rematch controversy[edit]

There is a widely debated topic on chess history, it is not clear whether it is based on facts or rumours/speculations. the topic is: "Alekhine-Capablanca world championship rematch." Some believe Alekhine avoided Capablanca and some believe contrary, ALekhine gave him a chance but Capa did not use it. can wikipedia enlighten all of us on this matter? p.s: I am not good at wikipedia, I cant add references and e.t.c. if you decide to create an article on this, these may be useful: http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/only-chess/alekhine-apparently-was-willing-to-play-capablanca.21996 the site itself is not a reliable site but the OP might have used something reliable but unfortunately, I clicked on his/her link and it does not open. if you can find it archieved, it may be usefull.

and this one maybe usefull: https://www.chess.com/article/view/alexander-alekhine-part-5-singing-the-middle-aged-blues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir artur (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Went through and found the archive for the website in question https://web.archive.org/web/20061111092633/http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/alekhine.php Perhaps worth noting for the rematch section? As it would indicate Alekhine was willing to play a rematch. Additionally article is written by Larry Parr. I'm unsure of his reputation/credibility but from what I can tell he would be credible from his other chess works. CeviLevita talk 08:25, 27 September 2021

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on José Raúl Capablanca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Raúl Capablanca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on José Raúl Capablanca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

media/File:Capablanca_vs_Alekhine_1914.jpg[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ra%C3%BAl_Capablanca#/media/File:Capablanca_vs_Alekhine_1914.jpg

This image accompanies the section of the article on the 1914 tournament, but the photograph is from an exhibition in 1913. I have amended the title with the correct information. The position behind the players can be found here https://www.365chess.com/tournaments/St_Petersburg_exhibition_1913/27307# in the only game which Alekhine plays black. If this seems dubious, please check the only game in which Alekhine has the black pieces in the 1914 tourney, it never appears to be like the one behind the players, nor the position which they have on the board. I'm indifferent on the placement of the photograph though, I feel that an argument could be made for both it being moved/removed but also for it staying there, it is a superb photo which is representative of Capablanca's and Alekhine's first encounter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke1 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

59 too many?[edit]

Emanuel Lasker article is wlink'd 60 times in this article. (To distinguish between Emanuel and Edward?! There must be a better way.) --IHTS (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:José_Raúl_Capablanca&oldid=1194090222"