I'd never dream of running an engine over Lasker's games.

You lose the point of Lasker of if you start looking for crystal clear play.

You could, if so, inclined see how a computer handled a lost position that Lasker spun around and compare them. This would give a better idea of how a human plays chess.

IMO Reti would have been closer if he said Lasker's art was not always playing the best move but the one that set the most OTB problems. The practical move.

Instead Reti said Lasker deliberately played bad moves.

See the Soltis introduction titled 'The Psych Hoax' for what he thinks about that.

Soltis adds Lasker's play was based on tactics, two and three move tricks (the tactic being used for material or positional gain.) covered by a rational and logical plan.

Tarrasch said Lasker was just Lucky, then adjusted his view saying Lasker just chopped wood to win the ending. Finally Tarrasch said it was all done with hypnosis. (again see the Soltis introduction)

Euwe said you cannot learn anything from Lasker's games just wonder at them!

Famously Fischer and Larsen both voiced opinions.

"A coffe house player" - Fischer.

"I used to admire Lasker till I studied his games." - Larsen.

These two great OTB fighters must have studied Lasker's games to draw suh conclusions.

Janowski vs Lasker, 1904 (30.f5 in my "Part V" kibitz) or Lasker vs Tarrasch, 1908 (31.Nf5!! in my "Part III" kibitz).

Reti's notion that Lasker made deliberately bad moves is bilge, but it's almost as silly, IMO, to think he took lots of trouble trying to figure out the move that would make his opponent most uncomfortable. The best way to make your opponent uncomfortable is to play well, and that's what he did! Here he didn't play 14.Nxe6 (which was hardly characteristic of him) because he was trying to confuse his opponent; he played it because he thought it was the best. And now, thanks to the computer, we know that he was right! (even if he missed the strongest followup)

Using an engine has helped me appreciate Lasker a lot more, and I recommend it to anyone studying his games.

You won't see many games more crystal clear than this one, incidentally.

Lasker vs Bogoljubov, 1923

Or this one.

"You run a computer over Lasker or anyone else's games to learn."

Not too sure about that one mate, What are you learning?

Sorry but I've always really enjoyed sitting with a book and board and I know I learnt things that way. It works.

I cannot see me sitting with a book, playing the move on the board, then entering the move into a computer to see what it thinks (and even then the only answer I'll get will be a number.)

It would be like reading your Agatha Christie and every time you come across a noun you enter that word into a thesaurus and look for a another 'better' noun.

You will destroy the plot and come up with a new story except in this case the murderer will either be +2.89 or murderer unclear.

I'll go with the original story because that is what happened, that is a human playing and calculating within the bounds of a human mind with a clock ticking. I/we play humans.

These 'absolutely stunning, beautiful moves' a computer finds as in the 31.Nf5 you linked to.

click for larger view

You should be looking at the position for yourself and discovering these moves (we used to call that studying) not going through the note, feeding it into a computer and having it drip feed you anything it finds.

What did you learn there?

Nothing, the computer showed it to you, nor is it helping you ' appreciate Lasker a lot more' because he never played it, mentioned it or saw it. The shot comes from a Soltis line.

Are you not appreciating the bod who programmed the computer instead of Lasker.

And it's not that stunning is it?

click for larger view

Use that as a POTD on a Tuesday and most of the lads will get it.

Nf5 and Black has to give up their Queen with Bf8 or get mated. You know what that lot are like, they would probably complain because it was too easy.

---

You reckon Soltis did not use a computer on his Lasker book. You probably correct (good for him) although he does say here:

M Morgan / S L Stadelman vs Lasker, 1907

"The spectators then (and computers now) like the queen sacrifice 32.Rxd3."

I cannot see me sitting with a book, playing the move on the board, then entering the move into a computer to see what it thinks >

Not suggesting you do that, Sally. Look at the position for yourself, try to figure it out, and then check it with a computer. Pretty much the same as you do with a book, except the engine is more accurate and more thorough than 99% of the books out there.

In the Lasker-Tarrasch game under discussion, I was translating Tarrasch's notes and checking them. So I would have had to use an engine anyway.

Turning to 31.Nf5, yes, given a diagram and a bright neon sign saying <STOP! -- there's a winning shot here> most kibitzers would spot it. But without the diagram and the neon, a grandmaster missed it. Regardless of its difficulty, it's still a striking and beautiful move: seemingly in the middle of a routine exchange, instead of recapturing White hangs his knight and uncovers his bishop, allowing it to be captured with check. You don't see that every day.

Similarly here:

click for larger view

I imagine ...Re1+ would be found quite easily on a Tuesday around here. Nevertheless Bobby Fischer gave it two exclamation points, just for beauty. Shredder may be more modest than Bobby, but that doesn't mean I can't boast on its behalf.

I notice that you didn't even address the amazing 30.f5 the engine found in the Janowski game, and the even more remarkable fact that the game appeared to be even after that.

Soltis may have used an engine some, but he certainly didn't use it consistently, viz. the Janowski game. The Lasker consultation game you cite provides another example: Soltis missed 29.Qb1, which the engine spotted at once. You raise the interesting possibility that the game score Soltis was using was wrong, and that Lasker, Morgan, and Stadelman didn't miss it, but whether or not that's true Soltis definitely missed it.

“Not suggesting you do that, Sally. Look at the position for yourself, try to figure it out, and then check it with a computer.”

I’ve never done that, nor did any chess player before 1980. The plain book and board turned out some brilliant chess players. It’s a proven method.

Having a computer a mouse click away takes the pressure off. Even then it will not you show any of the human tricks/traps hidden in a position.

Then you had to work at it till you were sure you were right building up your own confidence, judgement and analysis ability.

How long before the student simply stops looking for themselves and goes straight to the computer? Don’t tell me that does not happen.

Totally agree that finding a good move mid game rather than being told there is one on the board is much harder and here we not only have a pleasant case of beauty in the eye of beholder but a blatant case of sheer snobbery from me.

I can now see this move has made an impression on you and I recall all those moves that made a hit with me over the years. If you are shown a move that you know has done you some good then no one can say any different. No one.

I had no right to undermine the pleasure and learning value you have benefited from this move. My only excuse is that I am an old chess whore (I’ve seen all the tricks) and there is no such thing as a forced moved was pounded into me years ago. (by looking at and solving such positions.)

And I’m not being sarky, I’m pretty sure you know what an intermezzo is and have seen one before but I do know some clever moves or games do inspire oneself.

A 'stunning' computer move to me was 34...Re8

Duchess vs Kaissa, 1977

It knocked everyone, including those present off their chairs. The day Frankenstein stirred.

Where was I....?

click for larger view

During a game I’d be surprised if a seasoned player would miss 31.Nf5. All you need do is deflect the e6 Bishop and it’s a simple mate. You are hot during a game (well you should be) and with a Queen so close to the opposing King you are always looking for the killer shot. Soltis missed it in his notes, but we must give him credit for pointing the box in that direction.

You can possibly see why Soltis wants to take on d3 because in his notes he suggests White has Nf5 or Ng4 after Rxd3.

click for larger view

Are we getting a wee glimpse into the thinking mind of Soltis who is looking at the above position on his board and using his DTP sees 31.Ng4 Bf8 only move, and White wins the Queen.

click for larger view

No wait! Black has Nf4 winning White’s Queen, so first he take on d3 then adds ‘with threats Nf5 or Ng5.’. It's possible.

“Soltis missed 29.Qb1, which the engine spotted at once.”

You have to cut the writer some slack here, there is no note. Above we a have culprit because he suggests a move when there is a proven better move to play. Here he gives you what was played and nothing more.

It’s an old writers dodge, if you cannot figure out what’s happening leave it out before you write yourself and the reader into a hole. (I do it all the time!)

He might have felt because it is unclear and not a 100% proof refutation it is best left out. Claiming he missed it is not quite correct, we don’t know that. He could have ignored it.

“I notice that you didn't even address the amazing 30.f5 the engine found in the Janowski game.”

Let me have a life, one game at time. But I will draw your attention to the final trap set by Janowski. 35.cxd6

click for larger view

White (Janowski) played 35.cxd6.

A computer would not play that. Yet it is a good human try in a lost position based on a human relaxing in a totally won position. 35...Qc2 threatens mate on g2. 36.Re8+ and it is White who mates.

You see in games and notes of good writers ideas like this all the time.

“It's malpractice for an annotator nowadays not to use an engine (not blindly accepting whatever it says, mind you, but using it). It would be like a doctor refusing to use an MRI..”

In part I agree, however moves like Nf5 are correcting a piece of analysis, nothing more. It will not be telling you anything practical, just cold bland unimaginative accuracy and then the doctor using the MRI is in danger of killing the patient by removing all non computer analysis and suggestions because apparently it's not what people want from a modern annotator.

Is the Soltis book (published in 2005) so bad because he apparently never ran a computer over all his notes. Read the introduction, he is attempting to solve the Lasker mystery. Then the 2nd last chapter. 'He [Lasker] violated general principles when he felt confident in doing so. He played "practical" moves. (the "" are from Soltis.)

You will not get "practical" moves from a computer especially and when you writing about Lasker

I'd take the likes of Tartakower and Tarrasch over 'an annotator nowadays.' The current lot write with one eye on the computer and t'other on their spell-checker.

Tartakower and Tarrasch looked at the board and you got it how they saw it. You can smell the wood.

“...except the engine is more accurate and more thorough than 99% of the books out there.”

