Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Emanuel Lasker
Number of games in database: 1,188
Years covered: 1889 to 1940

Overall record: +379 -83 =176 (73.2%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 550 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

With the White pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (189) 
    C68 C62 C66 C67 C65
 French Defense (86) 
    C11 C12 C01 C13 C10
 French (60) 
    C11 C12 C13 C10 C00
 King's Gambit Accepted (52) 
    C39 C33 C38 C37 C34
 Sicilian (47) 
    B45 B32 B40 B30 B44
 King's Gambit Declined (35) 
    C30 C31 C32
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (112) 
    C65 C67 C66 C77 C79
 Orthodox Defense (50) 
    D50 D63 D52 D60 D55
 Giuoco Piano (32) 
    C50 C53 C54
 Queen's Pawn Game (28) 
    D00 D05 D02 D04 A46
 Sicilian (27) 
    B32 B73 B45 B33 B83
 Four Knights (19) 
    C49 C47 C48
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Lasker vs J Bauer, 1889 1-0
   Lasker vs Capablanca, 1914 1-0
   Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896 0-1
   Lasker vs W Napier, 1904 1-0
   Marshall vs Lasker, 1907 0-1
   Euwe vs Lasker, 1934 0-1
   Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894 1-0
   Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910 1-0
   Lasker vs Capablanca, 1935 1-0
   Steinitz vs Lasker, 1896 0-1

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: [what is this?]
   Lasker - Steinitz World Championship (1894)
   Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896)
   Lasker - Marshall World Championship Match (1907)
   Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship Match (1908)
   Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910)
   Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)
   Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Lasker - Bird (1890)
   St. Petersburg 1895/96 (1895)
   Nuremberg (1896)
   Paris (1900)
   London (1899)
   St. Petersburg (1914)
   Lasker - Janowski (1909)
   Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923)
   New York (1924)
   St. Petersburg (1909)
   Moscow (1925)
   Hastings (1895)
   Cambridge Springs (1904)
   Zurich (1934)
   Nottingham (1936)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   -ER Lasker by fredthebear
   Emanuel Lasker Collection by hrannar
   Match Lasker! by amadeus
   The Lion King by chocobonbon
   Why Lasker Matters by Andrew Soltis by keypusher
   Veliki majstori saha 7 LASKER (Petrovic) by Chessdreamer
   Why Lasker Matters (Soltis) by Qindarka
   Why Lasker Matters by Andrew Soltis by Incremental
   lasker best games by brager
   Selected Lasker by LaBourdonnaisdeux
   John Nunn's Chess Course by Incremental
   John Nunn's Chess Course by vantheanh
   Lasker JNCC by chestofgold
   the informal Lasker by ughaibu

   Rubinstein vs Lasker, 1909
   Rubinstein vs Salwe, 1908
   Spielmann vs Rubinstein, 1909
   Tartakower vs Schlechter, 1909
   Lasker vs Teichmann, 1909

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Emanuel Lasker
Search Google for Emanuel Lasker

(born Dec-24-1868, died Jan-11-1941, 72 years old) Germany

[what is this?]

Emanuel Lasker was the second official World Chess Champion, reigning for a record 27 years after he defeated the first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, in 1894.

Statistician Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics writes, "if you look across players' entire careers, there is a significant amount of statistical evidence to support the claim that Emanuel Lasker was, in fact, the most dominant player of all time." By Sonas' reckoning, Lasker was the No. 1 player in the world for a total of 24.3 years between 1890 and 1926.


He was born (on the same date as Richard Teichmann) in what was then Berlinchen (literally "little Berlin") in Prussia, and which is now Barlinek in Poland. In 1880, he went to school in Berlin, where he lived with his older brother Berthold Lasker, who was studying medicine, and who taught him how to play chess. By Chessmetrics' analysis, Berthold was one of the world's top ten players in the early 1890s.


