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

Reuben Fine has some interesting anecdotes about why he liked going over games of one GM vs. another, playing one GM vs. another, or reading the books of one GM vs. another. To really understand the mindset and impressions of the GMs of the early 20th century (thus several generations removed from us), I think you have to rely on some oberservations of the time.

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 think it's a style thing, 10 years from now the opposite
may be true. Just like lines of play being in vouge for
a few years, then falling into disuse.
🙂

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.

Korchnoi was a big fan of Lasker's style; Petrosian of Capablanca's and Nimzovitch's. I'm certain Botvinnik and Smyslov studied every Rubinstein game they could find.

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

Oh, those Russians ...... 😀 😵

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Oh, those Russians ...... 😀 😵

I'm still waiting for an answer.

Originally posted by Rizhanin
I'm still waiting for an answer.

To which question ?

By the way, are you Russian or Latvian ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
To which question ?

By the way, are you Russian or Latvian ?

Maybe you should have asked this question before your previous post? 😉

My favorite three are Lasker, Capablanca, and Petrosian !!!
I think Fischer labeling Lasker as a coffeehouse player may have a little to do with it. Petrosian was an outstanding player. His games are very hard to get a hold of. In the past, books on Petrosian's games have been way overpriced. $30 for the Clarke book was a little steep and that's just a recent addition. Petrosian has a style that is very hard to study. His skills lay in positional maneuvering. People like to study flashy tactics and quick kills like Tal. It is harder to get anything from someone who lays in wait 30 moves at a time, and picks them off in the endgame. Lasker and Petrosian were the greatest two masters of defense. Lasker showed how to make a real fight of it, and Petrosian showed how you shouldn't lose without weaknesses.

Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics
My favorite three are Lasker, Capablanca, and Petrosian !!!
I think Fischer labeling Lasker as a coffeehouse player may have a little to do with it. Petrosian was an outstanding player. His games are very hard to get a hold of. In the past, books on Petrosian's games have been way overpriced. $30 for the Clarke book was a little steep and th ...[text shortened]... w to make a real fight of it, and Petrosian showed how you shouldn't lose without weaknesses.

Lasker and Petrosian are difficult to study. The book on defense by Collin Crouch mentioned earlier is very interesting because it is devoted only to the defensive technique of these two outstanding players.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Lasker and Petrosian are difficult to study. The book on defense by Collin Crouch mentioned earlier is very interesting because it is devoted only to the defensive technique of these two outstanding players.

Are they techniques use normal level players can use in everyday games?