|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-20-10
 | | keypusher: <sarah wayne: Fischer realized what a <<<coward>>> and a fraud Lasker was by excluding him from his list of 10 best all time players.> Fischer excluded himself too. The conclusion is obvious. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | Petrosianic: And he included Staunton. Again, the conclusion is obvious. Fischer had started going dotty as early as 1964. What was his reason again? That Staunton was playing fianchettos at a time when nobody else was? That's nice, but not really a reason to put someone in the Top 10. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | TheFocus: <sarah wayne>< Fischer realized what a coward and a fraud Lasker was by excluding him from his list of 10 best all time players.>
Actually, he recognized Lasker's greatness and left him off because he was Jewish. And, Tschigorin also never tried to get a match with Lasker, so no ducking there. You should just accept that Lasker was just that much stronger than his opponents, even according to them. The only ones that could compete against him would have been Rubinstein, whose anti-socializing personality never got him financial backing, and, as I pointed out, Pillsbury who never tried to get a match with Lasker. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | TheFocus: You really have to take much of Fischer's Top Ten list with a huge grain of salt. It was obviously the most naive thing he ever wrote. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | sarah wayne: l Those who could have beaten Lasker are Pillsbury,Rubinstein and Schechter.He didn't play any of them. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | Petrosianic: <...and Schechter [sic].He didn't play any of them.> LOL.
Even assuming that you haven't heard of the Lasker-Schlechter match, you should at least have heard of Lasker-Tarrasch. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | TheFocus: <sarah wayne>< l Those who could have beaten Lasker are Pillsbury,Rubinstein and Schechter.He didn't play any of them> Well, LOL, Schlechter DREW his match with Lasker +1=8-1 in 1910. You never heard of this match?? Certainly Pillsbury, who was VERY popular in the US and in England, could have gotten financial backing against Lasker if he had wanted a match with him. Hmmm. I wonder if Pillsbury was ducking Lasker? And, again, no one was willing to back Rubinstein for a match, due to his anti-social behavior. You had to curry the favor of those with money in those days. |
|
Apr-20-10
 | | Benzol: <sarah wayne> <Lasker beat Steinitz in the rematch
in 1897 then didn't defend his title again until 1907.He didn't play Pillsbury or Rubenstein nor did he give Schlecter a rematch,then avoided Capablanca for ten years.Not counting draws he beat Marshall 8-0,Tarrasch 8-3,Janowski 7-1 and later (rematch)8-0,Tarrasch again 5-0.Clearly he avoided anyone he thought could beat him.> <sarah wayne> I find your post difficult to agree with.
Lasker was quick to grant Steinitz a rematch. Marshall and Tarrasch were both World class players and Janowski on his day could be dangerous to anybody. Pillsbury, Rubinstein and Schlechter were all younger than Lasker. Life scores :
Lasker - Schlechter +5, =12, -2
Lasker - Rubinstein +2, =4, -1
Lasker - Pillsbury +5, =4, -5
The match with Capablanca was delayed but the First World War had a lot to do with this. While he was World Champion Lasker won many of the first class tournaments he competed in and performed very well in a number of them after he lost the title. He was a very strong practical player and certainly wasn't a coward or a fraud. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | sarah wayne: He never played Schletcher again.In Pillsbury's chess Career page 6 it says "we do not think this has impaired Pillbury's chance for a match with Lasker"talking about the result of his match with Showalter,another player Lasker was terrified of. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | TheFocus: <sarah> <talking about the result of his match with Showalter,another player Lasker was terrified of.> Again laughable. You do know that Lasker trounced Showalter in a match +6=1-2 and had a life-time score against him of +11=2-2. Yeah, Lasker was shaking in his shoes. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | TheFocus: <sarah> Let's look at Lasker's record: Lasker played 26 tournaments with 17 first places, 3 second places, and 3 third places, one fifth, one sixth, and one seventh place. The 5th, 6th and 7th places occurred in his last four tournaments. In only one tournament did Lasker ever finish with a minus score. In match play, Lasker won 37, drew 6, and lost 2 of 45 matches. He also played in one team event.
Pretty impressive!!!
So, with stats like that, you could see that he was afraid of all his opponents. |
|
Apr-20-10
| | Benzol: Although there was never a rematch with Schlechter both he and Rubinstein had the chance to take a crack at Lasker in the 1918 double round Berlin tournament. Rubinstein drew both games and Schlechter lost one and drew one. As for Showalter it seems difficult to believe that Lasker was terrified of him. Life scores :
Lasker - Showalter +13, =3, -2. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | sarah wayne: Lasker was a very good player with many accomplisments even into old age.It's too bad he was a coward.A Pillsbury match ,for example, could have been one of the greatest of all time |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | TheFocus: <sarah wayne> You are like a five year old child who can't get her way. On what do you base him being a coward? Who do you really think he ducked? So far, you have shown several mistakes regarding his record. |
|
Apr-20-10
| | Benzol: <sarah wayne> How does the fact that Pillsbury who was a very sick man and died in 1906 make Lasker a coward? <keypusher>, <The Focus>, <Petrosianic> and I have all pointed out various facts regarding Lasker's opponents and his results against them. Is there something about these facts you have difficulty in accepting? |
|
Apr-20-10
| | keypusher: Showalter did surprisingly well in a couple of matches against Pillsbury... But at this point I have to assume <sarah wayne> is just teasing. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | sarah wayne: Pillbury won Hastings 1895,died 1906
that's an 11 year window.Do you think it's a coincidense that Laster didn't defend his title until Pillsbury's death?Lasker avoided Harry just like he avoided Akiba and Jose.He's a fraud because he didn't play the only real competition.If you are WC and can chose your opponents you can maintain that title to death. |
|
Apr-20-10
| | keypusher: <Pillsbury won Hastings 1895,died 1906
that's an 11 year window.Do you think it's a coincidense that Laster didn't defend his title until Pillsbury's death?> The #1 challenger in those years was (of course) Tarrasch, not Pillsbury. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | TheFocus: <sarah> So, because Lasker did not go to Pillsbury and say, please, please, play a match with me, he is accused of ducking and being a coward? Well, Harry never went and asked Lasker for a match. What part of that do you not understand? Well, let's see:
Maroczy - withdrew from match negotiations.
Tschigorin - never sought a match.
Pillsbury - never sought a match.
Rubinstein - negotiations broke down over financing.
Showalter - never sought a WC match.
Capablanca - tried for a match and then did not agree to the conditions Lasker laid out. Eventually, after the War, which stpped most of world chess, Lasker resigned his title to Capablanca, and then played him a match. When Capablanca became champion, he began to set conditions the same as Lasker did, although probably more restrictive. Marshall - got a match. Not a worthy contendor.
Tarrasch - refused Lasker's first offer of a match and then did not try to arrange a match until much later. <sarah> Face it, you are wrong about Lasker. |
|
Apr-20-10
 | | chancho: Lasker did not duck Rubinstein.
He agreed to play a match with him after long negotiations.
It was scheduled for the autumn of 1914, but before the $2,500 had been raised, Rubinstein's performance in the St Petersburg tournament hurt his chances at a match and then of course WWI totally shut the door on the title shot... |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | sarah wayne: Fischer didn't leave out Lasker because he was Jewish since he had Reshvesky on that list.He said Lasker was a coffee house player.Eventually
the chess community stripped Lasker of his title because,obviously,he'd been avoiding any real fight for decades. |
|
Apr-21-10
| | keypusher: <sarah wayne: ...Eventually the chess community stripped Lasker of his title because,obviously,he'd been avoiding any real fight for decades.> Even a good joke can be ruined by repetition, and your joke wasn't that good to begin with. |
|
| Apr-21-10 | | TheFocus: <keypusher>< <sarah wayne> ...Eventually the chess community stripped Lasker of his title because,obviously,he'd been avoiding any real fight for decades.> <Even a good joke can be ruined by repetition, and your joke wasn't that good to begin with.> I second that. Can't waste time on her anymore. |
|
| Apr-21-10 | | Petrosianic: Yeah, trolling doesn't work if there's no pretense of the troller believing what they're saying. Even Avro38 was better than this. She's in my killfile now. |
|
| Apr-21-10 | | sarah wayne: Just another case of if you can't disbute the facts you resort to calling names.Under normal conditions Lasker loses his title 19th century. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
icon.