Hogwash !! Who cares about chessmetrics ! Don't try to twist the facts ! Look at How long and how many times they played in World Championship and and how many times they won. The one-time wonder could only complain and cry uncle everytime he lost.

In CG.com data base:

Alexander Alekhine beat Paul Keres 5 to 1, with 8 draws

Mikhail Botvinnik beat Paul Keres 9 to 3, with 9 draws

Yet one thing that shines up like a brilliant beacon is Keres' obscure and peculiar loyalty to Estonia, which effectively became a German province during WW2 and then a Soviet Union province after WW2. I believe that Keres could have emigrated out to Western Europe or the USA if he really wanted to, as so many chess masters had. There must have been opportunities for him to do so. Why stick out to the bitter end to your dying provincial homeland; and by Keres' death I believe that Estonia was well on its way to becoming completely Russified, with more than 50% of its residents now transformed to Russian speakers. As he himself said - I am unlucky just like my country.

Since it seems clear that Lasker in general played on a qualitatively higher level than the masters of the Steinitz era, we could arguably take out of the discussion Steinitz's reign if we are talking only about top-level chess played on a qualitatively super-GM level. Such chess became more commonplace during Lasker's reign with the arrival of the likes of Lasker himself, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Teichmann, Maroczy, Schlechter, and Rubinstein..

We could arguably take out the years 1944 to 1946, when Alekhine seemed to have quit high level tournaments; as late as 1943, he was probably still the best player in the world.

Even with the above assumption, from 1894 (when Lasker won the Title) to 1944 (when Alekhine retired from high level competition), and with the exception of 1935 - 1937 when Euwe reigned, World Championship chess was dominated by only three persons, the extraordinary trio of Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine.

It must be considered that small incidents could have busted this 'Trilogy' of 50 years. A regular World Championship cycle with formal Candidates events in the 1890s could have disrupted Lasker's reign. Let us suppose that the hypothetical Candidates events of the 1890s to 1910s produced Pillsbury, Maroczy, Schlechter (who did get a Title shot), and Rubinstein as Challengers. Let us suppose that Lasker had a 0.75 chance of beating or tying each of them, which would enable him to retain his Title. His over-all chance of retaining his Title against Pillsbury, Maroczy, Schlechter, and Rubinstein as successive Challengers would be 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75 = 0.32 only. That's a less than a 50% chance.

Against second-tier world class players as Marshall and Janowski, let us suppose Lasker had a 0.90 chance of retaining his Title in a match. If so, even if he played four straight matches against Marshall and Janowski, his over-all chance of retaining his Title would be 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 = 0.66, which is is to say quite good, over the 50% mark.

Going further in time, what could have happened if there were regular World Championship cycles and Candidates Matches in the 1920s and 1930s?

My post is about the position in a game Steinitz- Em. Lasker in Lasker's Manual of Chess.

The blue book (Dover, 1960) has it on page 140.

Russlel Enterprises, Inc. (2008), has it on pages 122 et 258.

Notice they don't show a black pawn on c4.

With or without a black pawn on c4, chesslab does not recognize the position in its dada base.

http://www.chesslab.com/PositionSea...

But according to Chessgames.com (after 29.Rxf8+ Rxf8), THERE IS a black pawn on c4 :

Steinitz vs Lasker, 1894

I wonder which position is the real one, with or without a black pawn on c4.

Could you help me, please ?

Thank you.

Soon I should be able to come here not only to ask questions, but also to discuss chess matters related to Emanual ''God'' Lasker (for example, about where I've got that ''God'' name) ;)

See you all soon.

I rate him as one of the great Geometers - able to see a position's key tactical features X-Ray with a short glance. Kasparov, Tal and Alekhine are the other great Geometers.

Surprisingly, I am delighted to see that very recently the book has become available as a digital download at no cost! (Having been published in 1907, it is in the public domain in nearly all countries.)

Our own User: SBC has written a very good piece about it here:

http://blog.chess.com/view/laskers-...

It is indeed interesting to compare Dr. Lasker's philosophical thought to that of his friend and fellow genius Albert Einstein . (A good summary of Einstein's spiritual philosophy will be found here: http://www.100bestwebsites.org/alt/... )

For those who would like to download a complete copy of Dr. Lasker's philosophical book, you may do so from this link:

http://tinyurl.com/ntbk7n

with the specific download link being

http://dds.crl.edu/loadStream.asp?i...

The book is in PDF format, and the file size is about 1 MB.

I find the section titled "The Problem" (from pages 5-12) to be particularly interesting.

But be forewarned, you will look in vain for any Chess diagrams in it! But you will find much else that is worthwhile.

As I understand it, Dr. Lasker believed his book was a generalization of his Chess philosophy to life in the broadest sense. He attributed the great synthesis of Chess theory to Wilhelm Steinitz , and believe that that great Chess luminary had developed his theory after long study of the Chessgames of Paul Morphy . (See the last long quote on this page for details: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_M... )

If any of you happen to read all or a portion of this intriguing book, I hope you may share your thoughts here.

Hope you are all in good spirits....

Dr. Lasker does not appear to have had a problem with self-doubt! He was confident his philosophical system would one day become very influential in human affairs.

Here are two pages from his "Manual of Chess" which present his hopes and expectations for his philosophical work.

http://100bestwebsites.org/alt/Lask...

http://100bestwebsites.org/alt/Lask...

from the "Manual of Chess" by Dr. Emanuel Lasker (1925 (in German), Dover edition (in English): 1960). Dover Publications, p. 248-249. ISBN 0486206408.

Perhaps he translated just a bit of this confidence into victories over the Chess board!

But he stayed here only one year :

User: chesscomplexity

It would have been nice if he gave the sources of the quotes : titles of books and the pages.

Maybe I will find these answers later, on page 10, 11, ..., 42 ;) as I plan to read (at least diagonally) all the pages).

My post this is about a position in a game Paulsen vs. Morphy in Lasker's Manual of Chess.

The blue book (Dover, 1960) has it on page 112.
Diagram 7 shows the white queen rook on a1, NOT a2.

But according to chessgames.com, the white queen-rook is on a2, NOT a1.

Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857

The same with Tartacover (500 Master Games of Chess, page 173). (I purposely don't write ''Tartakower''.)

But there is a huge problem.

If the rook really stand on a2, then Lasker would not have given this variation on page 113 :

''There was, however, another method to parry the threat, namely, by attacking the formidable Rook on Kt3 with 4.Q-Q3 (...) therefore: 4...P-K4. After this (...) 5.R-Q1 (...) 5...B-Kt7ch.; 6.K-Kt1, BxPch.; 7.K-B1, BxR; 8.Q-B4ch.; K-B1; 9.P-Q4, , whereupon Black would surely win the ending with 9...,B-K7ch.; 10.QxB, R-k78ch., etc.’’

A) But if the a-rook stands on a2, not a1, this line does not work for Black.

B) Could Lasker have been wrong about the position of the white queen rook concerning such a well known combination of Morphy ?

Note that the 2008 edition also has that mysterious rook on a1.

So, ladies (?) and gentlemen, what do you think of all that ?

And do you know why I keep asking questions about our classic Lasker's Manual of Chess ?

Thank you very much.

" It is too beautiful to spend your life upon. Many times have I managed to break with Chess, yet I have always fallen in love with it again. I was too captivated by the conflict between ideas and opinions, attack and defence, life and death. "

In 45 matches, he won 37, drew 6, and lost only twice, to Capablanca in 1921, and to Marshall in an exhibition match in 1940.

He played in only one team event.

Final score: +359=174-67.