Q&A with Bruce Pandolfini

Capping and Topping Capa
Q&A with Bruce Pandolfini
www.ChessCafe.com

Question Quite a few years ago, I heard George Koltanowski relating a story about a famous exhibition game between José Capablanca and a member of the “royalty” of Spain (I think). It involved playing on a large, life-size board with pieces filled with wine or some other kind of alcohol. It was understood that Capablanca might get drunk easier and this would lead to the “royal’s” win. However, according to Koltanowski, Capablanca fooled (schooled) the “royal” by sacrificing his queen early, leading to the “royal’s” passing out upon consumption. I have subsequently searched in vain for any kind of confirmation of this story, so I am hoping that you can shed the necessary light, and if it is a true story, please advise who and what the royal was, when it took place, and so on. Many Thanks and Best Wishes! Dr. U. Bri (USA)

Answer There are a number of versions of this story and I doubt any of them are true. The chief yarn pits Emanuel Lasker vs. Géza Maróczy, somewhere in time, and it’s Maróczy who has to drink Lasker’s captured queen (1 e4 e5 2 Qh5 Nc6 3 Qxf7+ Kxf7) – a bottle of champagne. Meanwhile, Lasker merely has to quaff a vial of liqueur (the f7-pawn). As hard as it is to swill an entire bottle of Dom Perignon, it’s much harder to swallow this entire story en toto. Perhaps there was some ceremonial occasion where an alcoholic chess set was used for photograph opportunities at the event’s commencement or conclusion. Maybe the festive happening indeed did involve Capa (as Kolti said, though he said an incredible multitude of things), Lasker, Maróczy, and/or some royal personage. Or maybe it never happened. I suspect to get the reality of it we’ll have to fall back on an axiom we can really count on, in vino veritas.

Question Bishops are considered better than knights. Yet Capablanca believed (Capablanca’s principle?) that a queen and knight are superior to a queen and bishop in the endgame. Could you say a few words about this? Why is this true? Thank you for writing a good provocative column. Jan Martens (The Netherlands)

Answer I think I’ve answered a comparable question before, though if I haven’t I should have, since this question comes up in many endgame discussions that apply. Capablanca said a lot of things, most of which are beautifully true and elegant. Ever since I first encountered that idea I assumed it was true as well. The reasoning behind it has to do with the chief asset the knight offers over the bishop: its ability to guard squares of both colors. Since the queen is the main attack force in the tandem of queen and minor piece, the knight has the advantage of being able to protect the queen on more support points. But the bishop has other advantages over the knight, and recent statistical studies suggest the queen and bishop team does at least as well as the other one-two punch. I think you have to factor in that Capablanca had a special facility for the handling of knights (think of his incredible maneuvers against Yates (see below). Besides, even though quantity may betoken some qualities, I don’t think Capablanca’s intuitive aesthetic, understanding, and sensibility have to stand up to the hard crunch of numbers. When he employed his methods, whatever they were, he usually made them work with the power of complete mastery and consummate artistry.

The full article can be read here at ChessCafe.com.