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: 1,541
Years covered: 1887 to 1940
Overall record: +384 -84 =176 (73.3%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 897 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 C64
 French Defense (115) 
    C11 C12 C13 C01 C10
 French (80) 
    C11 C12 C13 C10 C00
 King's Gambit Accepted (80) 
    C39 C33 C38 C35 C37
 Sicilian (60) 
    B45 B32 B30 B40 B20
 King's Gambit Declined (58) 
    C30 C31 C32
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (129) 
    C65 C67 C66 C68 C77
 Orthodox Defense (51) 
    D50 D63 D52 D60 D53
 Giuoco Piano (42) 
    C50 C53 C54
 Sicilian (32) 
    B32 B45 B73 B83 B30
 Queen's Pawn Game (32) 
    D00 D05 D02 D04 A46
 Queen's Gambit Declined (21) 
    D37 D35 D30 D39 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
   Marshall vs Lasker, 1907 0-1
   Lasker vs W E Napier, 1904 1-0
   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 - Janowski World Championship Match (1910)
   Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)
   Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Impromptu International Congress, New York (1893)
   Lasker - Bird (1890)
   London (1899)
   St. Petersburg Quadrangular 1895/96 (1895)
   Nuremberg (1896)
   Paris (1900)
   Lasker - Janowski (1909)
   St. Petersburg (1914)
   New York (1924)
   Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923)
   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
   Tartakower vs Schlechter, 1909
   Lasker vs Teichmann, 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 1,541  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. Lasker vs Lipke 1-0471889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupC26 Vienna
7. L Mabillis vs Lasker 0-1241889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupC60 Ruy Lopez
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 1,541  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 41 OF 99 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-18-09  Fanacas: I have learned much becous of hiss manual of chess its a pit it isent written in dutch.
May-21-09  Fanacas: Apprenently it was :P found it last in the a second hand bookstore:P
May-23-09  Calli: Lasker flunks out?

"The Riga Tageblatt says that the world's chess champion, Emanuel Lasker, who during last term had taken up his mathematical studies at Berlin University, has just been struck off the lists of that University because he has not shown proofs that he has carried out any private reading during the winter."

Source: British Chess Magazine, 1899, page 111

May-25-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Ron: From an article on Lasker in the Chess cafe I came across this:

<At he end of his life Lasker wrote The Community of the Future - a book in which he tried to put down his idea for an ideal society. Two problems were especially dear to his heart: the fate of the European Jews and the problem of unemployment. To solve the first, Lasker proposed Alaska as a possible place for immigration - a proposal that at that time did not sound as absurd as it may sound today...>

Interestingly, there was such a proposal under consideration in the US, and which is the basis for the award winning alternative history novel THE YIDDISH POLICEMAN'S UNION, by Michael Chabon. Chabon's novel also has chess too. Lasker the spiritual godfather of a science fiction novel?

May-29-09  Fanacas: After warts i think alaska would have been a better place.
May-31-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: http://www.it.barlinek.pl/tur/index...
May-31-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: The town was called Berlinchen before it was annexed by Poland.
Jun-03-09  shakkiseepra: Hey, does anyone have any info on chess in Berlin? Are there popular spots where people would gather to play (parks for instance), chess stores, something related to Lasker (a statue for exaple).
Jun-03-09  Anyi: There is a chesscafe called "Enpassant" in Berlin Prenzlauer Berg/Pankow (but it's owned by a club). There is the Lasker Society and the Lasker house in Thyrow (but the Society didn't collect enough financial means to restore it to its former beauty). Are you coming to Berlin, <<shakkiseepra>>?
Jun-06-09  Fanacas: Thats quite intresting when i go to a holiday in germnay again i think i am going to visit it.
Jun-06-09  visayanbraindoctor: This is from the Kramnik page, but it's more appropriate to post it here:

Since World Championship Matches are where top chess players generally try to do their best, I am curious if any one has done a thorough computer analysis of the 1921 Lasker vs Capablanca World Championship Match; and compare it for error rates with other more recent WC Matches including the Fischer vs. Spassky, Karpov vs. Korchnoi, Kasparov vs Karpov, Kasparov vs. Short, Kasparov vs. Anand, Kasparov vs. Kramnik, Kramnik vs. Leko, Kramnik vs. Topalov, and Anand vs. Kramnik World Championship matches.

Whatever would be the the result - the error rate for the 1921 Lasker vs Capablanca World Championship Match being lower, the same, or higher than the more recent WC Matches - that should tell us a lot of the way these 'oldies' were playing.

Jun-06-09  Fanacas: Yeah but as lasker always said there is also a pyschological part of chess.
Jun-09-09  visayanbraindoctor: This post more properly belongs here:

<FSR: <keypusher> It is 36.5 years, to be exact. First world #1: June 1890. Last world #1: December 1926!>

Incredible! Lasker has proved that even in his 50s, a chessplayer should be able to do well. The other World Champion that comes to mind is Botvinnik. So why does nearly every one else begin to significantly grow weaker in their 40s?

IMO, it's because both did not have significant medical problems in their middle age; and because both would take long breaks from chess, but not totally retire. The 'sabatticals' probably enabled them to avoid psychological burn-outs and fire up their fighting spirit and creativity. (There could be other explanations.)

Jun-09-09  visayanbraindoctor: <FSR>: It is 36.5 years, to be exact. First world #1: June 1890. Last world #1: December 1926!

<Visayanbraindoctor>: Incredible! Lasker has proved that even in his 50s, a chessplayer should be able to do well.

<keypusher>: Well, you're the doctor. :-) I am reluctant to lay down rules of general applicability from such an outlier. But I think your suggestions for why Lasker and Botvinnik did well in (relative) old age make a lot of sense.

You may find this of interest:

Length of time between first and last appearance at #1 at Chessmetrics:

Kasparov

22 yrs 1 month September 1982-October 2004

Karpov

10 yrs. 5 months August 1974-January 1985 (but almost continuously #2 until 1997)

Fischer

10 years four months Feb. 1964-July 1974

Spassky

7 mos. January 1966-July 1966

Petrosian

3 years 8 mos. May 1961-January 1964

Tal

7 yrs 10 months October 1958-July 1966

Smyslov

6 years 8 mos. January 1952-September 1958

Botvinnik

21 years 8 mos. September 1936-May 1958

Euwe

1 year 10 mos. January 1936-November 1937

Alekhine

20 years 6 mos. January 1924-July 1944

Capablanca

23 years 2 mos. May 1914-July 1937

Lasker

36 years 5 mos. June 1890-December 1926

Steinitz

23 years 8 mos. September 1866-May 1890

Others:

Keres

17 years 0 mos. July 1943-July 1960

Rubinstein

5 years 11 mos. May 1908-April 1914

Korchnoi

3 mos. September 1965-December 1965

Maroczy

2 years 5 mos. October 1904-March 1907

Tarrasch

0 years 0 months

Chigorin

0 years 0 months

Pillsbury

1 year 3 mos. Jan. 1903-April 1904>

A few comments: Spassky and Petrosian among the champs and Korchnoi among the non-champs suffer from playing in the same era as Fischer and Karpov. Karpov, in turn, suffers from playing in the same era as Kasparov!

As I already noted, Lasker's 36-year span puts him far in front of everyone in this category. But I find Kasparov's 22-year span almost as impressive, because unlike Lasker he played constantly and retained his #1 rank almost without interruption.

For the really great champs a 20-year span seems standard: Steinitz, Capa, Alekhine, Botvinnik and Kasparov are all around that figure. Again, Lasker is the great outlier. On the short side, Karpov is "punished" by Kasparov and Fischer is "punished" by, well, himself. If Fischer had kept playing, though, it's conceivable that Karpov would have been the #2 player in chess for 25 years! (Of course, lots of things are conceivable -- maybe he would have eventually gotten the better of Fischer and then be even harder for Kasparov to dethrone than he actually was).

Among the non-champs Keres' 17-year span is as much of an outlier than Lasker's 36 years among the champs. Now there are various caveats you can make about this, the main one being that the great champ of his era (Botvinnik) took long breaks from competition, unlike, say Kasparov or Alekhine. But still, Keres' span is certainly something to think about when listing the greatest non-champions.

I was as surprised as I expect anyone would be to find that Dr. Tarrasch never topped the list. The further back you go the less reliable chessmetrics rankings are, because there are fewer and fewer events. In this regard Hastings 1895 is epochal, because after that it seemed that there was usually at least one great international tournament a year. Before Hastings international tournaments seem to have been considerably less frequent. So there may have been some point between 1885 and 1895 when Tarrasch was #1. Certainly his fame was greater than Lasker's until 1894 at least. But maybe he really never was #1. In 1893 he drew a match with Chigorin, who had narrowly lost a couple of matches to Steinitz.

Jun-09-09  Lt.Surena: "Spassky and Petrosian among the champs and Korchnoi among the non-champs suffer from playing in the same era as Fischer "

Hogwash !! Who cares about chessmetrics ! Don't try to twist the facts ! Look at How long and how many times they played in World Championship and and how many times they won. The one-time wonder could only complain and cry uncle everytime he lost.

Also don't forget he PUT HIS TAIL BETWEEN LEGS AND RAN after 72. Is there any greatness in that ?

Jun-09-09  visayanbraindoctor: The more I think of Keres the more I think he was simply incredibly unlucky not to have become World Champion. Yet how could he even if WW2 never happened and he managed to get himself a World Championship Match? It just so happened that the two dominant champions during his active years were also his jinxes; and this phenomenon I believe really exists. There are simply certain players that at certain times are very difficult to play against.

In CG.com data base:

Alexander Alekhine beat Paul Keres 5 to 1, with 8 draws

Mikhail Botvinnik beat Paul Keres 9 to 3, with 9 draws

Yet one thing that shines up like a brilliant beacon is Keres' obscure and peculiar loyalty to Estonia, which effectively became a German province during WW2 and then a Soviet Union province after WW2. I believe that Keres could have emigrated out to Western Europe or the USA if he really wanted to, as so many chess masters had. There must have been opportunities for him to do so. Why stick out to the bitter end to your dying provincial homeland; and by Keres' death I believe that Estonia was well on its way to becoming completely Russified, with more than 50% of its residents now transformed to Russian speakers. As he himself said - I am unlucky just like my country.

So I am very glad that Keres has now effectively become a national hero in the now independent Estonia. He may never have become Chess World Champion; but Keres never forgot Estonia, and Estonia has not forgotten him. He must be the only top chessmaster honored by his country with a banknote and treated like an official hero.

Jun-09-09  visayanbraindoctor: <Lt.Surena> The post above is a discussion from the Capablanca vs Verlinsky page, which I edited and posted here as it properly belong here. If you are indirectly asking my opinion of a possible Fischer vs. Karpov match, I believe that if it were played in 1973, Fischer would have won. By 1975, I believe Karpov would have won. Fischer had been inactive for three whole years, so long that his competitive edge would probably have been blunted.

As for <RAN after 72> it is a fact that many chess fans think like you do. I for one regret that Fischer effectively retired in 1972, although I usually stay out of the emotionally-laden discussions in the Fischer corner related to this.

Jun-10-09  Fanacas: You forgot one thing kasparov narrowly won from karpov, and in there first match he probaly would have lost if they shouldnt have startet all over kasparov and karpov agreed on that. As karpov said kasparov has had a month the time to study my playing style, and kasparov himself said that he probaly only had 30 % chance of winning.
Jun-28-09  visayanbraindoctor: <Fanacas> I would agree that until the late 1990s when Karpov was well into his 40s, Kasparov's superiority over Karpov was by no means such an unambiguous proposal. You could see my views on this in my write-up in my game collection of Karpov.
Jun-28-09  visayanbraindoctor: From 1866 to 1946, the chess world was in a strange era that saw only 4 people dominating at the top for such a long time - Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine. Before Steinitz, Anderssen was probably the best active chess player in the world, but the presence of Morphy precluded any continuous domination on Anderssen's part.

Since it seems clear that Lasker in general played on a qualitatively higher level than the masters of the Steinitz era, we could arguably take out of the discussion Steinitz's reign if we are talking only about top-level chess played on a qualitatively super-GM level. Such chess became more commonplace during Lasker's reign with the arrival of the likes of Lasker himself, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Teichmann, Maroczy, Schlechter, and Rubinstein..

We could arguably take out the years 1944 to 1946, when Alekhine seemed to have quit high level tournaments; as late as 1943, he was probably still the best player in the world.

Even with the above assumption, from 1894 (when Lasker won the Title) to 1944 (when Alekhine retired from high level competition), and with the exception of 1935 - 1937 when Euwe reigned, World Championship chess was dominated by only three persons, the extraordinary trio of Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine.

It must be considered that small incidents could have busted this 'Trilogy' of 50 years. A regular World Championship cycle with formal Candidates events in the 1890s could have disrupted Lasker's reign. Let us suppose that the hypothetical Candidates events of the 1890s to 1910s produced Pillsbury, Maroczy, Schlechter (who did get a Title shot), and Rubinstein as Challengers. Let us suppose that Lasker had a 0.75 chance of beating or tying each of them, which would enable him to retain his Title. His over-all chance of retaining his Title against Pillsbury, Maroczy, Schlechter, and Rubinstein as successive Challengers would be 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75 = 0.32 only. That's a less than a 50% chance.

Against second-tier world class players as Marshall and Janowski, let us suppose Lasker had a 0.90 chance of retaining his Title in a match. If so, even if he played four straight matches against Marshall and Janowski, his over-all chance of retaining his Title would be 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 = 0.66, which is is to say quite good, over the 50% mark.

Since Pillsbury, Maroczy, Schlechter, and Rubinstein would have better chances of winning Candidates events than Marshall and Janowski (especially if these were Candidates matches), the implication is that the absence of regular World Championship cycles and Candidates Events in the 1890s to 1910s may have helped Lasker in retaining his Title continuously for such a long time. Given his chess skills, he could still have dominated even if he had lost a WC Match, simply by winning a re-match ala Alekhine (which was an acceptable idea then). However, we would likely have seen one or more of these top players - Pillsbury, Maroczy, Schlechter, and Rubinstein - as World Champion, even if only for a short period of time, perhaps similar to the reign of Smyslov and Tal post-WW2.

Jun-28-09  visayanbraindoctor: During this time period when one-on-one matches were the norm in deciding who was the better of two players, we could assume the Candidates events would have been a series of matches, which would have given Pillsbury, Maroczy, Schlechter, and Rubinstein more chances for a Title shot.

Going further in time, what could have happened if there were regular World Championship cycles and Candidates Matches in the 1920s and 1930s?

In this case, Capablanca would surely have won any Candidates matches series right after WW1, and taken the Title from Lasker around 1919 - 1921, which is what happened sans a Candidates. Alekhine would then have surely emerged as the Challenger to Capablanca. Let us suppose that Alekhine wins in about 1927, as what happened. We would then have Candidates events afterward to decide AAA's Challenger. If these were matches, given Capablanca's unbelievable strength and record in one-on-one matches (which I summarized in Capa's page), Capablanca would probably have steamrolled any opposition and gotten a return-match against Alekhine in short order. It's quite probable that Bogolyubov and Euwe would never even have gotten Title shots, if they had to compete with Capa in Candidates matches. IMO Capablanca would have re-taken his Title, but then probably would have lost it after 1937 when he started having outright symptoms of strokes, possibly to Alekhine again, who probably would have beaten any of the rising stars of the later 1930s - Botvinnik, Keres, Reshevsky, Fine, Flohr - in Candidates matches.

Jun-28-09  visayanbraindoctor: In brief, if there were Candidates matches from the 1890s to 1930s, the 50-year Trilogy of Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine would still have reigned, with the difference that at least one of these Almost World Champions - Pillsbury, Maroczy, Schlechter, and Rubinstein - could have reigned as well but only for a short time like Euwe, Smyslov, and Tal.

After the long 50-year Trilogy (of three extraordinary champions), World Championship chess settled into a "First Among Equals" era post WW-2. Another Trilogy could have been repeated beginning in 1972, had Fischer not retired, this time consisting of Fischer - Karpov - Kasparov, which would have lasted until 2000. As it is, it became a 25-year Duology of Karpov and Kasparov from 1975 to 2000. Now, post-2000, we are back in a "First Among Equals" era.

Jun-28-09  visayanbraindoctor: Unless of course, Anand reigns for 10 more years; or if Kramnik makes a successful come-back and succeeds Anand (or Topalov) and reigns for 10 more years. In such a case, the era of 2000 to 2020 could end up being seen as another Duology or Trilogy (if another player manages to butt in for two cycles or more) by future chess historians.
Jul-05-09  Anyi: Have been at the Lasker rapid chess memorial in Thyrow today (my result: somewhere in the middle). Thyrow is a little village near Berlin where Lasker had his summer residence. The house is still standing, but slowly falling apart due to lack in financial means. I made a a very short film and took some photos - will post it on my website asap...
Aug-03-09  morphy58: Hi ! everybody.

My post is about the position in a game Steinitz- Em. Lasker in Lasker's Manual of Chess.

The blue book (Dover, 1960) has it on page 140.

Russlel Enterprises, Inc. (2008), has it on pages 122 et 258.

Notice they don't show a black pawn on c4.

With or without a black pawn on c4, chesslab does not recognize the position in its dada base.

http://www.chesslab.com/PositionSea...

But according to Chessgames.com (after 29.Rxf8+ Rxf8), THERE IS a black pawn on c4 :

Steinitz vs Lasker, 1894

I wonder which position is the real one, with or without a black pawn on c4.

Could you help me, please ?

Thank you.

morphy58

Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 99)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 41 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