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

Emanuel Lasker
Lasker 
 
Number of games in database: 1,150
Years covered: 1889 to 1940

Overall record: +381 -84 =176 (73.2%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 509 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (183) 
    C68 C62 C66 C67 C64
 French Defense (82) 
    C11 C12 C01 C13 C14
 French (57) 
    C11 C12 C13 C10 C00
 King's Gambit Accepted (52) 
    C39 C33 C38 C37 C35
 Sicilian (48) 
    B45 B34 B40 B32 B44
 King's Gambit Declined (35) 
    C30 C31 C32
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (107) 
    C65 C66 C67 C77 C80
 Orthodox Defense (50) 
    D53 D63 D52 D50 D60
 Giuoco Piano (31) 
    C50 C53 C54
 Queen's Pawn Game (30) 
    D05 D00 D02 D04 A46
 Sicilian (29) 
    B34 B73 B33 B32 B45
 Four Knights (21) 
    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
   Marshall vs Lasker, 1907 0-1
   Lasker vs W Napier, 1904 1-0
   Euwe vs Lasker, 1934 0-1
   Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894 1-0
   Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910 1-0
   Steinitz vs Lasker, 1896 0-1
   Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908 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 - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)
   Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910)
   Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)

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

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Match Lasker! by amadeus
   -ER by fredthebear
   The Lion King by chocobonbon
   Why Lasker Matters (Soltis) by Qindarka
   Why Lasker Matters by Andrew Soltis by keypusher
   lasker best games by brager
   Selected Lasker by LaBourdonnaisdeux
   Lasker JNCC by chestofgold
   the informal Lasker by ughaibu
   All Hail Emanuel by iron maiden
   Treasure's Ark by Gottschalk
   World Champion - Lasker (I.Linder/V.Linder) by Qindarka
   World Champions A-Z part 2 Lasker by kevin86
   Lasker vs the World Champions Decisive Games by visayanbraindoctor

GAMES ANNOTATED BY LASKER: [what is this?]
   Rubinstein vs Lasker, 1909
   Rubinstein vs Salwe, 1908
   Spielmann vs Rubinstein, 1909
   Tartakower vs Schlechter, 1909
   A Fritz vs J Mason, 1883
   >> 81 GAMES ANNOTATED BY LASKER


Search Sacrifice Explorer for Emanuel Lasker
Search Google for Emanuel Lasker


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." http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-gr... By Sonas' reckoning, Lasker was the No. 1 player in the world for a total of 24.3 years between 1890 and 1926.

Background

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.

Tournaments

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.

Matches

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** http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... *** User: Karpova: Emanuel Lasker (kibitz #1449) ****http://www.gap-system.org/~history/...

Sources: Article about Lasker by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson http://www.gap-system.org/~history/...; Obituary from the Times of London: http://www.gap-system.org/~history/...

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
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

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

 page 1 of 46; games 1-25 of 1,150  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Lasker vs Von Popiel 0-1211889Berlin gameC26 Vienna
2. J Mieses vs Lasker 0-1281889Berlin (Germany)C25 Vienna
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' GroupC26 Vienna
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 ½-½381889AmsterdamC47 Four Knights
16. Lasker vs Burn ½-½151889AmsterdamC01 French, Exchange
17. Von Bardeleben vs Lasker ½-½271889Lasker - Bardeleben mD53 Queen's Gambit Declined
18. Lasker vs Von Bardeleben 1-0471889Lasker - Bardeleben mB06 Robatsch
19. Von Bardeleben vs Lasker 1-0501889Lasker - Bardeleben mC26 Vienna
20. Lasker vs J Mieses 1-0371889Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A84 Dutch
21. J Mieses vs Lasker ½-½601889Lasker - Mieses 1889/90C25 Vienna
22. Lasker vs J Mieses ½-½701890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90D21 Queen's Gambit Accepted
23. J Mieses vs Lasker 0-1431890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90C25 Vienna
24. J Mieses vs Lasker ½-½331890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90C25 Vienna
25. Lasker vs J Mieses 1-0301890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90D11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
 page 1 of 46; games 1-25 of 1,150  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 86 OF 86 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-25-17  KnightVBishop: <john barleycorn>

Albert Einstein

Jun-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: It's his magazine, but still, putting up these kind of numbers, he's entitle to crow a little:

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...

.

Jun-27-17  KnightVBishop: Although to be fair...we have to be careful when talking about Einstein

Einstein stole the science of General Relativity from the Ancient Egyptians

its important to keep that in context, and hopefully Lasker knew that

Jun-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: < KnightVBishop: Although to be fair...we have to be careful when talking about Einstein Einstein stole the science of General Relativity from the Ancient Egyptians

its important to keep that in context, and hopefully Lasker knew that>

If you must troll

(i) stick to Carlsen
(ii) try not to be this blatant

Jun-27-17  KnightVBishop: Keypusher, how am i trolling?
Jun-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <KnightVBishop: Keypusher, how am i trolling?>

Terribly. Incompetently. You're a disgrace to the term, really. Study how <tuttifrutty> does it.

Jun-27-17  nok: Hilbert and Grossmann were Egyptians? That's a new one.
Jun-27-17  KnightVBishop: The Egyptians created the Pyramids

what's to say they didn't have a understanding of general relativity before Einstein?

Jun-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <nok> Let's not forget Gauss and Monge (the latter I'd never heard of before consulting the following wiki-link):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffe...

But let's face it, the math may have been there long before, but it took Einstein to put the physics into it for the first time.

.

Jun-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <Hilbert fully credited Einstein as the originator of the theory, and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose between the two men during their lives.>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David...

.

Jun-28-17  colinb8: <john barleycorn> We know that Lasker was a good (I'm not claiming world-class) mathematician - part of the biography above seems to an almost verbatim copy of some of the text from this mathematics (not chess) website: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/... ... Although Lasker played little chess over this period [1902-1907], he did some remarkable mathematics. In 1905 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. ... Finally let us comment that 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. Emmy 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.

The managing editors of Mathematische Annalen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathe... have included Felix Klein and David Hilbert, so I think it's safe to assume that it's a fairly important mathematics journal. Also the book "Commutative Algebra - Chapters 1-7" by N. Bourbaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol... includes in the bibliography: 19. E. LASKER, Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale, Math. Ann., 60, (1905), pp. 20-116

We also know that Einstein met Lasker and that they were friends - again see the biography above and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanu... Lasker clearly had mathematical competence in (commutative) algebra, but I think the mathematics required to discuss General Relativity with Einstein would be rather different, so I'd say that for me it's an open question as to whether or not Lasker was - or would have been - out of his depth there.

Jun-28-17  nok: <Let's not forget Gauss and Monge> I'm not talking geometry in general but its application to gravity. Grossmann and Hilbert were doing physics.

<Hilbert fully credited Einstein as the originator of the theory> Understandable, as Einstein had been working on it for 8 years when Hilbert got interested. It was solved 6 months thereafter.

Jun-28-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <nok> well, Grossmann was a very close collaborator with Einstein, a life-long friend I think.

He was essential for steering Einstein to the correct math for GR. But I always have considered him as mostly on the math side, and not so much the physics.

Perhaps I should go back and re-examine.

Hilbert was a mathematician who switched over to do mathematical physics - and definitely qualifies in both departments. My understanding is that he took up the task after Einstein pointed the way - there's a goodly amount written about this of course.

But Einstein is universally credited with formulating the task, and rethinking how physics would work in such a radically new framework.

There's an entire wiki article on the topic on Einstein and Hilbert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relat...

<Kip Thorne concludes, in remarks based on Hilbert's 1924 paper, that Hilbert regarded the General Theory of relativity as Einstein's:

<"Quite naturally, and in accord with Hilbert's view of things, the resulting law of warpage was quickly given the name the Einstein field equation rather than being named after Hilbert. Hilbert had carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded those steps...".

However, Kip Thorne also stated, "Remarkably, Einstein was not the first to discover the correct form of the law of warpage [. . . .] Recognition for the first discovery must go to Hilbert.">

Arguments have been made that Hilbert claimed priority for the field equations themselves; the sources cited for this are:

[see wiki page]

So far, there seems to be no consensus that these statements form a clear claim by Hilbert to have published the field equations first.

Albrecht Fölsing in his Einstein biography:

In November, when Einstein was totally absorbed in his theory of gravitation, he essentially only corresponded with Hilbert, sending Hilbert his publications and, on November 18, thanking him for a draft of his article. Einstein must have received that article immediately before writing this letter. Could Einstein, casting his eye over Hilbert's paper, have discovered the term which was still lacking in his own equations, and thus 'nostrified' Hilbert?

In the very next sentence, after asking the rhetorical question, Folsing answers it with "This is not really probable...", and then goes on to explain in detail why

"[Einstein's] eventual derivation of the equations was a logical development of his earlier arguments—in which, despite all the mathematics, physical principles invariably predominated. His approach was thus quite different from Hilbert's, and Einstein's achievements can, therefore, surely be regarded as authentic."

<<>>>

I don't think most graduate courses in GR teach much on Hilbert's role - but I might be mistaken.

Jun-28-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <<nok> writes..

<Let's not forget Gauss and Monge> I'm not talking geometry in general but its application to gravity. Grossmann and Hilbert were doing physics.>

The same wiki article opens with this:

<Albert Einstein presented the theories of special relativity and general relativity in groundbreaking publications that either contained no formal references to previous literature, or referred only to a small number of his predecessors for fundamental results on which he based his theories, most notably to the work of Hendrik Lorentz for special relativity, and to the work of Carl F. Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, and Ernst Mach for general relativity.>

So Einstein cited Gauss (and Riemann of course).

Maybe that's why I cited it too.

.

Jun-29-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: As to the subjects which Einstein and Lasker discussed together, well, here's Einstein himself broaching the topic:

<I met Emanuel Lasker at the house of my old friend, Alexander Moszkowski, and came to know him well in the course of many walks in which we exchanged opinions about the most varied questions. It was a somewhat one-sided exchange, in which I received more that I gave. For it was usually more natural for this eminently productive man to shape his own thoughts than to busy himself with those of another.

... (some mention of discussions about philosophy, etc.)

Finally, I should like to add a word of explanation as to why I never attempted, either in writing or in conversation, to deal with Lasker's criticism of the theory of relativity. Since even in this biography, with the emphasis on the man and the chess player rather than the scientist, a slight reproach seems noticeable in the passage mentioning that essay, I had better say a word about it.>

Preface to Emanual Lasker - Dr. J. Hannak (tr Heinrich Fraenkel), Dover ed.

So, they didn't talk about SR (which, apparently, Lasker didn't wholly endorse), it's very unlikely they talked much about GR.

Jun-30-17  nok: <I don't think most graduate courses in GR teach much on Hilbert's role - but I might be mistaken.> With few exceptions, mathematicians and physicists have little interest in the history of their discipline, and when they do it's plagued by cult of personality. The reflexive habit of (mis)naming laws and theorems from one person is revealing. Truth is, science is much more collective than transpires after the fact, and relativity theories are a case in point.
Jun-30-17  ughaibu: <With few exceptions, mathematicians and physicists have little interest in the history of their discipline>

Let's suppose that the number of exceptions is zero. . .

Let's suppose that the number of exceptions can be listed by a positive integer. . .

Theorem: there is an infinite number of mathematicians and physicists who do not have little interest in their discipline.

Proof left as an exercise for the reader.

Jun-30-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <nok> <With few exceptions, mathematicians and physicists have little interest in the history of their discipline, and when they do it's plagued by cult of personality.>

Yes, agreed in general.

But doing history is hard, and what good does muddying up the water do before one even gets in waist-deep?

Just out of curiosity - do you have any recommended titles for the history of mathematics? Or of physics?

(I'm always on the look-out for a good read)

Jul-01-17  KnightVBishop: Yeah Special Relativity is much more disputed, you can argue that Poincare almost had it

but General Relativity is Einstein's baby, the theory that he build up, its true that Hilbert put some mathematical touches on it, but the physical understanding comes from Einstein

Jul-01-17  nok: <Just out of curiosity - do you have any recommended titles for the history of mathematics? Or of physics?>

A people's history of science by Cliff Conner.

One can also look up underrated figures like Biruni or Buridan.

Jul-01-17  KnightVBishop: Biruni is interesting

it always fascinated me how the Islamic World was once the center of math and science in the world for centuries

and then somehow in the 1500s-1600s with the rise of Galileo, Kepler, and of course Newton, suddenly Europe became the dominant center for science

it somehow completely shifted from the Islamic world to Europe and I don't know why that happened

Jul-05-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: Hey, Manny. I just read your book <Struggle>.

Nu?

Aug-11-17  KnightVBishop: so why did lasker get bad ad 1921
Sep-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: Here are three Lasker games from a simul given in Baltimore on May 30th 1901: Lasker vs J R Diggs, 1901, Lasker vs E B Adams, 1901, Lasker vs A W Schofield, 1901

None are in Whyld's collection; they've been in the DB since 2014. What's the source(s)? I found a <Baltimore Sun> article confirming that it was a 25-board event, and that all three players took part.

Sep-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Magpye: All three of those games are from Chess Notes #7664.

You can find them also in Baltimore American, June 9, 1901 and June 16, 1901.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 86)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 86 OF 86 ·  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 Chessgames.com, 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 | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC