chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Emanuel Lasker
Lasker 
 

Number of games in database: 1,537
Years covered: 1887 to 1940
Overall record: +384 -83 =176 (73.4%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 894 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (230) 
    C68 C62 C66 C67 C78
 French Defense (114) 
    C11 C12 C13 C01 C14
 King's Gambit Accepted (80) 
    C39 C33 C38 C37 C35
 French (79) 
    C11 C12 C13 C10 C00
 Sicilian (59) 
    B45 B32 B30 B40 B20
 King's Gambit Declined (58) 
    C30 C31 C32
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (129) 
    C65 C67 C66 C77 C68
 Orthodox Defense (51) 
    D50 D63 D52 D60 D67
 Giuoco Piano (42) 
    C50 C53 C54
 Queen's Pawn Game (32) 
    D00 D05 D02 A46 D04
 Sicilian (32) 
    B32 B73 B45 B30 B83
 Queen's Gambit Declined (21) 
    D37 D35 D30 D38 D06
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
   Reti vs Lasker, 1924 0-1
   Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910 1-0
   M Porges vs Lasker, 1896 0-1
   Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908 0-1

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: [what is this?]
   Steinitz - Lasker World Championship Match (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?]
   Nuremberg (1896)
   St. Petersburg Quadrangular 1895/96 (1895)
   Impromptu International Congress, New York (1893)
   Lasker - Bird (1890)
   Paris (1900)
   London (1899)
   Lasker - Janowski (1909)
   St. Petersburg (1914)
   Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923)
   New York (1924)
   St. Petersburg (1909)
   Moscow (1925)
   Hastings (1895)
   Cambridge Springs (1904)
   Zuerich (1934)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   -ER Lasker by fredthebear
   -ER Lasker by rpn4
   Emanuel Lasker Collection by hrannar
   Emanuel Lasker Collection by rpn4
   Match Lasker! by amadeus
   Match Lasker! by docjan
   The Unknown Emanuel Lasker by MissScarlett
   The Lion King by chocobonbon
   Treasure's Ark by Gottschalk
   Why Lasker Matters (Soltis) by PassedPawnDuo
   Why Lasker Matters (Soltis) by Qindarka
   Why Lasker Matters by Andrew Soltis by PassedPawnDuo
   Why Lasker Matters by Andrew Soltis by StoppedClock
   Why Lasker Matters by Edwin Meijer

GAMES ANNOTATED BY LASKER: [what is this?]
   Rubinstein vs Lasker, 1909
   Rubinstein vs Salwe, 1908
   Spielmann vs Rubinstein, 1909
   Lasker vs Teichmann, 1909
   Tartakower vs Schlechter, 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, 72 years old) 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." http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-gr... By Sonas' reckoning, Lasker was the No. 1 player in the world for a total of 24.3 years between 1890 and 1926. Only Kasparov (21.9 years) even approaches this.

Background

Lasker 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. Wikipedia article: List of world records in chess#Perfect tournament and match scores

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 two 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 typhoid fever), 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 remained in the top rank of players, winning at Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923) ahead of Richard Reti, Ernst Gruenfeld, Alexey 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 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 in top-class 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, Lasker finished in an undefeated third place, a half point behind Mikhail Botvinnik and Flohr and ahead of Capablanca, Rudolf Spielmann, unknown player, 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 Bird (+7 -2 =3) and Nicholas Theodore 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) Lasker - Bird (1892) , 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 Martinez, Alfred K Robinson, unknown player 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 Vazquez (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 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 Steinitz - Lasker World Championship Match (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 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 somewhat strained relations due to Tarrasch's refusal 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 was friends with Albert Einstein who wrote the introduction to the posthumous biography Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master by Dr. Jacques Hannak (1952), writing: Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent.

Lasker 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 only one occasion. As a youth, his parents had recognised his potential and sent him to study in Berlin where he first 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 (kibitz #1449)

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, Emanuel Lasker / William Ward-Higgs, Emanuel Lasker / Heinrich Wolf, Emanuel Lasker / Hermann Keidanski & Em. Lasker / L Lasek.

