How come Lasker, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Euwe, Petr...

don't get much attention from chess fans as Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov etc... or even that Kramnik

Originally posted by EmLasker
don't get much attention from chess fans as Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov etc... or even that Kramnik

Because they weren't as good as the above?

Lasker does get a good deal of attention. Botvinnik and Petrosian could be labeled as having a boring style (at least to many players they're boring) while Euwe and Smyslov only 'borrowed' the world title for a year or so before they had to give it back to the same person.

Originally posted by EmLasker
don't get much attention from chess fans as Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov etc... or even that Kramnik

I was going to answer your question, but after seeing your name, I couldn't maintain my attention long enough. 😛

Originally posted by EmLasker
don't get much attention from chess fans as Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov etc... or even that Kramnik

Russian chessplayers never pay much attention to other strong chessplayers. They always promote their own heroes ... and in case they mention a foreigner and show one of his games .... he always loses.

Schakuhr - practically hits the nail with his post.

Capablanca played these games that are easy to understand and
write about - though producing his games OTB is a different matter.

Alekhine & Morphy are everybody's favourite, their breath taking
combinations make their games a joy to play over again and again.

Fischer and Kasparov (and Tal) again exciting to and fro games
which lend themselves to writers experessing their full vocab when
annotating these games.

Lasker was deep and profound - to this day few players and writers understand
what he was up too. Nor can they create some of the games he played, perhaps Korchnoi comes closest. Lasker was either the greatest
chess player we have seen or the greatest swindler.

Botvinnik, Euwe, Smyslov and Petrosian's best games though too are
masterpieces in their own right, do not generate the same excitement
as the above players.

All were/are great players but some have suffered a bad PR
because their brand of play did not capture the public's imagination.

If I want to write a chess book that will sell I will fill it with games
of Morphy, Alekhine and Tal. Which has been done dozens of times.

Who has ever heard of or seen a book full of only Euwe's, Botvinnik's,
Smylov's and Petrosian's games? (not counting a tribute book).

In short, this 'gap' has been created by lazy and inept writers and
a book buying public who desire easy to understand exciting games of chess.

So my answer to the original post. It's our fault because we keep buying
the same books with the same games by the same players.

I would like to say that "How to Defend in Chess" by Colin Crouch, is made up entirely of Lasker and Petrosian games.

http://jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/How_to_Defend_in_Chess.html

Not read it, I did not know this 😳

But of course I forgot.
Combinations = Tal, Alekhine & Morphy.
Dull Defence = Petrosian etc.

it's funny how we have been 'conditioned' and players have been stereo-typed.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Not read it, I did not know this 😳

But of course I forgot.
Combinations = Tal, Alekhine & Morphy.
Dull Defence = Petrosian etc.

it's funny how we have been 'conditioned' and players have been stereo-typed.

Petrosian's not dull,he's required taste 😉
Seriously,you have to like his exchange sacs,no?

Originally posted by EmLasker
don't get much attention from chess fans as Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov etc... or even that Kramnik

What is your gauge for "getting attention"?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Schakuhr - practically hits the nail with his post.

Capablanca played these games that are easy to understand and
write about - though producing his games OTB is a different matter.

Alekhine & Morphy are everybody's favourite, their breath taking
combinations make their games a joy to play over again and again.

Fischer and Kasparov (and Tal) a ...[text shortened]... fault because we keep buying
the same books with the same games by the same players.

You make many excellent points.

Botvinnik is the one that makes the least sense to me. He is the father of modern chess, in my opinion, the first to apply scientific methods to its study. Anyone who plays the French, the Caro-Kann, even the King's Indian owes him a huge debt of gratitude, for it was he that gave them new life.

Smyslov was probably the best endgame player (an often ignored phase of the game) after Fischer. I have a book by him with his games that all lead to interesting endgames.

I would consider Petrosian one of the true geniuses of the game, if for no other reason than his approach and style was so unique. I believe it was Tal who once said it was easier to win the Soviet championship than win a game against Tal.

I agree that these three players (I really don't know enough about Euwe) don't get enough attention because their styles weren't as exciting as their rivals. It takes a little work to appreciate their contributions to the game, but it is worth it.

Also, if you look at some of his games post-world championship, he could play very tactically when the need arose.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Russian chessplayers never pay much attention to other strong chessplayers. They always promote their own heroes ... and in case they mention a foreigner and show one of his games .... he always loses.

I can't see any connection with the thread topic. Not to mention it's complete nonsense what you're saying.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Not read it, I did not know this 😳

But of course I forgot.
Combinations = Tal, Alekhine & Morphy.
Dull Defence = Petrosian etc.

it's funny how we have been 'conditioned' and players have been stereo-typed.

These stereotypes are really annoying.

Here are some well known Petrosian "Dull Defence" games: