Capablanca vs Lasker - 1921 WCC http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1241495


[White "Capablanca"]
[Black "Lasker"]
[FEN "2r2rk1/pb1n1ppp/Bp3q2/2p5/3P4/Q3PN2/PP3PPP/2R1K2R b K - 1 16"]


This is the 5ht Match game for the 1921 World Championship.

Lasker played 16...Bxf3 giving up the exchange.

Capablanca wrote:


  Dr. Lasker thought for over half an hour before deciding on this continuation. It is not only the best, but it shows at the same time the fine hand of the master. An ordinary player would never have thought of giving up the exchange in order to keep the initiative in this position, which was really the only reasonable way in which he could hope to draw the game.


Capablanca sounded like the position was already hopeless for Black ("hope to draw the game").

Q: Was 16...Bxf3 really Lasker's only reasonable move? Was Black's position really that bad? Couldn't he just take the bishop?
After 16... Bxa6 17. Qxa6 the problem is that black has no play. His white-squared bishop is really important in the upcoming attack on the white king (this is the only play black can try), so if he exchanged it on a6, white would have a very comfortable position (mainly thanks to the attack on the black's weak queenside) and nothing to fear.

EDIT: I completely omitted the fact that black's pawn down. Of course that is somewhat important, too... :-)

You may oppose me with the fact that white managed to exchange these bishops anyway (see move 18. gxf3 later in the game), but at least black destroyed white's perfect pawn structure.



My second point is that you can't always take Capablanca for granted. He wasn't the most modest player in the world :-) and the fact that he already had known the result of the game when he was commenting it is also important. He was indeed one of the greatest players, but sometimes I find his comments biased.