George Duke wrote on Tue, Jun 11, 2013 11:22 PM UTC:
Back to Reti versus Capablanca 1924.
Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102101. Move 20 Bxd4 is the
technical definitional brilliancy because of Queen's being able to take
Pawn-c4. For some reason, practically every gm game so far, that precisely
defined and findable spot is where the loser's error occurs. And again
this game as others Capablanca's Move 20 ...Qxc4 seems premature. The
White Bishop is too well placed now to leave it there, so '20 ...Bxd4'
may be the needed improvement. But the changed move has to be justified and
here the doubled Queen and Rook of Reti look tough. Is there something
better there or a move or two ahead? Or is there follow-up to this
suggested improved 20 ...Bxd4 to give Capablanca blockbuster reversal?
'20 ...Bxd4' as first try, is there anything else, to prevent Capablanca's first tournament loss in 8 years?
A couple others so far were not fully resolvable under post-mortem parfait. We may not be able to help Capa specifically enough to turn around the result above.
Next one working alternately back and forth in time from the mid-thirties Wikipedia's main list of all-time Chess games will be the only WWII game, Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1278766, Uruguayan Immortal. Where does White go wrong?
Immediately by definition 20 ...Bxg2 is the starting point variantists are well disposed to call brilliancy, in order to obviate fixed opening theory. It has practically nothing to do with, though sometimes overlaps because the same moves are involved, their Orthodox aesthetic tournament-prize ''brilliancy'' within the one meager set of rules (to our thousands). CV-brilliancy as defined should be transportable to CVs other than OrthoChess for CVers working other game replays: Rococo, Centennial, Chess Different Armies, the lot of the several dozen best having game results at Game Courier.