Pre 1980 the figure is 100%. I’m not slinging my pre-80 books in the trashcan and we have all seen what they do to a classic chess book when they decide to update it by chipping in with their lifeless comments backed up with computer analysis.

I had no right to undermine the pleasure and learning value you have benefited from this move. My only excuse is that I am an old chess whore (I’ve seen all the tricks) and there is no such thing as a forced moved was pounded into me years ago. (by looking at and solving such positions.)>

I appreciate that! You add a lot to this site with your enthusiasm and hard work. Here I wouldn't be surprised if you were entirely right about what Soltis was thinking and how he missed 31.Nf5.

<Having a computer a mouse click away takes the pressure off.>

Well, that's just to say that a computer can be misused, like any other tool. Indeed, it's precisely because it is such a powerful tool that it can be misused so readily. A student can turn the computer off and make himself work with just the board and pieces for a time, then turn the computer on to check his work.

<Even then it will not you show any of the human tricks/traps hidden in a position.>

Sometimes it will if you work with it. For example, in the Janowski game, if I will playing over it without an engine, I might not spot the lovely Re8+ possibility. But if I said to myself, "hmm, why doesn't Black just play ...Qc2?" the computer would tell me instantly. I have a much better chance of spotting hidden tactical resources -- the raw material of traps and practical chances -- with an engine's help than on my own. (I do think that Lasker was much more of a "correct" player and somewhat less of a "practical" one than his reputation would suggest. But that's a whole 'nother topic, too large to enter into here.)

As I said at the outset, I strongly recommend Soltis' book; I did a collection of all the games here because I liked it so much. I just think it could have been better.

Turning to the old authors, I love them and have spent a lot of time with them. (If you haven't run across him yourself, based on the Carlsbad 1907 book I recommend Georg Marco). There's nothing I've enjoyed more in chess than translating Tarrasch's book on the 1908 match. He has an unmatched skill for telling you what's going on in a position with words instead of moves.

But (you knew that was coming) there is an accuracy issue. Compared, not just to an engine, but to contemporaries like Lasker and Tartakower, he sometimes misses things. And sometimes the dogmatist and competitor gets the better of the analyst. For example here Lasker vs Tarrasch, 1908 he believes Lasker's position in the opening is worse than it really is, just because he doesn't like how Lasker is playing (the dogmatist) and also because he is trying to win in analysis what he lost over the board (the competitor). I really enjoyed his match book, but I enjoyed it even more with the engine pointing out things he missed or miss-analyzed.

Agree that computers can be being misused, though my stance is they ARE being misused and grass roots players are turning to them to answer everything and they are not giving you what need to see, the human moves, the tricks and traps that are the bread and butter of every player.

While it's still fresh in my mind I'll use.

Motylev vs A Giri, 2015

When White played 37.Rd3

click for larger view

hoping to lure Giri into nicking his b-pawn with Bxb4?

If you fed this position two moves back into a computer you would never get glimpse of this instructive moment in human v human play.

I ended that post with: 'I've seen them work." and I have at all levels.

Wang Hao vs C Balogh, 2007

click for larger view

White's last move was 36.Kb1-a2. Balogh took the e-pawn and resigned.

I just want modern students to know that it has been proved for over 150 years you do not need a computer to improve. There is so much fun (yes fun, not hard work) studying with a Book and Board and it will enhance your understanding and love of the game.

DVD's/YTube.

Andrew Martin I follow anyone else I give a very rare look at but find myself moving on because the guys display is awful, his voice is boring, the game looks boring, I have to keep stopping because the lad has missed a basic trap (too cheap to be mentioned.)

Andrew Martin is good and I love the way he say's 'Car...sells' when saying castles.

That was my first one and it gives an idea of what I think off DVD's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlb...

Yes today writers have to use a box because it's expected of them...or is it?

If you saw

10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. Bg5 Qxd1 12. Rfxd1 c6 13. Rd3 h6 14. Be3 Be6 15. b3 Ng4 16. Bc5 Rfe8 17. h3 Nf6 18. Rad1 Bf8 19. Be3 Nh5 20. Na4 b6 21. c5 b5 22. Nb2 Rac8 23. b4 f5 24. exf5 gxf5 25. Ra3 Rc7 26. Bf3 Nf6 27. Ra6 e4 28. Bf4 Rcc8 29. Be2 Nd5 30. Bh5 Red8 +1.10

In a book would you play it out?

Does anybody play them out?

I contest you could paste illegal moves in the middle of that lot, nobody would notice because nobody would look because they assume it's correct...it must a computer did it.

"a threat pre-engine analysts never had to face."

Oh but they did, the rule was if it's long it's wrong and you scoured the notes hoping to become immortal by being the first to find a lemon in the notes.

"(I do think that Lasker was much more of a "correct" player and somewhat less of a "practical" one than his reputation would suggest. But that's a whole 'nother topic, too large to enter into here.)"

Agree there is a lot of hype about him playing psychological chess.

But I've seen in Lasker v Tarrasch 1908 by Schroeder, Chess Digest 1972.

Lasker says if he sees the correct move to play is easily answered by another correct move then (in order to win) I must look for a 2nd best move to play and presenting my opponent with unexpected problems.

He will play the practical move, not the always the best move, adding, '....chess is not a laboratory and the practical chances of him making a mistake are very great.

<There are good annotators today. In video, kingscrusher, Jan Gustafson, and Danny King all do good work>

Flattery opens doors! Let me know if you want an honoury life membership of Chessworld.net - I know you are busy elsewhere but perhaps we can just play the odd correspondence game where you just totally thrash me because I am playing thousands of other games and you have skills. I think I was the one who mentioned using this site (chessgames.com) a few years back on the ECF forum and you have totally been amazing on this site - a blessing.

At times I must admit, I find your anti-engine comments a personal wind-up as I love checking games with engines. But I think you maybe in particular referring to engine analysts who don't question much to get additional insights.

I find Lasker to be super-accurate - even in blindfold simuls there are some games with like 7 average centipawn loss. Frighteningly accurate and "playing the position" a lot of the time. In fact, I think he is the first "modern player" who is very accurate from an engine perspective. Kramnik raved about Lasker here:

https://www.chess.com/blog/kamalaka...

Kramnik – "In my view, Lasker was a pioneer of modern chess."

When I analyse with engines I am trying to improve in particular my understanding of "downsides". I am asking questions - and using the engine to get answers, and reveal insights. It is a process of Question, Answer, Question Answer - "Socratic method" - until the game kind of clarifies more and more.

<Sally Simpson> <There are good annotators today. In video, kingscrusher, Jan Gustafson, and Danny King all do good work>

<Flattery opens doors! et me know if you want an honoury life membership of Chessworld.net - I know you are busy elsewhere but perhaps we can just play the odd correspondence game where you just totally thrash me because I am playing thousands of other games and you have skills.>

I wrote all that stuff 6 years ago.

'I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.' (thanks Bob)

<I find your anti-engine comments a personal wind-up as I love checking games with engines.>

Nothing personal K.C. you are one of the good guys who can decipher computer analysis and explain it. (...though see below - <'And hand on my heart.'>) Danny King yes, Andrew Martin as well...never seen a Jan Gustafson vid.

I'm in general thinking about less experienced players who have been swamped with advice and adverts telling them they must have and must start using a computer

Then when confronted with a plus evo number they have no idea why. A computer will never tell them nor will it point out plausible human blunders and traps humans resort to when they back is against the wall.

A good book (Reinfeld and Chernev are still perfectly readable) explains things better and gets your eye roving over the board for that important 3d vision. Book, Board and Bedroom and then OTB experience (and human coaching) was good enough for all the great players before 2000. It is a proven method.

I've never underestimated the computer as a very useful tool, but only in the hands of an experienced player/coach. These days they are mainly being used to cheat, especially at online play. Just under 17,000 were banned by chess.com last August for cheating. Words like 'Doctor' and 'Frankenstein' come to mind.

Believe this a very important point. Think using a computer for "analysis" without the proper foundation is going to be mainly detrimental to the hope of improvement for most players. The key foundation being understanding chess principles.

Without an understanding of chess principles, the computer's output has very limited usefulness. Basically, just a number that shows good or bad for white position. Even for GM's, a computer's output generally generates nothing more than a "Wow, that's interesting" or "Boy, that's clever" reaction. But for them, that's enough. Since they understand, or try to understand, the idea behind the usually tactical theme and what it can ultimately mean. Lesser players will usually benefit very little.

Interestingly, this game appears a masterclass in chess principles by Lasker. Seems that every move, or mostly every move, from 12. e5 on has some key principle or principle based idea behind it.

It's also the chess heritage and history, games like this that I find are being ignored. You get the impression that some think everything before computers is not worth looking at.

Not on here thank heaven, which is one of the great things about this site as it address's statements like;

" I had no idea player were this good in the 19th century."

Which was posted on another Lasker game; Burn vs Lasker, 1895

Chess has a rich legacy and these older games help you understand chess better, not only that but some are wonderful and inspiring to play over and correctly noted up, very instructive.

<Sally Simpson> Ahh yes - agree. Also btw one of my favourite books happens to be Chernev's "Most instructive games of chess every played" - I do find a lot of the strategic themes were beyond the depth horizon of some of the early engines such as the concept of connected passed pawns and other stuff. So it was also kind of principles that could in a way "out-calculate" the engines of the 80's and 90's.