|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 43 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Sep-28-09 |
| TylerD: Greatest players ever (and I base this list on actual achievments - not on personal taste or could/would/should...): 1. Kasparov.
2. Lasker.
3. Aljechin.
4. Steinitz.
5. Karpov.
6. Anderssen.
7. Capablanca.
8. Fischer. |
 |
| Sep-28-09 |
| KamikazeAttack: Strike out Fischer and replace with Petrosian for starters. Fischer can never be rated highter than a succesful multiple defending chess champion. |
|
Oct-07-09
 |
| TheFocus: Lasker was a great champion. In 26 tournaments, he placed 1st in 17, 2nd in 3, 3rd in 3, once 5th, once 6th, and once 7th. In only one tournament did Lasker finish with a minus score. In 45 matches, he won 37, drew 6, and lost only twice, to Capablanca in 1921, and to Marshall in an exhibition match in 1940. He played in only one team event.
Final score: +359=174-67.
Not bad for someone that would take a few years off every now and then. |
|
Nov-30-09
|
| TheFocus: For the Lasker fans: A mammoth book of exceptional quality has just been published: Emanuel Lasker Denker Weltenbürger Schachweltmeister edited by Richard Forster, Stefan Hansen and Michael Negele (Berlin, 2009). It is a beautifully-produced hardback – 1,079 large pages (German text) with hundreds of photographs, many previously unseen. The two dozen contributors of the chapters on various aspects of Lasker’s life and careers include John Donaldson, John Hilbert, Robert Hübner and Victor Korchnoi. The book, simply unmissable, can be acquired direct from the publisher, Exzelsior Verlag. The website is www.zeitschriftschach.de. The cost is 114 Euros. |
|
Nov-30-09
 |
| Bjornemann: Thanks for the tip Focus |
|
Dec-17-09
 |
| whiteshark: Quote of the Day
" A game played by men of equal strength, if played accurately, will end in a draw, and it is apt to be dull. " -- Em. Lasker |
|
| Dec-17-09 |
| FHBradley: I can understand why a game that is played by men of equal strength, if played accurately, will end in a draw, but how does it follow that such a game is apt to be dull? |
|
Dec-24-09
 |
| talisman: Happy Birthday E man U ELLLLLLL!
Merry Christmas Everyone! |
|
Dec-25-09
|
| whiteshark: "If Steinitz continually took pains to discover combinations, the success or failure of his diligent search could not be explained by him as due to chance. Hence, he concluded that some characteristic, a quality of the given position, must exist that would indicate the success or the failure of the search before it was actually undertaken." -- Emanuel Lasker
quoted today at http://www.gmchess.com/ |
|
| Dec-26-09 |
| GrahamClayton: Has anyone seen or read Lasker's 1907 book "Struggle"? The core of the book is the concept of "macheeides", who are ideal beings with no freedom in their conduct of a "machee" (struggle). To quote Bill Hartston "It was close to being unreadable, appeared to have no practical implications, and was enthusiastically ignored by everyone". |
|
| Dec-27-09 |
| theagenbiteofinwit: <GrahamClayton>
I don't think you're being fair to Lasker in this instance. Lasker writes that Macheeides have no freedom in their conduct because they always make the best moves. His argument is that a bad player has a wide variety of poor actions or moves to choose from, but macheeides are bound to only making the best move or action, meaning they never have a choice. <Bill Hartston> is correct about it not having a practical application. Lasker explicitly states that macheeides only exist conceptually. The concept is a thought experiment, and might I add a logically sound one.
"Struggle" was an influence on von Neumann, who himself developed the concept of Game Theory. I am very surprised at Hartston's attitude toward the work. I would expect someone who studied mathematics at Cambridge not to be so dismissive. |
|
| Dec-27-09 |
| Ultra: Is this the same Graham Clayton who wrote the "Besst" article for AutoPuzzles? |
|
| Dec-27-09 |
| GrahamClayton: Ultra,
Is this the same Graham Clayton who wrote the "Besst" article for AutoPuzzles?Ultra,
Yes, the one and the same! |
|
| Dec-27-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: <FHBradley: I can understand why a game that is played by men of equal strength, if played accurately, will end in a draw, but how does it follow that such a game is apt to be dull? > Lasker is referring to dynamic possibilities, interesting ones, left unplayed, as opposed to the well known paths which lead to draws. |
|
| Dec-28-09 |
| FHBradley: <"Struggle" was an influence on von Neumann, who himself developed the concept of Game Theory.> Has this been documented, and if so, where? I've the German booklet in my bookshelf; the English version, prepared by Lasker, is available online. |
|
Dec-28-09
|
| TheFocus: I think you can find the link to "Struggle" a few pages back here. Or maybe it is in the Steinitz page. I downloaded it. |
|
| Dec-28-09 |
| theagenbiteofinwit: <Has this been documented, and if so, where?> http://www.cesmep.unito.it/WP/2007/... |
|
| Dec-29-09 |
| FHBradley: <theagenbiteofinwit:> Thanks for the reference! |
|
Jan-09-10
|
| whiteshark: Quote of the Day
<I keep on fighting as long as my opponent can make a mistake.> -- Em. Lasker |
|
| Jan-09-10 |
| nanobrain: Quote of the Next Day:
Each life is a game of chess that went to hell on the seventh move, and now the flukey play is cramped and slow, a dream of constraint and cross-purpose, with each move forced, all pieces pinned and skewered and zugzwanged..." --Martin Amis, "Money". |
|
Jan-15-10
|
| TheFocus: Speed Match with Emanuel Lasker 6.5 – 3.5. Of this match, Lasker had the following to say: “The Cuban master came to Berlin for a week. I was about to travel to Mannheim to the Congress of Chess Union (Society), where the question of the formation of an international chess association was to be discussed, and this question also interested Capablanca. Thus we agreed to a meeting. It happened that we confirmed that our views were in essential agreement on the main points. Meanwhile our meeting in the Café Kerkau had attracted attention and a chess friend used the opportunity to set a prize for ten quick games between us. A stipulation was that no move could require no more than five seconds for reflection. In spite of this rapid tempo we played quite passable games, Capablanca’s play being notable even at this rapid speed, for freedom from errors, while I erred more often. The results were 6 .5 to 3 .5. In one of the games Capablanca won very beautifully. The idea, which Capablanca seized on in this instance, was afterwards composed a little by both of us, and thus the above ending arose.” (I have not inputted the problem composed by them) |
|
Jan-15-10
 |
| keypusher: Thanks, <theFocus>! I copied that to the Capablanca page, since there was a big argument about the time limits in that match a while back there. |
|
Jan-15-10
|
| TheFocus: I saw that. I had forgotten that I had this in my from Lasker and Capablanca files. Five seconds a move for these two giants is very impressive. |
|
| Jan-15-10 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <Petrosianic: Which is a shame, because despite the draws, it's a really good match, full of long, hard-fought games. The average length is over 50 moves per game, so they didn't draw through lack of trying to win. They were just very evenly matched.> <Bridgeburner> has done the analysis of the first 8 games of the Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) Below is the summary: Game 1 Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910: is weighted at <0> (no blunders or bad moves by either Schlechter or Lasker). Game 2 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910: is weighted at <0>, representing 0 bad move and 0 blunders by Lasker, and 0 bad moves and 0 blunders by Schlechter. Game 3 Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910: is weighted at <0>, representing no errors, blunders, or dubious moves by either Schlechter or Lasker. Game 4 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910: weighting is <5.0>, (no bad moves and 1 blunder by Lasker and 1 bad move and 1 blunder by Schlechter; no dubious moves by either player. Game 5 Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910: is weighted at <6.5> representing <<1 blunder (2.0) plus 1 dubious move (0.5)>> by Schlechter plus <<2 blunders (2 x 2.0 = 4.0)>> by Lasker. Game 6 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910: is weighted at <1.0> representing <<1 dubious move>> (0.5) by Schlechter plus <<1 dubious move>> (0.5) by Lasker. Game 7 Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910: is weighted at <1>, representing 1 bad move and 0 blunders by Lasker, and 0 bad moves and 0 blunders by Schlechter. Game 8 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910: the error weighting for this game is <0>. In comparisons, here is a summary of the analysis of four games from the Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008) Game 1 Kramnik vs Anand, 2008: is weighted <0> at representing 0 blunders, 0 bad moves, and 0 dubious moves by both Anand or Kramnik. Game 2 Anand vs Kramnik, 2008: is weighted at <3.0>, representing 0 blunders, 1 bad move, and 1 dubious move by Anand, and 0 blunders, 1 bad move and 1 dubious move by Kramnik. Game 3 Kramnik vs Anand, 2008: weighting is <6.5>, representing <<1 blunder>> by Anand and <<2 blunders>> and <<1 dubious move>> by Kramnik. Game 5 Kramnik vs Anand, 2008: is weighted at <2.5> representing a <<1 dubious move>> (0.5) plus <<1 blunder>> (2.0) by Kramnik>. Anand made no blunders, or bad or dubious moves as defined in the project method. Details are in Bridgeburner chessforum The study is not yet complete, although the trend shows that for the first 8 games, Lasker (and Schlechter) were playing as well as Anand and Kramnik, in the 'judgment' of Shredder (who we can assume has the capacity to squash Lasker, Schlechter, Anand, and Kramnik, as well as GMs Larsen and Nunn who may have had such poor opinions of the play of the first two). |
|
Jan-23-10
|
| whiteshark: 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." -- Em. Lasker |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 43 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
|