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

Last updated: 2023-04-08 21:10:05

Try our new games table.

 page 1 of 62; games 1-25 of 1,537  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Lasker vs NN 1-0101887Odds game000 Chess variants
2. NN vs Lasker  0-1331889SimulC41 Philidor Defense
3. A Reif vs Lasker 0-1131889Breslau Hauptturnier AA02 Bird's Opening
4. V Tietz vs Lasker 0-1401889Breslau Hauptturnier AC79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred
5. H Seger vs Lasker 0-1361889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupD30 Queen's Gambit Declined
6. L Mabillis vs Lasker 0-1241889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupC60 Ruy Lopez
7. Lasker vs Lipke 1-0471889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupC26 Vienna
8. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker 1-0421889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupC30 King's Gambit Declined
9. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker 0-1471889Hauptturnier play-offD00 Queen's Pawn Game
10. Lasker vs J Bauer 1-0381889AmsterdamA03 Bird's Opening
11. Lasker vs A van Foreest 1-0501889AmsterdamA04 Reti Opening
12. R Loman vs Lasker 0-1221889AmsterdamC79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred
13. L van Vliet vs Lasker 1-0241889AmsterdamC41 Philidor Defense
14. R Leather vs Lasker 0-1561889AmsterdamA07 King's Indian Attack
15. Gunsberg vs Lasker 0-1351889AmsterdamC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
16. Lasker vs Mason ½-½381889AmsterdamC46 Three Knights
17. Lasker vs S Polner 0-1211889Casual gameC26 Vienna
18. Lasker vs Burn ½-½151889AmsterdamC01 French, Exchange
19. J Mieses vs Lasker 0-1281889Casual gameA07 King's Indian Attack
20. von Bardeleben vs Lasker ½-½271889Lasker - Bardeleben mD50 Queen's Gambit Declined
21. Lasker vs von Bardeleben 1-0471889Lasker - Bardeleben mB06 Robatsch
22. von Bardeleben vs Lasker 1-0501889Lasker - Bardeleben mC26 Vienna
23. Lasker vs J Mieses 1-0371889Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A80 Dutch
24. J Mieses vs Lasker ½-½601889Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A07 King's Indian Attack
25. Lasker vs J Mieses ½-½701890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90D21 Queen's Gambit Accepted
 page 1 of 62; games 1-25 of 1,537  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 28 OF 99 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-27-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: Chessgames.com also has many of the games with Lasker's notes http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...
Apr-28-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  LIFE Master AJ: My page on this player: http://www.angelfire.com/games4/lif...

It was printed in 2005 - in England ... but just recently became available in this country. I got my copy just this past Thursday. (I had pre-ordered it from www.Amazon.com, but it took a while to come in.)

GM Andrew Soltis's look at this player, "Why Lasker Matters." (Publisher, B.T. Batsford, 320 pages, flex cover / paperback.)

Good stuff, I obviously had not had enough time to do any thorough investigations, but it looks to be an excellent book.

Apr-29-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: I also saw that book at the chess shop at Great Portland Street and it looked fantastic.

But I have a bit of a problem with games collections; I have all the games of Lasker on Chessbase, many of them annotated already... They are also avaliable at this very site. So I wouldn't be getting a huge amount extra by buying the book.

Books are better though, and two recent books I bought are the Chess Stars collections on M Botvinnik (1924-48 & 1948-70 - two books) and Lasker 1904-40.

May-01-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  BishopBerkeley: This is the biography of Dr. Lasker that contains the oft-mentioned foreward by Albert Einstein ("Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master" by Jacques Hannak):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/04...

Simply click "Table of Contents" to see the reference to Einstein.

I don't own a copy of this book, but Bill Wall presents (a portion of?) the foreward here:

http://www.geocities.com/siliconval...

=== Bill Wall's presentation ===

Einstein wrote a preface to a posthumous biography of Emanuel Lasker, Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master, published by Dr. Jacques Hannak in 1952 (written in German in 1942). Barnie Winkelman wrote to Einstein to see if he would write an introduction to Hannak's book for an Engish edition. Einstein replied back with this foreward.

Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent.

I am not a chess expert and therefore not in a position to marvel at the force of mind revealed in his greatest intellectual achievement - in the field of chess. I must even confess that the struggle for power and the competitive spirit expressed in the form of an ingenious game have always been repugant to me.

I met Emanuel Lasker at the house of my old friend, Alexander Moszkowski, and came to know him well in the course of many walks in which we exchanged opinions about the most varied questions. It was a somewhat one-sided exchange, in which I received more that I gave. For it was usually more natural for this eminently productive man to shape his own thoughts than to busy himself with those of another.

To my mind, there was a tragic note in his personality, despite his fundamentally affirmative attitude towards life. The enormous psychological tension, without which nobody can be a chess master, was so deeply interwoven with chess that he could never entirely rid himself of the spirit of the game, even when he was occupied with philosophic and human problems. At the same time, it seemed to me that chess was more a profession for him than the real goal of his life. His real yearning seems to be directed towards scientific understanding and the beauty inherent only in logical creation, a beauty so enchanting that nobody who has once caught a glimpse of it can ever escape it.

=== continued =>

May-01-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  BishopBerkeley: === Bill Wall's presentation, continued ===

Spinoza's material existence and independence were base on the grinding of lenses; chess had an analogous role in Lasker's life. But Spinoza was granted a better fate, because his occupation left his mind free and untroubled, while, on the other hand, the chess playing of a master ties him to the game, fetters his mind and shapes it to a certain extent so that his internal freedom and ease, no matter how strong he is, must inevitably be affected. In our conversations and in the reading of his philosophical books, I always had that feeling. Of these books, "The Philosophy of the Unattainable" interested me the most; the book is not only very original, but it also affords a deep insight into Lasker's entire personality.

Now I must justify myself because I never considered in detail, either in writing or in our conversations, Emanuel Lasker's critical essay on the theory of relativity. It is indeed necessary for me to say something about it here because even in his biography, which is focused on the purely human aspects, the passage which discusses the essay contains something resembling a slight reproach. Lasker's keen analytical mind had immediately clearly recognized that the central point of the whole question is that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is a constant. It was evident to him that, if this constancy were admitted, the relative of time could not be avoided. So what was there to do? He tried to do what Alexnder, whom historians have dubbed "the Great," did when he cut the Gordian knot. Lasker's attempted solution was based on the following idea: "Nobody has any immediate knowledge of how quickly light is transmitted in a complete vacuum, for even in interstellar space there is always a minimal quantity of matter present under all circimstances and what holds there is even more applicable to the most complete vacuum created by man to the best of his ability. Therefore, who has the right to deny that its velocity in a really complete vacuum is infinite?"

To answer this argument can be expressed as follows: "It is, to be sure, true that nobody has experimental knowledge of how light is transmitted in a complete vacuum. But it is as good as impossible to formulate a reasonable theory of light according to which the velocity of light is affected by minimal traces of matter which is very significant but at the same time virtuallt independent of ther density." Before such a theory, which moreover, must harmonize with the known phenomena of optics in an almost complete vacuum, can be set up, it seems that evey physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot - if he is not satisified with the present solution. Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers.

But I liked Lasker's immovable independence, a rare human attribute, in which respect almost all, including intelligent people, are mediocrities. And so I let matteers stand that way.

I am glad that the reader will be able to get to know this strong and, at the same time, find and lovable personality from his sympathetic biography, but I am thankful for the hours of conversation which this ever striving, independent, simple man granted me.

=== end ===

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

May-11-06  whatthefat: <keypusher: OK, here it is: Game Collection: Why Lasker Matters by Andrew Soltis

It collects the games from Soltis' new book, _Why Lasker Matters_ (which I recommend).>

I guess you've probably read through the book more thoroughly now - may I ask how well annotated it is? I'm considering buying it as well, but buying games collections is largely influenced by the quality of the annotations, since one can always track down the games themselves easily enough. Thanks in advance.

May-12-06  pawn to QB4: The rules of quick development, as already laid down, require one amendment, viz. do not obstruct your QBP by your QN (unless you wish to open up the game at once by P-K4), and advance that pawn as early as you can to QB4.

--- Em. Lasker

Today's "Quote of the Day" and he's even using descriptive notation. I'm so proud, even if he's dissing the Veresov.

May-12-06  babakova: Dissing the Veresov should be mandatory.
May-22-06  madlydeeply: User: keypusher Lasker is amazing to me. Between 1900 and his championship match with Marshall in 1907 he played in just one serious event, Cambridge Springs in 1904. But he beat Marshall +8-0=7. He didn't play between 1910 and 1914 but on his return he won one of the greatest tournaments ever, St. Petersburg 1914. In 1923, having lost the title, he played in his first tournament in nine years (apart from a four-player event in Berlin 1918), Maehrisch Ostrau, and wpn. The following year, age 56, he scored 80% against most of the world's best and won New York 1924.

I think this post deserves to be repeated on the Lasker page I had not heard this perspective before.

Jun-08-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <whatthefat> Sorry not to have responded sooner. Yes, I do like the annotations (though I still haven't looked at most of the games in the book, and I haven't done any Fritz-testing either). I think Soltis is very good at setting the scene at various stages of the game -- the two players' objectives in light of the situation on the board, and quite often the situation on the clock or in the tournament as well. The annotations are not too light and not too heavy and there is a judicious balance between words and moves. I think the quality of Soltis' chess writing in his long and very busy career (the guy has a demanding day job) has varied a lot, but in this book it strikes me as pretty high.

<madlydeeply> Thanks. Sorry about my stupid typo(s) however.

Jun-09-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  BishopBerkeley: Dr. Lasker plays golf while Vera Menchik looks on:

http://www.bu.edu/cgs/bcc-photos/Fa...

From this fun collection of photos:

http://www.bu.edu/cgs/bcc-photos/Fa...

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

Jun-16-06  madlydeeply: this was just posted elsewhere in this forum. This Ben Finegold sounds like a real comer! Marmot PFL: I have been assured by several USCF masters that even ordinary GMs of today like Ben Finegold would easily defeat Steinitz or Lasker and at least draw with Alekhine and Botvinnik. Hence they would also beat Morphy, but after all, time marches on. In a 24 game match between US champs of the 19th & 21st centuries like Morphy-Nakamura, Morphy might win a game or two but the final victory of the modern player would not long be in doubt.

Interestingly, recently I was perusing OMGP numero uno, looking over some Lasker games, apparently he uncorked some moves that Fritz could not solve...hence I'm convinced that Lasker could beat anybody at anytime

I wonder who these USCF masters were...this might be an indication of why the US has failed to produce a world champion since Fischer...

HA!

Jun-16-06  OJC: < madlydeeply > You may be interested in an excerpt from an essay on this matter by C.H. O'D. Alexander that I just posted on his page.

Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander

Jun-16-06  BIDMONFA: Emanuel Lasker

LASKER, Emanuel
http://www.bidmonfa.com/lasker_eman...
_

Jun-16-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  James Demery: Nice story today on Chessbase about Pillsbury. I didn`t know he gave Lasker so much trouble.
Jun-16-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <OJC> I am going to take the liberty of re-posting it here, since it focuses on Lasker.

<From every point of view therefore the modern player is far better equipped than the older players; he has a wider range of understanding of different types of strategy, he knows far more about the openings, and he is better equipped technically. Can we then say with confidence that Botvinnik, Smyslov, or Tal would beat any former champion?

The best way to try to answer this is not as is usually done, to ask how Morphy would do if he were transplanted to the present, when the issue is confused by the feeling that Morphy would rapidly absorb our present knowledge. It is rather to ask how Tal (or Botvinnik or Smyslov) would do if he were transplanted to the past. I personally can feel no doubt at all that any of these three would in these circumstances have demolished with comparative ease all players before Lasker: their advantage in knowledge and technique would have been decisive. With Lasker, however, I must confess to doubt. This extraordinary genius, with his indomitable fighting spirit, resourcefulness, and psychological insight into his opponents' weaknesses, coped without any apparent difficulty with all the technical innovations in his lifetime - even when he was far past the normal prime of life for a chess-player. The Reti school which he first met when in his middle fifties caused him no trouble at all. I believe his knowledge was near enough to that of the moderns for his genius to carry him through. With somewhat less confidence I belive the same about Capablanca and Alekhine.

To sum up, my views are as follows. The general level of play among the great masters is far higher today than ever before, and no player before Lasker had a combination of knowledge and genius sufficient to enable him to compete on level terms with the moderns. With Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine, however, a level was reached which has not yet been surpassed - though it has been equalled by the 1948 Botvinnik and may again be equalled by (or even surpassed?) by Tal or Fischer. If this view is wrong, then it errs in overrating the older players. I rather hope it is wrong; I don't like to think that chess has been played as well as it ever can be. >

It would be interesting to transplant Alexander to the present, familiarize him with the games of Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik, Anand etc. and ask him how he thinks they would do against Botvinnik, Tal, Smyslov and Fischer, as well as Lasker, Alekhine and Capablanca.

Jun-16-06  OJC: < keypusher > I'm glad you took liberty since I initially wanted to put it here but decided Alexander deserved it more and didn't want to duplicate it myself!

I agree it would be interesting to see what Alexander would say today. I suspect his opinions would be similar but that he would have included Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov and maybe a few others in the equalled/surpassed group.

Evidently this debate isn't exactly new. I get the impression that those who easily dismiss the masters of years past because 'that was a long time ago, man' likely haven't taken the time to learn about them or study their chess. No wonder Soltis was motivated to write his < Why Lasker Matters > book.

Jun-17-06  madlydeeply: I am sure that Steinitz, Lasker, Euwe, and Alekhine would be completely booked up if they were playing today...it was not only their innate genius that made them chapions it was their inexhaustible will to succeed...I am positive that no WCs would have the audacity to say that they would easily beat Lasker if he was alive today.

Now Capablanca and Morphy, I'm not so sure they would be so driven to succeed... so they might not be booked up but they could certainly mix it up from a balanced position...

Jun-17-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: Here, courtesy of <cassianist>, is Alexander dissenting with himself on the Lasker question.

<Caissanist: Curiously, Bent Larsen gave a very different opinion on this subject in an interview which he gave to Alexander for a 1973 book:

<Lasker? He would lose terribly; he would always find himself in types of position he had never seen before--because of course none of us would play a simple Queen's Gambit or a Steinitz Defence to the Lopez against him. It is true that he had no difficulty against the hypermoderns in 1924 theough he expected it [...] But the best theorists were not the best players--Réti, for example, was weak tactically. No, I think he would lose terribly to the ten best players of today. If he could get into positions with which he was familiar--then of course he would be a great player; but I think he would not be able to. Even Alekhine would have had to study for a year first; I am not sure, but I believe the man had never seen an exchange sacrifice on c3 in the Sicilian. Imagine that!>

Alexander's opinion of this: "A clearcut verdict with which I would agree." Did he change his mind between 1960 and 1973? I don't know for sure, but it certainly seems like it.>

Jun-17-06  WhoKeres: Here, courtesy of <cassianist>, is Alexander dissenting with himself on the Lasker question. <Caissanist: Curiously, Bent Larsen gave a very different opinion on this subject in an interview which he gave to Alexander for a 1973 book:

<Lasker? He would lose terribly; he would always find himself in types of position he had never seen before--because of course none of us would play a simple Queen's Gambit or a Steinitz Defence to the Lopez against him. It is true that he had no difficulty against the hypermoderns in 1924 theough he expected it [...] But the best theorists were not the best players--Réti, for example, was weak tactically. No, I think he would lose terribly to the ten best players of today. If he could get into positions with which he was familiar--then of course he would be a great player; but I think he would not be able to. Even Alekhine would have had to study for a year first; I am not sure, but I believe the man had never seen an exchange sacrifice on c3 in the Sicilian. Imagine that!>

Alexander's opinion of this: "A clearcut verdict with which I would agree." Did he change his mind between 1960 and 1973? I don't know for sure, but it certainly seems like it.> I don't agree with Alexander or Larsen. Lasker could play ALL types of positions well. He was the greatest tactician of all time. Many players knew the openings better, some GM's were as good as Lasker in the middlegame, but virtually no GM's (definitely none playing today) are Lasker's equal in the endgame. I think Lasker would just do what he always did; play for an ubnbalanced position and out-tactic his opponents. If that didn't work, his awesome skill in the endgame would save him. At his best (from 1894-1914) Lasker is at least as good as any current GM, and probably stronger than all.

Jun-17-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  Benzol: Alexander had a soft spot for Lasker, Capablanca and Alyekhin and played all of at Nottingham 1936, but he only wrote a book on one of them. Is that significant?
Jun-18-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Alexander had a soft spot for Lasker, Capablanca and Alyekhin and played all of at Nottingham 1936, but he only wrote a book on one of them. Is that significant?>

<benzol> Significant evidence of Alexander's terrible laziness, I guess. :) Who was the lucky subject? Alexander did the annotations for Alekhine's '38-'45 games--is that the book you mean?

Jun-18-06  ughaibu: How does a player as strong as Larsen make such a remark about an exchange sacrifice on c3? Does it mean that Larsen himself had to learn the idea, that he would never have come up with it himself? Lasker vs D Mac Kay, 1908
Jun-18-06  whatthefat: Regarding how Lasker might do today, I rated his play in the famous 1899 London tournament, using a playing quality scoring system I've developed. It's discussed in my profile and chessforum, but in summary, the scores I've now given to now for famous performances are:

Lasker -
London 1899, 7.1/10 (26 games)

Capablanca -
New York 1918, 7.6/10 (12 games)

Tal -
Bled 1959, 7.0/10 (28 games)

Fischer -
Palma 1970, 7.2/10 (22 games)

To give meaning, the individual game scores have ranged from 3/10, to 10/10 (see Game Collection: Perfect 10s) Given that I'm still making deductions for any inaccuracies in the opening, the closeness of the average scores seems to suggest that Lasker could have played with the same or similar success in any era.

Jun-18-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Ughaibu> I'll be damned!! Do you know who Mac Kay was? Seems like quite a player.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 99)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 28 OF 99 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC