<brankat> - my good friend... "Masters of the Chessboard" is a <MUST> read! Hopefully, that's all I'll ever have to say and only to add that <You> are positively in for a royal TREAT! :^) 'nuff said... All the Best, Your buddy, - Mal

Of course it is not easy now for me to respond here, without going through R.Reti's volume first, so just a few general remarks.

<keypusher> <His basic theme is that it is ideas (..as opposed to, say, skill), that brings success in chess, so every great confrontation in chess history is presented as a struggle between chess ideologies..>

Apparently Reti's intention was to try to understand, and present, the historical development (7-8 prior decades) of chess strategy as an evolution of ideas based on inherent (at the time "discovered") principles of the game. All that as represented by games of the pertinent masters of the era.

The same approach has been used countless times in studying development/evolution of about every other human pursuit.

It is understood that in matches and tournaments players of comparable skills and knowledge will be paired/matched. Often a current from will decide, or preparation etc.

But at every historical crossroads of the game there was more that ultimately sealed the outcomes: The evolution of idea(s). Chesswise and otherwise.

Dr.Lasker wrote convincingly (and eloquently) about the dialectics of the evolution of Chess using matches Anderssen-Morphy and Steinitz-Zukertort as examples.

Steinitz actually conceived most of his principles while marveling at Anderssen's loss to Morphy! Zukertort was never able to understand and explain his failures against Steinitz.

How much more skilled was Steinitz? Or Morphy? Or later Dr.Lasker when facing Steinitz or Tarrasch?

It was not the level of skill/talent that prevailed. The new, and often revolutionary ideas did.

Every concept will eventually outlive its usefulness. It is no different in case of Chess.

Anderssen's "romanticism" could not survive Morphy's iron logic.

Zukertort old Italian plan could not damage Steinitz's solid positional build-up.

Steinitz's caprices and Tarrasch's dogmatism could not resist Lasker's pragmatism.

The same evolutionary dialectics was evident later, too. In 1921, 1927, 1948, 1960, 1972 etc. At every milestone in the development of the game.

It is possible that Reti purposefully "over-emphasized" the concept, just to make the point of explaining the overall logic of the growth of Chess.

<Lasker's success is described as the result of superior psychology rather than superior play -- Reti going so far as to say that Lasker made bad moves on purpose,..>

There were a number of Dr.Lasker's contemporaries who stated more or less the same.

My guess is that they were fascinated with Lasker's ability to win a lot of games against equally skilled and knowledgeable opponents by often choosing "dubious"/"of-beat" ideas. Which reflects Lasker's view/idea of the game. That of a "gigantic struggle of two wills".

Again, it is understood that he (like others) possessed all the necessary skills and available knowledge. So, an additional element was needed.

Of course, Dr.Lasker's "bad moves" were not really bad :-) Capablanca wrote about it.

<How much more skilled was Steinitz? Or Morphy? Or later Dr.Lasker when facing Steinitz or Tarrasch?

It was not the level of skill/talent that prevailed. The new, and often revolutionary ideas did.>

I haven't studied Steinitz-Zukertort closely, but I think Z's wonderful games at the London 1883 tournament were at least as modern as Steinitz's. Judge for yourself. Lasker's matches with Steinitz and Tarrasch I have studied closely, particularly the latter. It was skill, not ideas, that made the difference. Specifically, Lasker was a stronger and more accurate calculator than either Steinitz or Tarrasch, and unlike either of them he almost never blundered. I also think he was psychologically much tougher than Tarrasch. I think superior calculating ability was also Morphy's main advantage over Anderssen, though he had others, especially his extraordinary knowledge of "book."

I suspect <nimh>'s rybka project reveals more about why great masters were successful than anything they ever wrote, or that anyone else wrote about them.

<There were a number of Dr.Lasker's contemporaries who stated more or less the same.>

I don't think they went nearly as far as Reti. If they did, then they are wrong too. Hoffer, writing about the Tarrasch match, noted Lasker's "scrupulously correct play." That is much closer to the mark.

<Ziggurat: <keypusher> Really? Sure, it's a bit ideological, but so are "My System" and "New Ideas in Chess". Don't you like those either? Personally, I am very fond on "New Ideas in Chess". "Masters of the Chessboard" also contains a lot of interesting stuff, I think.>

Now You are talking just like Reti himself :-)

<...rybka project reveals more about why great masters were successful than anything they ever wrote, or that anyone else wrote about them.>

This I don't believe will ever be the case!

And just for a moment back to the "ideas/plans/principles vs(?) skills (technical tools)".

Of course, to be strong and successful one must have both. Then they go hand in hand.

I think that many writers/theorists, Reti amongst them, were trying to understand which aspect seemed to be a foundation, and anchor. Where does one start?

It is very similar to a 3 thousand years of debate in Philosophy: which comes first (and is a foundation), an idea or matter. I don't believe the "issue" will ever be resolved. Neither is it necessary.

Reti opted for ideas themselves, and assigned the know-how to apply them (=skills) the supporting role.

Apparently this stems from the conviction that it is much easier to learn and improve the necessary technical skills, than to acquire a vast body of knowledge (ideas), and more importantly Understand them. Preferably, contribute one's own, too.

"No great player blundered oftener than I had done. I was champion of the world for twenty-eight years because I was twenty years ahead of my time.

I played on certain principles, which neither Zukertort nor anyone else of his time understood. The players of today, such as Lasker, Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Schlechter and others have adopted my principles, and, as is only natural, they have improved upon what I began, and that is the whole secret of the matter."

– Wilhelm Steinitz

Zukertort relied on combinations, and in that field he was a discoverer, a creative genius. For all that, he was unable to make use of his faculty, the positions yielding no response to his passionate search for combinations. Zukertort, the great discoverer, searched in vain, while Steinitz was able to foresee them.

Zukertort could not understand how Steinitz was able to prevent combinations. He tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he never approached its solution by even one step."

– Emanuel Lasker

But I accept that sort of beauty only if and when it happens to be useful.

He admires an idea for its depth, I admire it for its efficacy. My opponent believes in beauty, I believe in strength. I think that by being strong, a move is beautiful too."

– Emanuel Lasker

"Steinitz always looked for the objectively right move. Tarrasch always claimed to have found the objectively right move.

Lasker did nothing of the kind. He never bothered about what might or might not be the objectively right move; all he cared for was to find whatever move was likely to be most embarrassing for the specific person sitting on the other side of the board."

– Jacques Hannak

"Although he had a great grasp and appreciation of Steinitz' theories, Lasker always played the man as well as the board."

– Dave Regis

"Lasker won so many games from bad positions that he was accused by at least one opponent of witchcraft, by another of hypnotism and by many more as being grossly over-endowed with good luck.

In fact, he often deliberately courted difficult positions because he understood the mental stress that can be built up in the mind of an attacker when he meets with a resolute defense. By building up an opponent's hopes and then placing a trail of difficulties in his path, Lasker would induce feelings of doubt, confusion and finally panic."

Bill Hartston

"I keep on fighting as long as my opponent can make a mistake."

– Emanuel Lasker

"Lasker understood better than anyone that the true nature of the struggle in chess was not an objective search for the truth, but a psychological battle against both oneself and the opponent, in conditions of extreme uncertainty."

– Max Euwe

"In life, as in chess, Lasker was a fighter."

– Fred Reinfeld

"It is remarkable, and deserves special mention that the great masters, such as Pillsbury, Maroczy and Janowsky play against Lasker as though hypnotized."

– Georg Marco

"Often his opponents (and annotators too) would still be wondering long afterwards where the game had actually been lost. Advantages seemed to disappear mysteriously when facing Lasker!"

– Richard Forster

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

– William Pollock

"On a motif such as was indicated by Reti, one cannot build the plan of a whole well contested game; it is too meager, too thin, too puny for such an end.

Reti's explanations, wherever they are concerned with an analysis which covers a few moves, are correct and praiseworthy. But when he abandons the foundations of analysis in order to draw too bold, too general a conclusion, his arguments prove to be mistaken."

Well, see for yourself. Is Zukertort employing the "old Italian plan" in these games?

Zukertort vs J Noa, 1883

Zukertort vs S Rosenthal, 1883

Zukertort vs Englisch, 1883

Bird vs Zukertort, 1883

If anything, he has a bias towards attacking on the queenside, then working his way back to the enemy king once he has obtained an clear superiority. Even in his famous brilliancy against Blackburne, he begins his kingside attack only after he's gained the advantage in the center and Blackburne has committed almost his entire army to the queenside.

Zukertort vs Blackburne, 1883

If I were trying to show someone what a "solid positional buildup" looks like, I could hardly do better than show him Zukertort's games at London. And what sort of self-respecting Italianate romatic begins his games with 1. Nf3 anyway?

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

– William Pollock >

I thought Reti said that.

<Reti's explanations, wherever they are concerned with an analysis which covers a few moves, are correct and praiseworthy. But when he abandons the foundations of analysis in order to draw too bold, too general a conclusion, his arguments prove to be mistaken."

– Emanuel Lasker >

Exactly! Viz., <Masters of the Chessboard>

<<keypusher> <I also think he (Lasker) was psychologically much tougher than Tarrasch...>

Now You are talking just like Reti himself :-) >

Well, it would be crazy to say psychology plays no role in chess. But what I meant by that particular remark was very simple: Tarrasch sometimes seemed to give up in bad positions, while Lasker never did. Striking examples of Tarrasch "giving up" are, I think, games 2 and 11 of the 1908 match. This is what I wrote about game 2:

<Also, although Tarrasch did make some second-rate moves in time pressure, as we have seen he was by no means lost after the control was reached. Perhaps because he was convinced his position was hopeless, he did not make use of the defensive chances he still had between moves 30-40.

The Lasker quote that <chancho> posted ascribes Tarrasch's defeat to dogmatism, but I think Tarrasch's strong sense of narrative (and, more prosaically, his bad nerves) is to blame. In his mind, White seized a winning advantage early, but, oppressed by the memory of his defeat in the first game, chose a weak line and then, harassed by the clock and his own doubts, threw the game away. That was the "story of the game." In fact, his position was not as good at move 15, or as bad at move 30, as he thought, and things stayed murky for a very long time. A chess game is the product of two minds and wills, not one, and so it rarely tells a clear story. (That's what problems are for.) Lasker always understood this much better than Tarrasch.>

So let me try to generalize and take it to the extreme.

Perhaps the choice of Zukertort was not a good one. But there are more than just many other ones. In fact all of them deserve exactly the same consideration. In principle.

In each and every game ever played since the dawn of Chess one thing has not changed. Chess has been a game/contest of two sets of ideas, plans, thoughts, wills, desires. Without these there is no game.

These opposing ideas, thoughts, plans, need to be somehow expressed in a practical OTB situation. Hence the need for an appropriate skill of implementation: Technique. Just that, a technical necessity, a tool.

Assuming (again) that the knowledge and skill level is comparable, then the contest will be, more often than not, a fair one.

While it is true that a given game, a match, a tournament, will, at times, be decided mainly due to a superior skill application (for various reasons: blunders, pressure, nerves, zeitnot...), even then, it is still the ideas and thoughts that guide players and games. It is still these opposing ideas and plans that are fighting it out.

And it is still superior ideas and better thought-out plans that are the foundation of a favourable outcome of a contest.

It is still they that are the essence of the game. Its soul. Its very life.

Without it the game would be an empty shell, worth nothing.

To settle the "dispute" I have a proposal. Since You're not particularly fond of Reti's writings, and I love it already, without even ever reading the book, why don't You simply just get rid of it by mailing it to me :-) That way we'll both be happy. Besides, didn't You just buy a bunch of books in Vegas? Must be running out of book-self space by now :-)

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... >

Thank You <brankat> ! :)

A pure pleasure to read! ;) Now I wished, even more than ever, that I had asked my dear old chess friend the late IM Imre Koenig more about his early days in Vienna... With the likes of Dr. Tartakower, Nimzowitsch and Réti! They spent many untold hours late at night in the grand Café's in Vienna. Much thanks to his brother Rudolph for writing it! :^) All the Best, - Mal

<It is a profound mistake to imagine that the art of combination depends only on natural talent, and that it cannot be learned.>

-- Reti