Soon after Lasker obtained his abitur in Landsberg an der Warthe, now a Polish town named Gorzow Wielkopolski, the teenager's first tournament success came when he won the Café Kaiserhof's annual Winter tournament 1888/89, winning all 20 games. Soon afterwards, he tied with Emil von Feyerfeil with 12/15 (+11 -2 =2) at the second division tournament of the sixth DSB Congress in Breslau, defeating von Feyerfeil in the one game play-off.* Also in 1889, he came second with 6/8 (+5 -1 =2) behind Amos Burn at the Amsterdam "A" (stronger) tournament, ahead of James Mason and Isidor Gunsberg, two of the strongest players of that time. In 1890 he finished third in Graz behind Gyula Makovetz and Johann Hermann Bauer, then shared first prize with his brother Berthold in a tournament in Berlin. In spring 1892, he won two tournaments in London, the second and stronger of these without losing a game. At New York 1893, he won all thirteen games, one of a small number of significant tournaments in history in which a player achieved a perfect score. Wikipedia article: List of world records in chess#Perfect tournament and match scores

After Lasker won the title, he answered his critics who considered that the title match was by an unproven player against an aging champion by being on the leader board in every tournament before World War I, including wins at St Petersburg in 1895-96, Nurenberg 1896, London 1899, Paris 1900 ahead of Harry Nelson Pillsbury (by two points with a score of +14 −1 =1), Trenton Falls 1906, and St Petersburg in 1914. He also came 3rd at Hastings 1895 (this relatively poor result possibly occurring during convalescence after nearly dying from typhoid fever), 2nd at Cambridge Springs in 1904, and =1st at the Chigorin Memorial tournament in St Petersburg in 1909. In 1918, a few months after the war, Lasker won a quadrangular tournament in Berlin against Akiba Rubinstein, Carl Schlechter and Siegbert Tarrasch.

After he lost the title in 1921, Lasker remained in the top rank of players, winning at Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923) ahead of Richard Reti, Ernst Gruenfeld, Alexey Sergeevich Selezniev, Savielly Tartakower, and Max Euwe. His last tournament win was at New York 1924, where he scored 80% and finished 1.5 points ahead of Jose Raul Capablanca, followed by Alexander Alekhine and Frank James Marshall. In 1925, he came 2nd at Moscow behind Efim Bogoljubov and ahead of Capablanca, Marshall, Tartakower, and Carlos Torre Repetto. There followed a long hiatus from chess caused by his intention to retire from the game, but he re-emerged in top-class chess in 1934, placing 5th in Zurich behind Alekhine, Euwe, Salomon Flohr and Bogoljubow and ahead of Ossip Bernstein, Aron Nimzowitsch, and Gideon Stahlberg. In Moscow in 1935, Lasker finished in an undefeated third place, a half point behind Mikhail Botvinnik and Flohr and ahead of Capablanca, Rudolf Spielmann, Ilia Abramovich Kan, Grigory Levenfish, Andre Lilienthal, and Viacheslav Ragozin. Reuben Fine hailed the 66-year-old Lasker's performance as "a biological miracle". In 1936, Lasker placed 6th in Moscow and finished his career later that year at Nottingham when he came =7th with 8.5/14 (+6 -3 =5), his last-round game being the following stylish win: Lasker vs C H Alexander, 1936.


Non-title matches 1889 saw his long career in match play commence, one which only ceased upon relinquishing his title in 1921. He won nearly of his matches, apart from a few drawn mini-matches, including a drawn one-game play-off match against his brother Berthold in Berlin in 1890, losing only exhibition matches with Mikhail Chigorin, Carl Schlechter and Marshall, and a knight-odds match against Nellie Showalter, Jackson Showalter's wife. In 1889, he defeated Curt von Bardeleben (+1 =2) and in 1889-90 he beat Jacques Mieses (+5 =3). In 1890, he defeated Henry Edward Bird (+7 -2 =3) and Nicholas Theodore Miniati (+3 =2 -0), and in 1891 he beat Francis Joseph Lee (+1 =1) and Berthold Englisch (+2 =3). 1892 and 1893 saw Lasker getting into his stride into the lead up to his title match with Steinitz, beating Bird a second time (5-0) Lasker - Bird (1892) , Joseph Henry Blackburne (+6 =4), Jackson Whipps Showalter (+6 -2 =2) and Celso Golmayo Zupide (+2 =1). In 1892, Lasker toured and played a series of mini-matches against leading players in the Manhattan, Brooklyn and Franklin Chess Clubs. At the Manhattan Chess Club, he played a series of three-game matches, defeating James Moore Hanham, Gustave Simonson, David Graham Baird, Charles B Isaacson, Albert Hodges, Eugene Delmar, John S Ryan and John Washington Baird of the 24 games he played against these players he won 21, losing one to Hodges and drawing one each with Simonson and Delmar. At the Brooklyn Chess Club, Lasker played two mini-matches of two games each, winning each game against Abel Edward Blackmar and William M De Visser, and drew the first game of an unfinished match against Philip Richardson. Lasker finished 1892 at the Franklin Chess Club by playing 5 mini-matches of two games each against its leading players, winning every game against Dionisio M Martinez, Alfred K Robinson, Gustavus Charles Reichhelm and Hermann G Voigt and drawing a match (+1 -1) with Walter Penn Shipley. Shipley offered cash bonuses if he could stipulate the openings and taking up the challenge, Lasker played the Two Knight's Defense and won in 38 moves, while in the second game, Shipley won as Black in 24 moves against Lasker playing the White end of a Vienna Gambit, Steinitz variation (Opening Explorer). Shipley, who counted both Lasker and Steinitz as his friends, was instrumental in arranging the Philadelphia leg of the Lasker-Steinitz match, that being games 9, 10 and 11. 29 years later, Shipley was also the referee of Lasker’s title match with Capablanca. In 1892-3, Lasker also played and won some other matches against lesser players including Andres Clemente Vazquez (3-0), A Ponce (first name Albert) (2-0) and Alfred K Ettlinger (5-0). Also in 1893, Mrs. Nellie Showalter, wife of Jackson Showalter and one of the leading women players in the USA, defeated Lasker 5-2 in a match receiving Knight odds.

These matches pushed Lasker to the forefront of chess, and after being refused a match by Tarrasch, he defeated Steinitz for the world title in 1894 after spreadeagling the field at New York 1893. While he was World Champion, Lasker played some non-title matches, the earliest of which was a six-game exhibition match against Chigorin in 1903 which he lost 2.5-3.5 (+1 -2 =3); the match was intended as a rigorous test of the Rice Gambit, which was the stipulated opening in each game. In the midst of his four title defenses that were held between 1907 and 1910, Lasker played and won what appears to have been a short training match against Abraham Speijer (+2 =1) in 1908. Also in 1908, he played another Rice Gambit-testing match, this time against Schlechter, again losing, this time by 1-4 (+0 =2 -3), apparently prompting a rethink of the Rice Gambit as a viable weapon.** In 1909 he drew a short match (2 wins 2 losses) against David Janowski and several months later they played a longer match that Lasker easily won (7 wins, 2 draws, 1 loss). Lasker accepted a return match and they played a title match in 1910 (details below). In 1914, he drew a 2 game exhibition match against Bernstein (+1 -1) and in 1916, he defeated Tarrasch in another, clearly non-title, match by 5.5-0.5. After Lasker lost his title in 1921, he is not known to have played another match until he lost a two-game exhibition match (=1 -1) against Marshall in 1940, a few months before he died. A match between Dr. Lasker and Dr. Vidmar had been planned for 1925, but it did not eventuate.***

World Championship matches The Lasker - Steinitz World Championship (1894) was played in New York, Philadelphia, and Montreal. Lasker won with 10 wins, 5 losses and 4 draws. Lasker also won the Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896), played in Moscow, with 10 wins, 2 losses, and 5 draws. At one stage when Rudolf Rezso Charousek ‘s star was in the ascendant, Lasker was convinced he would eventually play a title match with the Hungarian master; unfortunately, Charousek died from tuberculosis in 1900, aged 26, before this could happen. As it turned out, he did not play another World Championship for 11 years until the Lasker - Marshall World Championship Match (1907), which was played in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, Memphis. Lasker won this easily, remaining undefeated with 8 wins and 7 draws.

After a prolonged period of somewhat strained relations due to Tarrasch’s refusal of Lasker’s offer for a match, Lasker accepted Tarrasch’s challenge for the title, and the Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship Match (1908) was played in Düsseldorf and Munich, with Lasker winning with 8 wins 3 losses and five draws. In 1910, Lasker came close to losing his title when he was trailing by a full point at the tenth and last game of the Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) (the match being played in Vienna and Berlin); Schlechter held the advantage and could have drawn the game with ease on several occasions, however, he pursued a win, ultimately blundering a Queen endgame to relinquish his match lead and allow Lasker to retain the title. Some months later, the Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910) - played in Berlin - was Lasker’s final successful defense of his title, winning with 8 wins and 3 draws.

In 1912 Lasker and Rubinstein, agreed to play a World Championship match in the fall of 1914 but the match was cancelled when World War I broke out. The war delayed all further title match negotiations until Lasker finally relinquished his title upon resigning from the Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) in Havana while trailing by four games.

Life, legacy and testimonials

Lasker’s extended absences from chess were due to his pursuit of other activities, including mathematics and philosophy. He spent the last years of the 19th century writing his doctorate. Between 1902 and 1907, he played only at Cambridge Springs, using his time in the US. It was during this period that he introduced the notion of a primary ideal, which corresponds to an irreducible variety and plays a role similar to prime powers in the prime decomposition of an integer. He proved the primary decomposition theorem for an ideal of a polynomial ring in terms of primary ideals in a paper Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale published in volume 60 of Mathematische Annalen in 1905. A commutative ring R is now called a 'Lasker ring' if every ideal of R can be represented as an intersection of a finite number of primary ideals. Lasker's results on the decomposition of ideals into primary ideals was the foundation on which Emmy Noether built an abstract theory which developed ring theory into a major mathematical topic and provided the foundations of modern algebraic geometry. Noether's Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen (1921) was of fundamental importance in the development of modern algebra, generalising Lasker's results by giving the decomposition of ideals into intersections of primary ideals in any commutative ring with ascending chain condition.****

After Lasker lost his title, he spent a considerable amount of time playing bridge and intended to retire. However, he returned to chess in the mid-thirties as he needed to raise money after the Nazis had confiscated his properties and life savings. After the tournament in Moscow in 1936, the Laskers were encouraged to stay on and Emanuel accepted an invitation to become a member of the Moscow Academy of Science to pursue his mathematical studies, with both he and his wife, Martha, taking up permanent residence in Moscow. At this time, he also renounced his German citizenship and took on Soviet citizenship. Although Stalin's purges prompted the Laskers to migrate to the USA in 1937, it is unclear whether they ever renounced their Soviet citizenship.

Lasker was friends with Albert Einstein who wrote the introduction to the posthumous biography Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master by Dr. Jacques Hannak (1952), writing: Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent.

Lasker published several chess books but as he was also a mathematician, games theorist, philosopher and even playwright, he published books in all these fields, except for the play which was performed on only one occasion. As a youth, his parents had recognised his potential and sent him to study in Berlin where he first learned to play serious chess. After he graduated from high school, he studied mathematics and philosophy at the universities in Berlin, Göttingen and Heidelberg. Lasker died in the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York in 1941, aged 72, and was buried in the Beth Olom Cemetery in Queens. He was survived by his wife and his sister, Lotta. On May 6, 2008, Dr. Lasker was among the first 40 German sportsmen to be elected into the "Hall of Fame des Deutschen Sports".


"It is not possible to learn much from him. One can only stand and wonder." - <Max Euwe> Euwe lost all three of his games against Lasker, the most lopsided result between any two world champions.

"My chess hero" - <Viktor Korchnoi>

"The greatest of the champions was, of course, Emanuel Lasker" - <Mikhail Tal>

"Lies and hypocrisy do not survive for long on the chessboard. The creative combination lies bare the presumption of a lie, while the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite." – <Emanuel Lasker>


* E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker, 1889** *** User: Karpova: Emanuel Lasker (kibitz #1449) ****

Sources: Article about Lasker by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson; Obituary from the Times of London:

Notes Lasker played on the following consultation chess teams Em. Lasker / MacDonnell, Lasker / Taubenhaus, Em. Lasker / Maroczy, Em. Lasker / I Rice, Em. Lasker / Barasz / Breyer, Lasker / Pillsbury, Lasker / Chigorin / Marshall / Teichmann, Emanuel Lasker / William Ward-Higgs, Emanuel Lasker / Heinrich Wolf, Emanuel Lasker / Hermann Keidanski & L Lasker Em / Lasek.

