Originally posted by WulebgrLasker praises his opponents in annotations of lost games in Lasker's Manual of Chess. Lasker's play was ahead of his time.
Emanuel Lasker
Andrew Soltis sums up well in the conlusion to Why Lasker Matters:
"He violated general principles when he felt confident doing so. He played 'practical' moves. He focused on the specifics, such as targets, rather than the theoretical. He didn't calculate what didn't have to be calculated. He realized the clock was the 33rd piece. He complicated before his position got bad. He took calculated risks. He sacrificed for purely positional compensation. He used tactics to advance positional goals.
It used to be said that Lasker, unlike his contemporaries, formed no school of thought. But we're all his students."
Originally posted by AThousandYoungLasker was champion so long because he did not play Rubinstein. It is not as hard to stay champion when you do not play the strongest player(s).
Steinitz, for his methodical and logical approach to the game. Close is Lasker, for holding the championship longer than anyone, and for being a master of the psychological aspect of chess. A book he wrote that a friend had looked very well written as well from what I saw, which impressed me too. This did as well:
[i]In 1920, Lasker saw that Capab ...[text shortened]... /i]
Nimzowitch gets credit for the same reason as Steinitz but he was never World Champion.
Originally posted by gambit3Rubinstein,A - Lasker,E [D32]
Lasker was champion so long because he did not play Rubinstein. It is not as hard to stay champion when you do not play the strongest player(s).
St Petersburg St Petersburg (3), 18.02.1909
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 c5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Nc3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Nc6 8.e3 Be7 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nxd5 Bxd4 12.exd4 Qg5 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.Ne3 0–0–0 15.0–0 Rhe8 16.Rc1 Rxe3 17.Rxc6+ bxc6 18.Qc1 Rxd4 19.fxe3 Rd7 20.Qxc6+ Kd8 21.Rf4 f5 22.Qc5 Qe7 23.Qxe7+ Kxe7 24.Rxf5 Rd1+ 25.Kf2 Rd2+ 26.Kf3 Rxb2 27.Ra5 Rb7 28.Ra6 Kf8 29.e4 Rc7 30.h4 Kf7 31.g4 Kf8 32.Kf4 Ke7 33.h5 h6 34.Kf5 Kf7 35.e5 Rb7 36.Rd6 Ke7 37.Ra6 Kf7 38.Rd6 Kf8 39.Rc6 Kf7 40.a3 1–0
Lasker,E - Rubinstein,A [C82]
St Petersburg prel St Petersburg (4), 26.04.1914
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 0–0 11.Bc2 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 f6 13.exf6 Rxf6 14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.cxd4 Bb6 16.a4 Rb8 17.axb5 axb5 18.Qc3 Qd6 19.Be3 Bf5 20.Rfc1 Bxc2 21.Rxc2 Re8 22.Rac1 Rfe6 23.h3 Re4 24.Qd2 R8e6 25.Rc6 Qd7 26.Rxe6 Qxe6 27.Qd3 Qe8 28.Qc3 Kf7 29.Qd3 Kg8 30.Qc3 Qe6 31.Ra1 Qe8 32.Kf1 h6 33.Qd3 Kf7 34.Rc1 Kg8 35.Qb3 Qf7 36.Rd1 c6 37.f3 Qf6 38.Qd3 Re7 39.Bf2 Qd6 40.Qc2 Kf7 41.Rc1 Re6 42.Qf5+ Rf6 43.Qe5 Re6 44.Qxd6 Rxd6 45.Ke2 Ke7 46.Kd3 Rg6 47.g3 Rf6 48.f4 Kd7 49.Re1 Rf8 50.Ra1 h5 51.Be3 g6 52.Rf1 Kd6 53.g4 hxg4 54.hxg4 c5 55.dxc5+ Bxc5 56.Bxc5+ Kxc5 57.f5 gxf5 58.gxf5 Rf6 59.Rf4 b4 60.b3 Rf7 61.f6 Kd6 62.Kd4 Ke6 63.Rf2 Kd6 64.Ra2 Rc7 65.Ra6+ Kd7 66.Rb6 1–0
Lasker,E - Rubinstein,A [C79]
Maehrisch Ostrau Maehrisch Ostrau (11), 07.1923
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 d6 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 Na5 8.d4 Nxb3 9.axb3 Bb7 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nc3 c6 13.d5 c5 14.Qd3 Qd8 15.Nxb5 axb5 16.Qxb5+ Qd7 17.Rxa8+ Bxa8 18.Qb8+ Qd8 19.Qb5+ Qd7 20.Qb8+ Qd8 21.Qb5+ Qd7 22.Qb8+ Qd8 23.Qb5+ ½–½
Rubinstein,A - Lasker,E [D47]
Moscow Moscow (6), 1925
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Be2 a6 9.0–0 Bb7 10.b3 Be7 11.Bb2 0–0 12.Ne5 c5 13.Bf3 Qc7 14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.Ne4 Rad8 16.Rc1 Qb8 17.Qe2 cxd4 18.exd4 Rc8 19.g3 Qa8 20.Kg2 Rfd8 21.Rxc8 Rxc8 22.Rc1 Rxc1 23.Bxc1 h6 24.Bb2 Nb6 25.h3 Qc8 26.Qd3 Nd5 27.a3 Nb6 28.Kh2 Bd5 29.Kg2 Qc6 30.Nd2 a5 31.Qc3 Bxf3+ 32.Nxf3 Qxc3 33.Bxc3 a4 34.bxa4 bxa4 35.Kf1 Bxa3 36.Ke2 Kf8 37.Kd3 Nd5 38.Be1 Bd6 39.Kc4 Ke7 40.Ne5 Bxe5 41.dxe5 Kd7 42.Bd2 h5 43.Bc1 Kc6 44.Ba3 Nb6+ 45.Kd4 Kb5 46.Bf8 Nc4 47.Kc3 g6 48.f4 Ne3 49.Kd3 Nd5 50.Ba3 h4 51.gxh4 Nxf4+ 52.Ke4 Nh5 53.Kf3 Kc4 54.Bb2 Kb3 55.Ba1 a3 56.Kg4 Kc2 57.Kg5 Kd3 0–1
Originally posted by WulebgrThese are not title match games when Rubinstein was the best player in the world. About 1907 to 1910 he is considered the best player. Lasker did not play Rubinstein. He played Schlechter in 1910 and not Rubinstein. I will not say Lasker ran from Rubinstein, but he did refuse to play Tarrasch. Tarrasch had insulted Lasker and Rubinstein did not have the funds for a title match. When Lasker did play Tarrasch he was no longer playing at championship level. P.S Lasker had all he could handle from Schlechter. The tenth game of that match is a great game.
Rubinstein,A - Lasker,E [D32]
St Petersburg St Petersburg (3), 18.02.1909
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 c5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Nc3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Nc6 8.e3 Be7 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nxd5 Bxd4 12.exd4 Qg5 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.Ne3 0–0–0 15.0–0 Rhe8 16.Rc1 Rxe3 17.Rxc6+ bxc6 18.Qc1 Rxd4 19.fxe3 Rd7 20.Qxc6+ Kd8 21.Rf4 f5 22.Qc5 Qe7 23.Qxe7+ Kxe7 24.Rxf5 Rd1+ 25.Kf2 R ...[text shortened]... Nd5 50.Ba3 h4 51.gxh4 Nxf4+ 52.Ke4 Nh5 53.Kf3 Kc4 54.Bb2 Kb3 55.Ba1 a3 56.Kg4 Kc2 57.Kg5 Kd3 0–1
Originally posted by gambit3Rubinstein was considered the best during those years because only in 1909 was he able to defeat Lasker. We are all Lasker's students. Rubinstein was merely a great player that may have seserved a chance at the title (as Donaldson argues in his book).
These are not title match games when Rubinstein was the best player in the world. About 1907 to 1910 he is considered the best player. Lasker did not play Rubinstein. He played Schlechter in 1910 and not Rubinstein. I will not say Lasker ran from Rubinstein, but he did refuse to play Tarrasch. Tarrasch had insulted Lasker and Rubinstein did not have the fund ...[text shortened]... .S Lasker had all he could handle from Schlechter. The tenth game of that match is a great game.
Originally posted by WulebgrThat may or may no be true. Lasker refused to play Rubinstein. As far as Schlechter goes I think his playing style matched well with Lasker. Lasker's "performance rateing" is in the top five or so best players of all time. The very best of the best players are Karpov, Fischer, Lasker, Kasparov, and Botvinnik. This list is in order and is based on the best performance they ever played as Jeff Sonas' has rated them. These players rateings are within twentyfive rateing points of each other so they must be considered even. Their playing styles and match play ability would make the differance. Lasker seems to be one of the Champions that was a nice guy as was Tal. Why are great people such jerks?
Rubinstein was considered the best during those years because only in 1909 was he able to defeat Lasker. We are all Lasker's students. Rubinstein was merely a great player that may have seserved a chance at the title (as Donaldson argues in his book).