chessgames.com

Lasker 
 
Emanuel Lasker
Number of games in database: 1,092
Years covered: 1889 to 1940
Overall record: +360 -89 =180 (71.5%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
      463 exhibition games, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (174) 
    C68 C62 C66 C67 C64
 French Defense (78) 
    C11 C12 C13 C01 C14
 French (55) 
    C11 C12 C13 C00 C10
 King's Gambit Accepted (48) 
    C39 C33 C38 C37 C35
 Sicilian (48) 
    B45 B34 B40 B32 B58
 King's Gambit Declined (30) 
    C30 C31 C32
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (106) 
    C65 C66 C67 C79 C77
 Orthodox Defense (51) 
    D53 D63 D52 D50 D60
 Queen's Pawn Game (31) 
    D05 D02 D00 D04 A46
 Giuoco Piano (31) 
    C50 C53 C54
 Sicilian (28) 
    B34 B73 B45 B32 B33
 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
   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
   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?]
   St. Petersburg 1895-96 (1895)
   Hastings (1895)
   Nuremberg (1896)
   London (1899)
   Paris (1900)
   Cambridge Springs (1904)
   Lasker-Janowski (1909)
   St Petersburg (1909)
   St Petersburg (1914)
   New York (1924)
   Moscow (1925)
   Zurich (1934)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Match Lasker! by amadeus
   The Lion King by chocobonbon
   lasker best games by brager
   Why Lasker Matters by Andrew Soltis by keypusher
   Selected Lasker by LaBourdonnaisdeux
   the informal Lasker by ughaibu
   All Hail Emanuel by iron maiden
   World Champions A-Z part 2 Lasker by kevin86
   Lasker vs the World Champions Decisive Games by visayanbraindoctor
   Lasker by vidra
   fav Lasker & Steinitz games by guoduke
   Match Steinitz! by amadeus
   4-Ruy Lopez by classicalwin2
   Emanuel Lasker's Best Games by KingG

GAMES ANNOTATED BY LASKER: [what is this?]
   Rubinstein vs Lasker, 1909
   Rubinstein vs Salwe, 1908
   Spielmann vs Rubinstein, 1909
   Tartakower vs Schlechter, 1909
   Rubinstein vs Mieses, 1909
   >> 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) 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.

Background

He was born 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.

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 2 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 typhus), 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 was still in the top rank of players, winning at Moravská Ostrava in 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 into front line 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, he was 3rd, undefeated, 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 N 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), 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 Dion 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 Vasquez (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 peremptorily 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 frosty relations due to Tarrasch’s peremptory dismissal 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 counted Albert Einstein amongst his friends. He 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 one occasion. As a youth, his parents had recognised his potential and sent him to study in Berlin where he also 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 ****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, W Lasker Em / Ward Higgins, Emanuel Lasker / Heinrich Wolf, H Lasker Em / Keidanski & L Lasker Em / Lasek.

Wikipedia article: Emanuel Lasker
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...


 page 1 of 44; games 1-25 of 1,092  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Mieses vs Lasker 0-128 1889 Berlin (Germany)C25 Vienna
2. Von Bardeleben vs Lasker 1-050 1889 BerlinC26 Vienna
3. A Reif vs Lasker  0-113 1889 Breslau HauptturnierA02 Bird's Opening
4. Lasker vs Von Popiel 0-121 1889 Berlin gameC26 Vienna
5. L Mabillis vs Lasker  0-124 1889 Breslau HauptturnierC60 Ruy Lopez
6. Lasker vs Von Bardeleben 1-047 1889 Berlin m 8990B06 Robatsch
7. Lasker vs Burn ½-½15 1889 AmsterdamC01 French, Exchange
8. Mieses vs Lasker ½-½60 1889 MatchC25 Vienna
9. R Leather vs Lasker 0-156 1889 AmsterdamA07 King's Indian Attack
10. Von Bardeleben vs Lasker  ½-½27 1889 Berlin m 8990D53 Queen's Gambit Declined
11. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker 0-147 1889 Hauptturnier play offD00 Queen's Pawn Game
12. Gunsberg vs Lasker 0-135 1889 AmsterdamC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
13. Lasker vs Lipke 1-047 1889 Breslau (Poland)C26 Vienna
14. Lasker vs J Mason ½-½38 1889 AmsterdamC47 Four Knights
15. V Tietz vs Lasker 0-140 1889 German Chess Congress, Hauptturnier AC79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred
16. L Van Vliet vs Lasker 1-024 1889 AmsterdamC41 Philidor Defense
17. Lasker vs Mieses 1-037 1889 MatchA84 Dutch
18. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker  1-042 1889 Breslau HauptturnierC30 King's Gambit Declined
19. Lasker vs A Van Foreest 1-050 1889 AmsterdamA04 Reti Opening
20. Loman vs Lasker 0-122 1889 AmsterdamC79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred
21. Lasker vs J Bauer 1-038 1889 AmsterdamA03 Bird's Opening
22. Lasker vs Bird 1-043 1890 Lasker - BirdA40 Queen's Pawn Game
23. Bird vs Lasker 0-122 1890 Lasker - BirdA03 Bird's Opening
24. Lasker vs Mieses 1-039 1890 MatchD21 Queen's Gambit Accepted
25. Lasker vs Bird 1-038 1890 Lasker - BirdA81 Dutch
 page 1 of 44; games 1-25 of 1,092  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 53 OF 70 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Sep-18-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Eggman: Recently on the Harry Nelson Pillsbury page Pillsbury's status as a title contender was being discussed, with some suggesting that Pillsbury, despite his even score against Lasker over the course of 14 games, could not have posed a serious challenge to the champion.>

Who suggested this, incidentally? I don't see it on the Pillsbury page.

Sep-20-11  Lambda: <Eggman> Plenty of reason. The appearance of "dominant" champions such as Lasker is such a rare event, that you can't expect them to appear evenly over two periods of history, even as long as 50-odd years. Lasker was a very dominant champion, from 1890 to 1925 he won the vast majority of events which he entered. Most world champions of the FIDE era have nothing like this record, they were "first amongst equals" champions. The only world champions of the FIDE era with a meaningful period of dominance were Karpov and Kasparov, and they had to play each other! When they managed to avoid this, title defences by them were very comfortable in the cases of Korchnoi-81, Short, Timman, Anand and Kamsky. Korchnoi-78 was close, and Kramnik actually was a reversal. (Short beat Karpov in 1992 of course, but candidates matches are of course both shorter and more frequent, so there's far more opportunity for the occasional unexpected result.)

So out of those seven matches, there was only one defeat and one more tight result. Furthermore, it took quite a few factors to allow that one defeat to happen; Kramnik has a surprisingly good head-to-head record against Kasparov when compared with results against mutual opponents, indicating his style is perfectly suited to combating Kasparov, Kasparov was actually somewhat weaker in matches than tournaments, Kasparov was very much distracted during the match, and it was also a bit short.

(Plus Korchnoi in 1978 needed to be at the absolute peak of his powers just to get close, a level of play probably stronger than some world champions ever reached.)

So I think if Lasker had had to defend his title regularly against the strongest opposition, he would have had a reasonable chance of coming through it unscathed, (at least until about 1914, when Capablanca reached about the same strength, and we'd hope to see a titanic struggle between the two as in Karpov-Kasparov, if we additionally remove WWI), it would have taken an unusual set of circumstances to see him beaten before then. Which might have happened, sooner or later, given enough chances, or it might not have done.

Sep-20-11  Petrosianic: <Kasparov was actually somewhat weaker in matches than tournaments,>

Either that, or the competition was stronger.

Sep-20-11  Lambda: <Petrosianic> That's averaging performance ratings, which take the strength of opposition into account.
Sep-22-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Albertan: "The combination player thinks forward; he starts from the given position, and tries the forceful moves in his mind." - Emanuel Lasker

"By positional play a master tries to prove and exploit true values, whereas by combinations he seeks to refute false values ... A combination produces an unexpected re-assessment of values." - Emanuel Lasker

"The range of circumstances in which it is possible to presuppose the presence of a combination is very limited. The presence of such circumstances is the reason for the genesis of the idea in the master's brain. " - Emanuel Lasker

Oct-01-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Cemoblanca: In one of his last articles Lasker had this to say: "About my style very much has been written, comprehensible and incomprehensible, deep and superficial, praise and criticism and after being silent on this question for a long time, I wish to speak about it myself." He then went on, in the Soviet yearbook of chess for 1932-35, to say his talent "lies in the sphere of combinations"(!). Considering how rarely he combined, this must be one of his final jokes upon the chess world. ;0)
Oct-01-11  bronkenstein: <...to say his talent "lies in the sphere of combinations"> He was well known as a strong tactician (besides legendary endgame technique and infamous ´psychology´) , which good defender (and he was the best of his time, comparable to Karpov , Petrosian , Korchnoi ... in fact I would rather compare them to lasker than the opposite ) naturally has to be .

But Lasker wasn´t aiming for brilliancy , he was very pragmatical and economical , so his games contain much less direct tactics than the games of , lessay , Marshall or Yanovsky whom you would certainly call tacticians , and whom Lasker was outcalculating on regular basis .

