Intriguing how you say <Russians> ..

Fischer was the best chessplayer in the world by 1967 (I believe earlier) and to argue otherwise is just silly. Only FISCHER HATERS would disagree.

I'm aware the 60's contained many,many great chess players, but Fischer by the middle of that decade was playing chess and advancing chess beyond it's time.

Fischer was the one EVERYONE wanted to see.. Why was that ?

but please , you cannot be serious !

Geller lived off this for the rest of his life ..

Ask yourself why he lived off these wins tho ? .... Huh?! (And at the time too btw)

The Spassky trying to wrest the title off Petrosian versus Fischer circa 1967/68... That would've been some match.

Fischer would've won but it would've been a match .. unlike '72.

Geller got lucky in 'lost' games against Fischer. You can only ride your 'luck' so far....

Sooner or later

In 1969, Fischer refused to play in the U.S. Championship because of disagreements about the tournament's format and prize fund. Since that event was being treated as a Zonal Tournament, Fischer forfeited his right to compete for the right to challenge world champion Boris Spassky in 1972. Grandmaster Pal Benko agreed to relinquish his qualifying place at the Interzonal in Fischer's favor, and the other participants waived their right to claim the spot. <FIDE president Max Euwe> interpreted the rules very flexibly to allow Fischer to play in the 1970 Interzonal at Palma de Mallorca, which he won convincingly."

<It may be that, from an objective point of view, this option wasn't the strongest> <perfidious> You know, it may have been the best for Geller, but not for Spassky.

I think both Petrosian and Spassky suffered from "too many cooks spoil the broth" in '71 and '72. All the Russian's were feeding each TNs and other things, and Petrosian and Spassky were of a style that was not inclined to go for more than a "playable position" from the opening. I mean, isn't it interesting how both Spassky and Petrosian "forgot" TNs in their matches vs Fischer? Why? Perhaps because it was given to them, instead of coming from their own work? They both lost those games.

Perhaps it is useful to repost insightful contributions from about a week ago; perhaps it is overstating the obvious; lastly, I'll post a direct link to the detailed research (comparison Spassky & Fischer, 1964-69) <Eyal> posted, 21 August.

Aug-21-12 Petrosianic:

<Only in 1970-1972 was Fischer consistent. And in American-only tournaments, of course. At the beginning of 1970, he'd only won a mere 7 International tournaments, a couple of them (Reykjavik, Mar del Plata, Netanya, Vinkovki) quite weak. The biggest events he played to completion in the middle period were the Capa Memorial, the Havana Olympiad and Piatigorsky 2, none of which he won. At the beginning of 1970, Fischer's biggest tournament was probably still the 1962 Interzonal.>

Aug-21-12
I play the Fred:

<I think Fischer's fans see his purple patch of 1970-72 as conclusive evidence that Fischer would have dominated the rest of the decade in a similar fashion, and thus sort of <fill in the blanks>. He certainly had it in him to have a run of dominance comparable to Kasparov's record from 1985-2004, even with the rise of the young Karpov. But Fischer <can't> get credit for the things he <might> have done, even things he probably <would have> done. The record is set in stone, and it tells us that Fischer left chess at the age of 29. Most of the greats of the game had a decade at the top - sometimes more - left in them at the same age.>

So it doesn't really upset me that Lasker drops down quite a bit from his long stretches of inactivity. We know that he did come back a bit rusty in the first few games, indicating that he temporarily did lose something during the time off. Just because he finished crushing everyone soon afterwards does not nullify this.>

I've been trying to figure out to what events or games of Lasker you are referring to. Lasker sure enough did have life outside of chess; but, as far as I see, whenever he returned to chess board, he played full strength. Looking at the times with gaps of ~2y or more, and/or when Sonas drops Lasker's rating down, I see these:

Cambridge Springs, 1904: 2-3rd, 11/15, 73%

Lasker-Marshall, 1907: 13.5/18, 77%

St. Petersburg, 1914: 1st, 13.5/18, 75%

Lasker-Tarrasch, 1916: 5.5/6, 92%

Berlin, 1918: 1st, 4.5/6, 75%

Lasker-Capablanca, 1921: 5/14, 36%

Moravska Ostrava, 1923: 1st, 10.5/13, 81%

New York, 1924: 1st, 16/20, 80%

To me, there is only one outlier in Lasker's otherwise uniformly stratospheric record after layovers -- his match with Capablanca.

+ + +

Incidentally this is what <Reti> wrote before the Moravska Ostrava, 1923 tournament regarding Lasker:

<... Nota bene, Lasker does not enter the tournament without preparations. He was already present during the latest Carlsbad tournament; he examined every game we played there and gave special attention to games of new-wave players. ...>

In the match with Marshall, Lasker's score was 11.5/15, which indeed gives a percentage of .767 (77%)

At St Petersburg, Lasker's comeback in the final is well documented and oft-discussed, but there was actually some question as to whether he might qualify, after his loss in O Bernstein vs Lasker, 1914 and coming within an ace of losing the next round (Lasker vs Tarrasch, 1914) as well.

Here is what <Lasker> said just prior to the match in Havana, 1921:

Lasker: 'I do not think the decision in this match will be influenced by external factors, but will appear from the "core of the problem": Strategy.

'Because I am aware of the difference of Capablanca's views and notions on this, and my own. Capablanca is generally <not> a theoretician. He is the genius and luminous representative of Practical Chess. He is, and wants to be. Probably every theory that doesn't immediately show transparancy and applicability, he will be suspicious of. He is cunning, nimble, flexible, strong and resourceful. <Odysseus> probably is his idol.

'As for myself I have always been a theoretician, a philosopher. Understanding meaning and solving in the present, I am more like Julius Caesar.'

<Max Euwe> writes on Capa following in depth analysis of the match with Aljechin 1927:

'The Cuban, who has always had an aversion to theoretical studies, managed the opening phase through position feel and general principles. This did make him vulnerable to prepared novelties from time to time, and it showed in the 32nd, and to an extent 34th game. During several games Aljechin obtained positional advantages, but Capablanca, "a la Lasker", kept posing problems for Aljechin, which was rewarded several times with a draw.

'Aljechin, during that match, played with increasing confidence, kept his imaginative urges in check, and developed a technique himself that neared perfection.'

One GM once said that "it is perceived that Lasker didn't create a School of Thought, but we all are his students."

Lost one , drew 2

Lost one , drew 2>

Actually, he lost two, drew one.

< 2 ) I do not think that Euwe wanted Fischer to be world champion. In 1969 / 1970 he thought the World Championship cycle would be '' better '' if it included all the very top players.>