|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-25-10
 | | visayanbraindoctor: <boz> That's because Capablanca hated anything but perfect errorless play. He played the board, not the man. The drawback naturally is that in positions that were approximately equal, Capa thought drawing as the justified result while Lasker could have been making sub-optimal moves to keep the complications going, which in tournament practice led to more Lasker game wins and tournament wins than Capablanca's. <Poor Capablanca! Thou wert a brilliant technician, but no philosopher. Thou wert not capable of believing that in chess, another style could be victorious than the absolutely correct one. – Max Euwe> I do not believe that Lasker was ill during the match itself, even if it is possible that he later became ill and quit for health reasons. Lasker played the games of this match magnificently, as though he were in his prime. And he came in with well prepared openings too. Capablanca beat him because Capa was playing just a tad better. All the games that Capablanca won were won not because of a strong opening novelty but only after a hard middlegame and endgame fight. If it were any other opponent, Lasker would have run over him. Capablanca vs Lasker, 1921 46 moves Lasker vs Capablanca, 1921 58 moves Capablanca vs Lasker, 1921 48 moves Lasker vs Capablanca, 1921 56 moves These are all over 40 moves and represent struggles at the highest human chessic abilities. To his credit if Lasker was going down, he was going down singing his swan song at the top of his voice. One thing that is uniquely great in the institute of the World Championship Match is its consistency. At this era, in 1921, super tournaments, wherein only the very top masters participated, were very rare or non-existent. Practically all international tournaments were 'diluted' with a lot of relatively weaker players, who often became punching bags; the result of which is that the top master who won the tournament was often the one who could punch the weakies the hardest. This makes it difficult to compare a top master's performance from this era with that of today's, wherein the top masters keep on battling out each other in non-weakie diluted super tournaments. The most notable exception is the World Championship Match. Here, in the early 1900s as in today, the two top masters of the world play each other a successions of games over and over again. There are no weakies to beat up in between these games. You meet the same very strong resistance all the time. The World Championship matches, played under very similar conditions of high tension, classical time controls, and offering the largest stake in the Chess World (namely the Title of World Champion) can function as a controlled phenomenon that can be used to accurately gauge just how good the top masters of an era have become. |
 |
Jan-26-10
 | | boz: Excellent observations as always <Doc>. |
|
| Jan-26-10 | | AnalyzeThis: Lasker was past his prime. That's the bottom line. |
|
Sep-02-10
 | | GrahamClayton: <Sneaky> I never knew that Lasker resigned the title before the match. But like it says above, nobody accepted his resignation, so it hardly matters--all that matters is that Capablanca got his chance to prove himself. <Sneaky>,
Here is an interesting item from the "Brisbane Courier", dated Monday, the 28th of June 1920" "World's Chess Championship
Amsterdam, Saturday
Mr Lasker has resigned the world's chess championship to Capablanca on the ground that the chess world does not approve of the terms of the proposed match between Lasker and Capablanca." |
|
| Sep-02-10 | | Petrosianic: That's like saying "nobody" accepted that the 21st century began in 2001, so it began in 2000 (which I've heard people seriously argue). The argument is only valid if we accept that ignoring things makes them go away. Actually, his resignation was taken very seriously when it looked like no match would be played. There was a big controversy over whether to accept Capa as champion, or whether to consider the title vacant, and hold a tournament to name Lasker's successor. |
|
| Sep-02-10 | | I play the Fred: <That's like saying "nobody" accepted that the 21st century began in 2001, so it began in 2000 (which I've heard people seriously argue).> I hate that I'm about to do this, because:
1) I don't care that much. 1/1/00, 1/1/01 - either way, it's a good excuse to drink too much and make clumsy advances toward women way out of one's league 2) I don't want to appear to be one of "those" people, even though this little exercise may compel the bystander to logically assume that I am one of "those" people That out of the way, here's my argument for 1/1/2000 starting the new milennium: 1) The dating system we refer to is based upon the life of Jesus H. Christ, is it not? 2) Some like to point out that "There was no Year Zero!" in reference to when a century (in this case, the year 2000) begins. So, are these same people going to argue, with a straight face, that there's no such thing as a negative year? Because a year followed by BC means exactly that. 3) Number lines, as I understand them, look like this: BC...........JHC.............AD
-5-4-3-2-1 0 +1+2+3+4+5
Now, zero has no value, but it does hold a place on a number line. And since the BC/AD dating system exists, logically there must be a year zero. After all, Jesus wasn't one year old the moment he was born! 4) This trips people up because we don't refer to people in this way. My niece isn't zero years old, she's eight months. But eight months does not a year make, and until she's been around for 365 days, she has not completed a full year. And on the day of her 100th birthday, we celebrate that she's been alive for exactly 100 years (plus leap days, but never mind that). 5) So: in order to celebrate my niece's being alive for a century, I have to wait...until her 101st birthday? Again, I don't care all that much. But it seems to me that the people who argue for 2001 aren't the sticklers they thought they were. |
|
| Sep-02-10 | | Petrosianic: In the Gregorian Calendar, the 21st century began in 2001. You're giving me arguments about how it could have been done differently, or should have been differently. But that's not the same thing as saying that it was done differently. Whether the calendar ought to have a Year 0 isn't the same question as whether it actually has one. And as I say, I heard more than one person around that time, arguing that the new century DID in fact begin in 2000, BECAUSE so many people thought so. Granted, it sounds stupid the way I just said it, and actually they phrased it a little more slickly than that. But that was the argument. The birthday business is different, and people always misnumber those. When a person is a year old, they call it their "First Birthday", even though it is, in fact, their second. It gets even worse with somemone born on February 29. When they're 20 years old, everyone would call it their 20th birthday, even though it would really be their 6th. |
|
| Nov-09-11 | | Lambda: While my intuition has always been that Lasker must have been suffering from some combination of at least one of lack of preparation, lack of motivation or poor health to lose this match by such a margin, thinking that it would be impossible for anyone to defeat him by any more than the odd game or two if he were firing on all cylinders, a quick study of some figures in Chessmetrics has suggested that it's credible to think Lasker was at his best here. The match itself in Chessmetrics is a bit of a dud; Lasker has fallen off its ratings list by that point due to inactivity. But if we assume he was playing at a rating of 2850 in this match, (on the basis that he's rated slightly over 2850 in 1918, and slightly under in 1924), then the performance rating for Capablanca would be 2895; very high, enough to make it the best match performance in history, but not unprecendently so; Karpov at Linares 1994 scored 2899. Given that Capablanca around this time is unquestionably playing some of the best and most precise chess ever seen in history, given the prize on offer, given the observation that he played better against Lasker than against most, and the fact that matches against very strong opposition like this, which provide some of the best opportunities for good performance ratings, (due to the very stern tests they provide), don't come along very often, it seems quite reasonable to think Capa had produced the best match performance and second best overall performance in history here. Further, Capa beat the top ten player Kostic +5=0-0 in a match just a couple of years previously. The raw performance level of this is 3121, substantially higher than the 2971 of scoring 9/14 vs a 2850 Lasker. It only ends up as a lower performance rating due to fewer games being played, and hence being less convincing as evidence of strength. (Equally, his performance at New York 1918 seems to be at a similar level, although that has the same problem of unrated opposition.) So this level of performance seems statistically to be roughly what you'd expect if Lasker was at his best. (I also think, although I don't quite understand how the end figures come about in it, that if Lasker was rated 2850 for this Match, Capa would have a higher peak rating in Chessmetrics after the match than Fischer.) |
|
| Nov-09-11 | | AnalyzeThis: Lasker wasn't at his best against in Capablanca match. |
|
| Nov-09-11 | | bronkenstein: <Further, Capa beat the top ten player Kostic +5=0-0 in a match just a couple of years previously> The result was +5 =5 -0 IIRC ( I think that few drawn games were commented in `Yougoslavian Chess Achievements` - and they glorified these draws and his precision play there as if Kostic won the WC match =) PS it`s possible that someone simply didn`t count the draws in that match . Also , I had the aforementioned book in my hands more than 10 years ago ... the match is also mentioned in Bjelica`s book on Capa - `Kings of Chess- J.R.Capablanca` , which I have @ my home, that means that I`ll put my hands on it in the august next year or later :( Anyway Ill try to doublecheck it then at least. PPS IMO Elo ( and esp Chessmetrics ) is not the most appropriate tool to handle matches. |
|
| Nov-09-11 | | bronkenstein: <Lasker wasn't at his best against in Capablanca match.> Obviously , he was 52 and playing against prime Capa. Maybe the 1939-Capa would understand him better? http://www.google.rs/url?sa=t&rct=j... =) |
|
| Dec-10-11 | | AVRO38: <Lasker was past his prime. That's the bottom line.> That's absolute nonsense. Lasker was at his best in the first half of the 1920's. At Maehrisch Ostrau 1923, New York 1924, and Moscow 1925 his play was better than it had ever been and against stronger competition than he had ever faced. The fact is Capablanca beat Lasker, or I should say, crushed Lasker, when Lasker was playing his best chess. It's one thing to admire Lasker but another thing to ignore reality. The same thing happened in 2000 when Kramnik defeated Kasparov (and like Capablanca, Kramnik didn't lose a single game in the process). Kasparov's fans (who I suspect are also the same crowd that idolize Lasker) were saying that Kasparov was past his prime. The fact of the matter however is that Kasparov was at his peak and years later when asked what does he consider his peak year, the year when he played his best chess, Kasparov said 2000! |
|
Dec-10-11
| | visayanbraindoctor: I have read somewhere here in CG that Lasker would purposely play training games, although the scores of such games were understood to be confidential. (Znosko-Borovsky was one of his 'trainers'.) If so, he was not quite actually totally inactive during his so-called inactive years. Hope a chess historian can shed more light on this.
Anyone who has played a training match with a good chess player can probably vouch that, under the proper conditions, with tournament time controls, score sheet recording, and in general a formal atmosphere, a training match can simulate all the tension and seriousness of a competitive tournament. Lasker was one of the few players that played in his highest plateau up to his 50s, until around 1925. Replaying his games in the 1921 match would show that he was clearly playing a high level of chess that probably would have run over anyone except the man he was playing against. I believed that contrary to popular belief and his statements to the effect that he was unprepared (which I believe was a psychological ploy), Lasker went into the match fully prepared and had possibly practiced confidential training games with a sparring partner. (No way to prove or disprove this though, so it remains speculation.) The quality of his games from 1916 to 1925 bespeak of his thorough preparedness for all the serious chess competitions that he participated in. I think that Lasker was a methodical man who went about his chess preparations with the consistency and thoroughness of a scholar preparing for his scientific papers. BTW, kibitzers who keep on claiming that Anand and Gelfand are has-beens should take note of the above. As for losing to Capablanca, there is no shame in this. The 1918 to 1922 Capablanca IMO was playing the objectively strongest chess ever to be played by a human being. |
|
Jan-19-12
| | visayanbraindoctor: <Lambda: While my intuition has always been that Lasker must have been suffering from some combination of at least one of lack of preparation, lack of motivation or poor health to lose this match by such a margin, thinking that it would be impossible for anyone to defeat him by any more than the odd game or two if he were firing on all cylinders, a quick study of some figures in Chessmetrics has suggested that it's credible to think Lasker was at his best here. The match itself in Chessmetrics is a bit of a dud; Lasker has fallen off its ratings list by that point due to inactivity. But if we assume he was playing at a rating of 2850 in this match, (on the basis that he's rated slightly over 2850 in 1918, and slightly under in 1924), then the performance rating for Capablanca would be 2895; very high, enough to make it the best match performance in history, but not unprecendently so; Karpov at Linares 1994 scored 2899. Given that Capablanca around this time is unquestionably playing some of the best and most precise chess ever seen in history, given the prize on offer, given the observation that he played better against Lasker than against most, and the fact that matches against very strong opposition like this, which provide some of the best opportunities for good performance ratings, (due to the very stern tests they provide), don't come along very often, it seems quite reasonable to think Capa had produced the best match performance and second best overall performance in history here. Further, Capa beat the top ten player Kostic +5=0-0 in a match just a couple of years previously. The raw performance level of this is 3121, substantially higher than the 2971 of scoring 9/14 vs a 2850 Lasker. It only ends up as a lower performance rating due to fewer games being played, and hence being less convincing as evidence of strength. (Equally, his performance at New York 1918 seems to be at a similar level, although that has the same problem of unrated opposition.) So this level of performance seems statistically to be roughly what you'd expect if Lasker was at his best. (I also think, although I don't quite understand how the end figures come about in it, that if Lasker was rated 2850 for this Match, Capa would have a higher peak rating in Chessmetrics after the match than Fischer.)> I find this very interesting because I am inclined to think that the period 1914 to 1924 (from St. Petersburg 1914 to New York 1924) was Lasker's highest performance plateau (ignoring chessmetrics and its tendency to penalize inactivity), and the period when he played the best chess of his life. Most people would not consider this period as Lasker's best for one single reason- he lost his title to Capablanca within this period. But what if we imagine Capablanca never existed and Lasker never played the 1921 match? |
|
Jan-19-12
 | | TheFocus: <bronkenstein> <Further, Capa beat the top ten player Kostic +5=0-0 in a match just a couple of years previously> The result was +5 =5 -0 IIRC>< I think that few drawn games were commented in `Yougoslavian Chess Achievements` - and they glorified these draws and his precision play there as if Kostic won the WC match =) PS it`s possible that someone simply didn`t count the draws in that match . Also , I had the aforementioned book in my hands more than 10 years ago ... the match is also mentioned in Bjelica`s book on Capa - `Kings of Chess- J.R.Capablanca` , which I have @ my home, that means that I`ll put my hands on it in the august next year or later :( Anyway Ill try to doublecheck it then at least.> The match was a +5=0-0 result. The five games they played in tournaments prior to the match were all drawn. |
|
Jun-21-12
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: Vladimir Kramnik gave a very insightful interview about his predecessors as World Champion in http://www.kramnik.com/eng/intervie... Among other things he said: In 1921 Capablanca defeated Lasker. By the way, Lasker was not playing badly in that match; he retained great practical strength. In my opinion, this was the first match for the World Championship title where both opponents were very strong. Capablanca was younger, more active and a bit stronger. In the last game Lasker made a terrible blunder. However, the previous games saw an even and fascinating fight. In the other matches where Lasker played we see either a good beating or a lot of flaws, as happened in his encounter against Schlechter. As for the Capablanca-Lasker match, there were few mistakes and the games were a real fight. |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | King Death: <Jonathan Sarfati> "Very insightful" understates what Kramnik had to say, anybody could learn from this and other interviews with Kramnik that I've read. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Lambda: <I find this very interesting because I am inclined to think that the period 1914 to 1924 (from St. Petersburg 1914 to New York 1924) was Lasker's highest performance plateau (ignoring chessmetrics and its tendency to penalize inactivity), and the period when he played the best chess of his life. Most people would not consider this period as Lasker's best for one single reason- he lost his title to Capablanca within this period. But what if we imagine Capablanca never existed and Lasker never played the 1921 match?> Well, if Lasker did start playing better than ever around 1914, the most likely reason would be the arrival of Capablanca, making it necessary for the first time. Sort of like (although not the same as) Karpov performing most strongly after he lost the title to Kasparov. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Petrosianic: <The result was +5 =5 -0 IIRC> No, that's Capablanca and Kostic's lifetime record with each other. The result of the match was +5-0=0, and outside of the match they played +0=0-5. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Petrosianic: <In my opinion, this was the first match for the World Championship title where both opponents were very strong.> I'd give that honor to Lasker-Schlechter. Maybe even Lasker-Tarrasch, despite the lopsided score. <or a lot of flaws, as happened in his encounter against Schlechter> I've seen computer analyses of that match that showed it comparing very favorably with modern encounters. |
|
Sep-13-12
| | Jonathan Sarfati: ChessMetrics is most interesting, but there are some dubious things
there. For instance, it counts a Lasker match with Chigorin in 1903 where Lasker lost 3.5-2.5. But this should not be counted, because Lasker had to play the unsound Rice Gambit with white every time. http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVal... |
|
| Sep-13-12 | | Petrosianic: That's true, "Theme Tournaments" and matches should not be rated because they frequently involve some kind of handicap. Nobody in 1903 had any thought that Tchigorin had proven any kind of real superiority over Lasker, including Tchigorin himself. The point of the match was solely to test the Rice Gambit. |
|
Sep-13-12
| | TheFocus: Lasker also lost a Rice Gambit match against Schlechter. These two games are from a 3 game match between Lasker and Finn. The third game was a draw. <Em Lasker - Finn, New York 1907 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.O-O Bxe5 9.Re1 Qe7 10.c3 Nbd7 11.d4 Nh5 12.Bb5 Kd8 13.Bxd7 Bxd7 14.Rxe5 Qxh4 15.Rxh5 Qxh5 16.Bxf4 Re8 17.Bg3 Qxd5 18.Qf1 Qe4 19.Na3 Qe3+ 20.Bf2 Qe2 21.Bh4+ Kc8 22.Qxf7 Qxb2 23.Re1 Rxe1+ 24.Bxe1 b6 25.Qe7 Qc1 26.Nc4 Kb7 (26...Qb1) 27.Nd6+ Ka6 28.Qe2+ b5 29.Ne4 Bc6 30.a4 Qb1 31.axb5+ Bxb5 32.Nc5+ Kb6 33.Qe6+ c6 34.Qe7 Rb8 35.Kh2 Qg6 36.Nd7+ (36...Kb7 37.Nf8+) 1-0.Em Lasker - Finn, New York 1907 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.O-O Bxe5 9.Re1 Qe7 10.c3 Nbd7 11.d4 Nh5 12.Bb5 Kd8 13.Bxd7 Bxd7 14.Rxe5 Qxh4 15.Rxh5 Qxh5 16.Bxf4 Re8 17.Bg3 Qxd5 18.Qf1 Qe4 19.Na3 Qe3+ 20.Bf2 Qe2 21.Bh4+ Kc8 22.Qxf7 Qxb2 23.Re1 Rxe1+ 24.Bxe1 b6 25.Qd5 Rb8 26.Nc4 Qe2 27.Bg3 Qe6 0-1.> Wall didn't mention that Lasker also wrote a book on the Rice Gambit. I own a copy. |
|
Dec-03-12
 | | Conrad93: So Lasker just gave his title away? |
|
Apr-01-13
 | | whiteshark: It has been most recently revealed that Lasker and Capablanca had played a world championship in 1914. Evidence about the forgotten Match can be found here: http://www.chessbase.de/Home/TabId/... Note: Due to copyright restraints by Lasker (and his heirs) the games couldn't be published until now. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