Oct-17-11  bronkenstein: A funny , in fact comical pen-portrait from the big London 1899 Tournament :

<It would, I think, be difficult to imagine two men more completely dissimilar than Lasker and Janowsky. Nothing disturbs Lasker; his shirt, his clothes are the least of his worries. He is hungry; he goes to the sideboard and returns with a bread roll, which he eats with gusto while continuing his game. His legs are in his way; he puts them over one of the arms of his chair and continues to play, smoking strong cigars; when he reflects deeply he blows the smoke through his moustache with a characteristic grimace.>

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

Oct-24-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: Quote of the Day

< It is no easy matter to reply correctly to Lasker's bad moves. <>>

-- William Henry Kraus Pollock

Oct-24-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: I am not sure I understand the proposition that Lasker has no well-defined style. If one goes through his games with Schlecter in their 1910 WC match, they both play like super GMs with a universal style. Lasker is strong in positional maneuvering, tactical melees, opening theory (for the openings of his era), and in the endgame. Just like all modern super GMs.

His ability to consistency play all kinds of positions at super GM level (very few errors) in a sense makes Lasker the first consistent super GM in history, and in that sense he is the granddaddy of all super GMs.

Almost all super GMs incline toward certain preferred positions, but in general they play all positions well. IMO Lasker's specialty seems to be getting his opponents into positions that they either did not like or tended to overestimate, thus pushing them to commit errors. In the parlance of many of today's kibitzers, Lasker was an expert in presenting problems for his opponents. If you can't solve them, down you go. I agree with the hypothesis that Lasker tended to play the man more than the board (in contrast to say Capablanca who was out to find the best objective moves in nearly all of his positions, but not necessarily moves that presented the most problems for his opponents).

Of today's top 5 GMs, I find Aronian to have a style most similar to Lasker's. Korchnoi is another famous player with a similar style.

Dec-04-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: < Quote of the Day

< The losing side has the greater part of his army in positions where they had no bearing whatever upon the questions at issue. They might have been just as well anywhere else but on the board. >>

-- Em. Lasker

Dec-04-11  Penguincw: Well, looks like the Aron Nimzowitsch streak comes to an end.
Dec-04-11  bronkenstein: <I find Aronian to have a style most similar to Lasker's> Interesting thought , it never entered my mind . Naka would be my second (modern) pick on that Laskerian list , at least pre-Kaspy .
Dec-07-11  IoftheHungarianTiger: Regarding the Lasker-Pillsbury discussion, I've always felt Pillsbury would have had good chances in a match, because he did do strongly against Lasker in individual match-ups. But I don't think Pillsbury ever really deserved the title of World Champion, and I think it no real loss he never played for it.

Of their 7 joint tournaments, Lasker won 5, Pillsbury only won 1. Lasker finished ahead of Pillsbury in 6 of the 7, and in Pillsbury's only tournament victory, defeated him in their individual game. Pillsbury never defeated Lasker in both a tournament and their game(s) in that same tournament, whereas Lasker did to Pillsbury on 2 occassions (London 1899 and Paris 1900). Also, if you look at the timeline of the games, Pillsbury never in his career held even a temporary positive score against Lasker.

Jeff Sonas (of chessmetrics) worked out a system whereby players' ratings were calculated afresh each year, and awarded a "Gold Medal", "Silver Medal" and "Bronze Medal" for each year's top performers, based on that year alone. Overall, Lasker won 12 Gold medals. Pillsbury won none. In the years when he outperformed Lasker, it was still Tarrasch, Janowski, Schlechter, or Charousek who took top honors.

Pillsbury's legacy, frankly, is a tournament won and a good (albeit not positive) record against Lasker. Compare that Lasker's major tournament victories (St. Petersburg 1895-6, Nuremberg 1896, London 1899, Paris 1900, St. Petersburg 1914, etc.), or his chessmetrics stats of 12.6 consecutive years at #1, his 24.3 years cumulative at #1, 12 "GoldMedal", and won matches against Steinitz and Tarrasch (albeit neither in their prime, though I don't beleive that is Lasker's fault), and Janowski, Schlechter, and Marshall ... I don't think Pillsbury has the right to be considered in Lasker's league, except that he happened to "have his number" and did well in their 14 individual tournament games.

Dec-12-11  Penguincw: Quote of the Day

< "The delight in gambits is a sign of chess youth... In very much the same way as the young man, on reaching his manhood years, lays aside the Indian stories and stories of adventure, and turns to the psychological novel." >

Dec-12-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <bronkenstein: <I find Aronian to have a style most similar to Lasker's> Interesting thought , it never entered my mind . Naka would be my second (modern) pick on that Laskerian list , at least pre-Kaspy .>

Naka seems to have a similar style to Aronian (and Lasker). They both play the man, not the board, and seem to choose moves and plans that they think best trouble their opponents.

I would love to see an Aronian vs Naka match in the future.

Dec-12-11  bronkenstein: I see Aronian as more positionally subtle , while Naka has better nerves and fighting spirit.

And I would like to see more matches of ANY kind between anyone and anyone else , in these sad and lonely Elo DRR times =)

Dec-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: Mark Izrailovich Dvoretsky 's comment at the end of <Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual>, concluding his analysis of Lasker vs Ed Lasker, 1924:

<What inspires me the most is Lasker's fantastic defense in the endgame. After his opponent's missed win (72...Rh8? rather than 72...Rd7+!), the former world champion spent 30 moves holding on to a most difficult position. Many hours of analysis, aided by computers, has established that in this endgame, Lasker made only one subtle mistake (75.e4?, instead of 75.Kc3!), in contrast to the annotators (among them, two world champions) who, working at their leisure, and able to move the pieces on the board, erred repeatedly. Meanwhile, Lasker's best years were already long past (55 years old is a more than respectable age for serious work at the chessboard). He was also exhausted and undoubtedly disappointed by the unfortunate turn this game had taken for him. But his iron will and superb chess mastery overcame all obstacles. I doubt that any modern grandmaster would be capable of such exploits!>

The world champions to whom Dvoretsky refers are Alekhine in his celebrated book on the tournament and Kasparov in <My Great Predecessors>. Dvoretsky writes of Kasparov's commentary:

<we examine all of his suggestions most attentively, and find that almost none of them stand up to scrutiny!>

As I have said before, Lasker was a frigging god.

Dec-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  brankat: That he was! Or, at least, according to his own words: "The King of Chess." :-)
Dec-13-11  King Death: Lasker was a genius for all time. I don't care what these players said about him, even though they were two more of the best ever. Would anybody like to take a guess if these champions could have done better at the board?
Dec-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  brankat: I'd like to see any of them face Dr.Lasker OTB.

Which reminds me of a comment made by old master G.Marco, something like:

"..it is fascinating to observe such great master as Maroczy, Rubinstein, Pillsbury how they look as if hypnotized when playing against Lasker..". :-)

Dec-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: Interesting that only Maroczy's results against Lasker suggest that he was hypnotized.
Dec-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: No less than two world champions, Alekhine and Euwe, played as though hypnotized against Lasker.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Alekhine's lone victory occurred in 1934, when Lasker was already past his prime at age 66.

Going through the above games is worth it. It shows that Lasker seemed to be adjusting his play to bait his opponents into errors. Noteworthy are some of his moves against Euwe that apparently consist of just shuffling his pieces around, something which he did not do against Alekhine. The long ending against the young AAA seemed designed to take advantage of his opponent's impatience.

In spite of many people comparing Tal's style to Lasker's, I think Tal's style was significantly different, more like Alekhine's and Kasparov's.

These 3 played sharp openings and complicated the early middlegame in order to get into positions where they could play for the initiative, and if possible KO their opponents with a quick attack. Alekhine and especially Kasparov also specialized in preparing sharp opening novelties in order to obtain these positions.

None of Alekhine, Tal, and Kasparov liked to go into difficult and messy positions where they were on the defensive or that involved tortuous maneuverings. Lasker, and his spiritual descendants (Korchnoi and today possibly Aronian and Nakamura among the top masters), had no problem in willingly going into such defensive or tortuously maneuvering middlegames, as long as it made things more difficult for their opponents.

Lasker also seemed to comprehend that the real value of pieces lies not in the dogmatic Q=9, R=5, B=3, N=3, P=1 rule but in their activity or potential for activity. A classic case is Ilyin-Zhenevsky vs Lasker, 1925 . When Capablanca lured Alekhine into winning two rooks for a knight and two bishops in their famous Nottingham game, it is said that only the aged Lasker recognized that Capa's sac was sound; while all the other top masters were evaluating it as advantageous to Alekhine.

This is why Lasker was able to do positional sacs so well. This often befuddled his contemporaries, but he was showing them (and even present-day masters) what a super GM truly is.

Dec-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  brankat: <FSR> <..as Maroczy, Rubinstein, Pillsbury..>

Actually, I made a mistake here. It should read:".. Maroczy, Rubinstein, and Marshall.." Not H.N.Pillsbury. Sorry.

Dec-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: I think Lasker - and even more so Steinitz - would have loved Black's defense in this game: Kasparov vs Petrosian, 1981.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 70)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 53 OF 70 ·  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 users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something which 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 | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2013, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies