Capablanca is regarded by many GMs, including Kasparov and Karpov, to be the greates endgame player. I would believe them more than you of couse. ...
I hope you meant what you said about believing Kasparov about Capablanca.
This is what Kasparov actually wrote about Capablanca:
"On the whole, the reasons for the champion's failure (against Alekhine) are clear: excessive self-confidence, weak preparation, a habitual inclination to try and win with little expenditure of effort, without tension and the calculation of "dangerous" variations, hence the tactical errors, and then, after encountering an incredibly resourceful opponent and a number of heavy defeats -- shock, despair, loss of belief in himself..."
He goes on to point out that the great technician could not win technically won games against Alekhin. Kasparov points out that "technique is first and foremost nerves." And against Alekhin toward the end of a long match, Capa's nerves were shot.
This is what Bobby Fischer wrote about Capablanca:
"Capablanca was among the greatest of chess players, but not because of his endgame. His trick was to keep his openings simple, and then play with such brilliance in the middlegame that the game was decided --even though his opponent didn't always know it-- before they arrived at the endgame.
Capablanca never really devoted himself to chess, seldom made match preparations. His simplicity is a myth."
This is how Kasparov describes the decline of Capablanca's strength:
...[T]he main reason for the decline in Capablanca's results was the increased complexity of chess, which happened precisely during the last period of his career. The hyper-modern ideas had already become establishd and 'Soviet Chess School' had announced itself-- a different, dynamic and genuinely creative game had begun! Capa tried not to fall behind, but it became increasingly difficult for him....
And in general, Capablanca's heyday was... in the period before he became world champion. ... It was on account of this that the myth of his invincibility arose: no one could see the slight, and sometimes serious flaws of his 'ultra-pure' style. But these mistakes were not accidental, and in the match with Alekhine, they already became tragic since they cancelled out all the fruits of his enormous preceding work...
Despite his staggering talent (or more probably, because of it), his real contribution to the creation of modern chess was inferior to that of Steinitz or Lasker. Their contribution was enormous and fundamental... Whereas Capablanca, by contrast, did everything to simplify the problems facing him..."
(Kasparov On My Great Predecessors vol 1.)
discussion over...
Mvtjc, you've shown that you can't be persuaded, even when you claim to be open to what others (Fischer and Kasparov especially) have said.
How's this, you show us where Kasparov and Karpov said that Capablanca was the best endgame player ever.