Author: Slater Wold
Date: 21:16:21 01/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2004 at 23:37:08, Ed Trice wrote: > >> >>How about just call it by it's original name? >> >>Capablanca Game? >> > > >Capablanca's setup from 1925 was meant to improve upon the Henry Bird >configuration of 1874 which allowed white to mate in 2 if black did not >immediately defend h7 if white played 1. Ch3. > >Bird's 1874 variant was not the first 80 square variant either. Pietro Carerra >had one with 80 squares in 1617. You can trace 10x8 and 10x10 variants back to way before Carrera. Carrera published Il Gioco delgi Scacchi which helped it become known. Especially with the help of Foster, Murray, and Gollon. Bird proposed a lot of variants, all with the same principle. Gollon only picks up on this one, specifically (which is why it's well known). Capablanca toyed with his variant for many, many years. The game evolved over decades, with the help of Lasker and other GMs. Its final form, mentioned in Lasker's book The Adventure of Chess, is what most people know today. I am guessing (from reading your website) you think you're simply improving Capablanca's game. I guess in your eyes, Capablanca's game had some fundamental flaws. Here's an interesting question for you Ed; since Gothic Vortex 1.0 was released, it has been playing from the Capablanca starting position (one game from the starting position, all others from a simple opening), against itself, 3 minutes per move. Wanna just take a wild guess how many games white is up? None. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Capablanca's game. Well, except for the simple fact you couldn't patent it.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.