Wikipedia article: Emanuel Lasker

Last updated: 2017-05-31 19:52:26

 page 1 of 48; games 1-25 of 1,188  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Lasker vs Von Popiel 0-1211889Berlin gameC26 Vienna
2. J Mieses vs Lasker 0-1281889Berlin (Germany)A07 King's Indian Attack
3. A Reif vs Lasker 0-1131889Breslau Hauptturnier AA02 Bird's Opening
4. V Tietz vs Lasker 0-1401889Breslau Hauptturnier AC79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred
5. L Mabillis vs Lasker 0-1241889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupC60 Ruy Lopez
6. Lasker vs Lipke 1-0471889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupA07 King's Indian Attack
7. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker 1-0421889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupC30 King's Gambit Declined
8. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker 0-1471889Hauptturnier play-offD00 Queen's Pawn Game
9. Lasker vs J Bauer 1-0381889AmsterdamA03 Bird's Opening
10. Lasker vs A van Foreest 1-0501889AmsterdamA04 Reti Opening
11. Loman vs Lasker 0-1221889AmsterdamC79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred
12. R Leather vs Lasker 0-1561889AmsterdamA07 King's Indian Attack
13. L Van Vliet vs Lasker 1-0241889AmsterdamC41 Philidor Defense
14. Gunsberg vs Lasker 0-1351889AmsterdamC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
15. Lasker vs J Mason ½-½381889AmsterdamC46 Three Knights
16. Lasker vs Burn ½-½151889AmsterdamC01 French, Exchange
17. Von Bardeleben vs Lasker ½-½271889Lasker - Bardeleben mD50 Queen's Gambit Declined
18. Lasker vs Von Bardeleben 1-0471889Lasker - Bardeleben mB06 Robatsch
19. Von Bardeleben vs Lasker 1-0501889Lasker - Bardeleben mA07 King's Indian Attack
20. Lasker vs J Mieses 1-0371889Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A80 Dutch
21. J Mieses vs Lasker ½-½601889Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A07 King's Indian Attack
22. Lasker vs J Mieses ½-½701890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90D21 Queen's Gambit Accepted
23. J Mieses vs Lasker 0-1431890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A07 King's Indian Attack
24. Lasker vs J Mieses 1-0301890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90D02 Queen's Pawn Game
25. J Mieses vs Lasker ½-½331890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A07 King's Indian Attack
 page 1 of 48; games 1-25 of 1,188  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Lasker wins | Lasker loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 90 OF 90 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member

Dr. Emanuel Lasker, chess champion of the world, who is at present in London en route to Berlin from Buenos Aires, where he has been giving demonstrations of his skill, is making arrangements for a match for the championship, to he played in London. He says chess is as infinite as error and as limited as truth. If two perfect chess players met they could exhaust chess, but two perfect chess players probably never will be found.

It is erroneous to describe chess as mathematical game. It is a contest, just like fencing. In mathematics the brain tries to solve a problem by, reflection and observation. In chess two brains contend in order to discover a means of getting the better of each other, according to a certain set of rules. Each of the players seeks to get more power out of the pieces than the other. If two perfect chess players met, the result would be a drawn game, and it therefore follows that the man who can best apply the strategical laws will win.

The games played today are more faultless than the games of even ten years ago. Yet in spite of this elimination of error, the game has become more varied and manifold in its intricacies, and that mainly by the improvement of defence as opposed to the improvement of attack. Many "plots" have been found possible , which have formally been held to be untenable or weak. And this improvement is not confine to the masters. The average player plays a lot better. Play has become more subtle and aggressive. Brilliancies which were previously thought unsound have been discovered to be good. What was thought beautiful and subtle fifty years ago is common-place today."

<Source>: "Oxfordshire Weekly News", Wednesday 7th September 1910.

Aug-02-18  JimNorCal: "Yet in spite of this elimination of error"

Every chess player will ruefully aver that the phrase should be "reduction" not "elimination" LOL.

Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: If only.....
Aug-02-18  JimNorCal: Yeah, even "reduction" may be pushing it a bit, no? :) :)

At least for most of us ...

Sep-09-18  SirChrislov: Dr. Lasker asks, Is there a lack of initiative in chess players?

Chess players are probably not different from other people—they require leaders when new projects are to be carried through to successful completion, but it does seem, judging by the stories of chess organizations of the past, that the ingenious brains of chess players have evolved more ideas that are brought to the surface for a brief existence than are to be found in any other class of sports.

How many times have problemists tried to form associations? One meeting to elect officers, and that ends the active work. Is there a lack of initiative in chess players? Do they as a class, because they possess chess-playing talents, possess also the characteristics of idealists, dreamers and theorists, and lack the power of consistent effort? The wrecks of chess organizations that strew the beach of the ocean of time would seem to indicate that the chess-playing faculty is not accompanied by energy and continued effort that are necessary to success. The real secret probably is that the time and energies of nearly all men are required for their proper vocations in life, and few are willing to give up their strength in the support and management of projects that do not bring to them a definite financial return, and for this they are not to be censured.

Taken from a 1997 reprint, which I hold in my hands as I type, of <Lasker's Chess Magazine> Vol. I, No. 1, November, 1904.

Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver: "It is erroneous to describe chess as mathematical game. It is a contest, just like fencing. In mathematics the brain tries to solve a problem by, reflection and observation. In chess two brains contend in order to discover a means of getting the better of each other, according to a certain set of rules. Each of the players seeks to get more power out of the pieces than the other. If two perfect chess players met, the result would be a drawn game, and it therefore follows that the man who can best apply the strategical laws will win."

Nope, chess is pure math. There is not any proof that the game is drawn in the end. Supposedly, if all correct moves have been played.

In other words: thumb sucking from Lasker. I don't blame the guy, but defaitism is a very nasty cornerstone.

Juz sayin'.

Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver: To illustrate the iron logic behind chess, we should be inventive. Therefore I will start with two virtual examples:

click for larger view

No matter whose turn it is, if the Bishop is at g2 or h1, Black is lost, in any other case itsa draw.


click for larger view

If it's White's turn, then White wins, except when the Bishop is at e2 or f1. Otherwise itsa draw.


Of course, the chances of having c4/d4 or d4/e4 in this endgame are futile. Most likely one of the two pawns is eliminated at this stage of the game. Or somewhere else.

However, it shows that, no matter where the connected pawns are standing on the board, usually the opposite Bishops make sure itsa draw. Except at the c/d files or e/f files. Exceptions which, again, make little sense in practice.

I got this from a real position in a game, White to move and itsa draw:

click for larger view

Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver: "So I can't win with 2 connected pawns?" You might ask. Wrong! Because the position of the King and Bishop:

click for larger view

White to move wins, Black to move draws. It does not matter where the Black King stands. It does matter where the Bishop stands; if it's on e2 or d1, same trick, then itsa draw. If White defends f3, with Kh5-g4 then Black plays Kf7-g6. This is really the exception, though.

Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver: PS btw in the examples I meant that the connected pawns should not have crossed the line. When they have crossed the line it obviously gets much easier for White to win.

Conclusion: it's a safe bet to say that the connected pawns are most likely a/b, b/c or f/g, g/h. That a/b (g/h) won't win anyway.

Hopefully the next diagrams illustrates my conclusion, it basically boils down to these two positions:

click for larger view

White to move, mate-in-33


click for larger view


Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver: PPS in the mate-in-33 example it may be noteworthy that the position is only won for White with the Black Bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal or h3 (g2/h5 are obvious).
Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver: More chess logic:

click for larger view


Now wait!? Two Rooks stronger than a Queen? Wait and see:

click for larger view

White to move, mate-in-66, Black draws (you guessed it).

Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver: Which leads us to -the death penalty position- otherwise we would think that black lives won't matter in chess. However, the opposite might be true:

click for larger view

White draws, Black mate-in-9

Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver: Now you might think this has nothing to do with each other. Wrong!

click for larger view

White mate-in-54, Black mate-in-11

Kind of illustrates the weakness of White. J/k. Again, most unlikely the center pawns will no longer be there in the endgame, also c2/d2-53(e2/f2-59), but f2/g2(50), more likely, are winning for White. NB b2/c2 draw.

Which again, makes the f2/g2 combo preferable in the endgame; the King is most likely on the king side, not??

Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver: Now not so something completely different.. well.. maybe not:

click for larger view

click for larger view

Mate-in-30, no matter who is to move, weird but true.

Sep-09-18  WorstPlayerEver:

click for larger view

This is mate-in-31, but chess would not be chess if the max move amount for KvsKNB is not 32 moves. It is, (math) though.

Obviously it is a very peculiar position. Think of the Queen vs Rooks. It uses the same principle, but more drastic, I'd say. Can you figure it out?

Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: One way that Carlsen is like Lasker is their stoicism after losing a game. Some players, like me and Petrosian and Karpov, can get depressed after losing a game.

With Lasker and Carlsen the disappointment seems to last only a very short time, then they are off at full strength again.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: Mr Urcan made a recommendation:

I wonder if the articles have been revised. One or the other of them was already very flawed in the German edition.

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: You can find a little more about the new volume here:

In particular, the <Sample Pages> section is worth a look:

I have to say, it's a bit frustrating seeing that this is only the first volume of an intended three volume set, and yet barely a mention of the organization is made in any of the three introductions in the sample.

E.g. the Vol 1 subtitle is

<"Struggle and Victories
World Chess Champion for 27 Years">

Does this mean Vol 1 is only about his WCC years? I hardly think so (see The Editors' Preface - which seems to indicate that V1 is for 1868-1901, but makes no mention of what V2/V3 will do).

Basically this is a revamped version of the 2009 monograph, translated into English and expanded into three volumes.

Some heavy hitters are involved, with Richard Forster as lead editor.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: Hi <zanzibar>! The German edition is one book, but has another drawback: it is so big and heavy that I am unable to hold it in my hands while reading. So, I have to lay it on a desk, which is not the way I like.

<Richard Forster as lead editor> Where does this come from? (Negele is a powerhouse.)

Oct-20-18  ughaibu: <I am unable to hold it in my hands while reading. So, I have to lay it on a desk, which is not the way I like>

I guess the implication, by double entendre, is that Lasker's games are pieces of pornography.

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <Telemus> <<Richard Forster as lead editor> Where does this come from?>

From the end of the <Editors' Preface> in the sample pages link.

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <Telemus> like the <CG Memorable Quote> affair, I have to admit a level of ignorance about Negele - who wasn't really on my radar.

But looking him up, I found this recent article on kwabc, quite appropriate for inclusion on the Lasker forum:


Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: <zanzibar: From the end of the <Editors' Preface> in the sample pages link.> Thank you. I think the "overall editing" mentioned there is a technical issue. The whole preface gives a good view on Forster's and Negele's merits.

Negele is the Lasker aficionado I would say. The Lasker year 2018 of the German chess federation is also his idea, and he contributed for example with the monthly puzzles I mentioned here earlier. He is generally not so well-known to English readers, but some chess fans may remember his enthusiastic interview during a Sinquefield cup broadcast several years ago.

The preface answers in part also my initial question on those articles which I called flawed yesterday.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: Here is a lot of information on both editions of that Lasker book: from 2016.

According to that volume 2 will be about Lasker's preoccupation with other games, game theories, and philosophical considerations and volume 3 is dedicated to his re-entry into the chess world since 1934, his stay in the Soviet Union and the writing of other literature such as "The Community of the Future".

And the weight of the German edition is given: 3.5 kilogram! (See the PDF at the very end.)

Interesting are also the estimated costs of such an edition and many other things.

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: Thanks <Telemus> for the link, which is quite informative (even after Google Translating!).
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 90)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 90 OF 90 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC