What makes Capablanca great?

Or what makes him just another former world champion, if that is the case? I am wanting to study his games and learn more about him and was wondering what his fans thought of him.

He beat all the other guys

I bought Capablanca's book "Chess Fundamentals" on the advice of AnthonyCG and i love it, he writes brilliantly and his advice on starting with the endgames is really appropriate, i think.

One possible reason why Capablanca should be considered great:

"The fourteen classic-version World Champions, from the first World Chess Championship in 1886 to the present, were evaluated. Matches for the title of »World Chess Champion«, in which players contended for or were defending the title, were selected for analysis. Several different criteria were designed. The basis for evaluation was the difference between the position values resulting from the moves played by the human and the moves chosen as best by the chess program. We also calculated the average number of blunders and observed how would the players perform providing they would all deal with equally complex positions. Our analyses, among other things, also clearly show that the percentage of best moves played depends on analysed position itself and that is in very high correlation with the difference of best two moves evaluations (according to the computer): the bigger the difference between best two moves evaluations – the easier it is to find the best move. By observing the average material quantity during the games, we tried to determine players inclination to simplify positions.

Generally, our computer analysis seems to have produced sensible results that can be nicely interpreted by a chess expert. Anyway, many will find some of the results quite surprising. The winner according to the main criterion, where we measured average deviations between evaluations of played moves and best evaluated moves according to the computer, is Jose Raul Capablanca, the 3rd World Champion."

Source: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

Interesting graphs on your link.You would expect the more modern champions, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, etc above the 3rd World Champion.

Look at a few of his games and you may well answer your own question.

Stop the game at any point you choose and give a Chess Engine the position and you find what fburton has already told us is true!

Capablanca's greatness stemmed from his natural ability to find the right plan in quiet positions. He rarely got into murky positions, and his ability to steer the game into won endgames before his opponent was even aware an endgame was possible helped him to beat all but a few players.

Capa's weakness, as discovered by Alekhine and Botvinnik, was in strategically complex and tactically murky positions. He did manage to win some of those too, most famously his defeat of Frank Marshall when Marshall first played his eponymous gambit in the Spanish.

The computer match-up rates of Capa's games are impressive, but misleading. He would not stand much of a chance against today's players who have a different understanding of the dynamic potential of the game. Capa lost to Botvinnik because of this, and every top GM has since learned how to defeat Capa's style of play.

Dan Heisman talkes about this recently, he said that Capablanca played positions where the second best or third best moves were still good or not bad and that's one of the reasons he's so high up that list. So it's not absolute

Here's a game that has found its way into just about every Capablanca game collection.

A modern GM would have achieved close to a winning edge after 4...Bf5? 

 But Capablanca showed why he was great with his crystal clear planning which led to a pretty finish.

Another way of describing the score between Capablanca and Botvinnik is that Capa only beat Botvinnik once, about a decade before Botvinnik became world champion.

In 1938, Capablanca was clearly past his prime and physically unwell. But he was only 50 years old. He was beaten by Alekhin, Euwe, Botvinnik (27 years old), and  Keres (22 years old) in that tournament, and all four did it in similar style. For those who are interested in that fantastic tournament there are several accounts available.

Everyone is familiar with Botvinnik's victory. Here's Keres' victory:

Interesting, the argument being that because the style Capablanca played, he was more likely to find himself in positions where computers would find his moves not to be mistakes. But I suppose if you were to take into account some of the more modern world chess champions who had computers readily available to them and still blundered more than he did, Capablanca would still be impressive. Vaguely speaking and based on my understanding, Fischer's and Capablanca's style seems to be similar: simple chess. But somehow, Fischer blundered twice as much as Capablanca.

Samurai, that Fischer had a lower match-up rate than Capa does not mean he blundered more. The difference between the two is measurable and real, but small. Also, Fischer's opponents were far more dynamic and the play was far more double-edged than in Capa's day.

Capablanca rightly deserves credit for his extreme precision. But even he would not have had as high a match up rate if he'd regularly faced dynamic players such as Tal, Keres, Korchnoi, Botvinnik, Geller, or Petrosian.

One thing that interests me is Petrosian's high score. I wonder if tweaking the computer software to lower the relative value of the Rooks ever so slightly would give Petrosian an even higher match-up rate.

Smyslovfan you are forgetting that not only Capablanca's best days are over but his heatlth condition is not good. You give an opening error by Capablanca, but even modern GM have opening errors(Nakamura , Carlsen etc)

All the top players on that graph are grinders, the guys who were more known for playing dynamic, risky positions like Tal are always going to be way down. Not that it isn't an interesting graph, but you can't really compare the different styles - or eras for that matter.

The coolest thing about Capa was his uncanny ability to take a position most people would consider dead drawn, and prove that he is in fact winning with a very simple idea. An idea you or I would consider no better than any other move at first glance.

This is called Natural Talent. And it is doubful anybody has ever had more of it than Jose Raul. I believe if we built a time machine, and gathered every every past WCC at thier respective peaks for a Chess960 tournament (negating the opening theory factor, which would otherweise favor later players), Capa would either win outright, or be tied for first.

For more interesting stats on Capa and many other famous GMs:

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=

I would like to just add, if it means anything to anyone, that Capablanca more or less retired in 1939 I believe, and passed away in 1942. So Keres beating him in '38, while impressive, really in no way refutes the great man's legend. Keres was no slouch himself, by the way, and I don't think anyone would be ashamed in taking a loss to him. 

And "only" 50 years old? If Korchoi had beaten Karpov in either title match, I believe he would've been the oldest champion ever, and that was one thing that made the match intriguing at the time - and then I believe Gelfand was a similar situation. I may be wrong about Gelfand. Either way, the majority of chess greats seem to accomplish their greatest feats in their twenties and thirties (I recognize that's not ALWAYS true, in case "majority" has been skipped over, Lasker, Steinitz, etc) - again, "50"? A couple years before departing?

That's a little silly... just my opinion, though.

"...Capa lost to Botvinnik because of this, and every top GM has since learned how to defeat Capa's style of play."

Ugh, have to edit to add this, after seeing that... Symslovfan (I love Smyslov too), I must mention that for someone with such a low opinion of Capablanca (or at least, who SEEMS to have a low opinion of him)... Capablanca's style is not some extinct, dinosaur style. Not every GM can defeat him with great ease. A lot of Alekhine's victory had to do with being "booked up", and, you know, one of the best players of all time! How does that mean his style has been solved or "figured out"!? You also don't, amusingly enough, seem to acknowledge someone, just one great player mind you, who came after him, beat Botvinnik with a plus match score against him (not sure if overall), and was often compared to Capa in many ways, particularly his crystal clear endgame skill...

Smyslov! :)