- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Was Bobby Fischer fair to describe Emmanual Lasker as an overrated grandmaster ? Coming from anyone else we might llisten. Coming from Fischer, maybe he was on to something.
How much validity would you associate to Fischer's criticism of E. Lasker ?
How much dare to correct Fischer on his criticism of Lasker ?
It's interesting to see Fischer's reasoning for his 'Top 10 Players'
that excluded Lasker, who he called a coffee house player and Botvinnik.
You can find the whole article here.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer4.html
I've taken a few lines about each player from the above link to whet your appetite
But you should read the full article.
1. PAUL MORPHY. Perhaps the most accurate player who ever
lived, he would beat anybody today in a set-match. He had
complete sight of the board and seldom blundered even
though he moved quite rapidly. I've played over hundreds of
his games and am continually surprised and entertained by
his ingenuity.
2. HOWARD STAUNTON. His games are completely modern, but
very few of them show brilliancies. He understood all the
positional concepts we now hold so dear.
3. WILHELM STEINITZ. He always sought completely original
lines and didn't mind getting into cramped quarters if he
thought that his position was essentially sound.
4. SIEGBERT TARRASCH. Razor-sharp, he always followed his
own rules. In spite of devotion to his own supposedly
scientific method, his play was often witty and bright.
5. MIKHAIL TCHIGORIN. The first great Russian player and one
of the last of the Romantic School. At times he would continue
playing a bad line even after it was refuted.
6. ALEXANDER ALEKHINE. Never a hero of mine. His style
worked for him, but it could scarcely work for anybody else.
His conceptions were gigantic, full of outrageous and
unprecedented ideas. It's hard to find mistakes in his
games, but in a sense his whole method was a mistake.
7. JOSE CAPABLANCA. He had the totally undeserved reputation
of being the greatest living endgame player. His trick was
to keep his openings simple and then play with such brilliance
that it was decided in the middle game before reaching the
ending -- even though his opponent didn't always know it.
His almost complete lack of book knowledge forced him to
push harder to squeeze the utmost out of every position.
8. BORIS SPASSKY. He can blunder away a piece, and you are
never sure whether it's a blunder or a fantastically deep
sacrifice. He sits at the board with the same dead expression
whether he's mating or being mated.
9. MIKHAIL TAL. Even after losing four games in a row to him
I still consider his play unsound. He is always on the
lookout for some spectacular sacrifice, that one shot, that
dramatic breakthrough to give him the win.
10. SAMUEL RESHEVSKY. From 1946 to 1956 probably the best in
the world, though his opening knowledge was less than any
other leading player. Like a machine calculating every
variation, he found moves over the board by a process of
elimination and often got into fantastic time pressure.
The above came from an article written in 1964 but in 1961 Bobby was asked:
"Who is currently the strongest player?"
Fischer answered.
It’s difficult to say. Botvinnik and Tal are among the best; I also like Spassky,
but I think Petrosian is better than all of them. His weakness is too many draws,
even against players he could beat easily. Maybe he lacks self-confidence.’
Originally posted by greenpawn34I read that even in his own day Lasker was considered a weak player despite his prolonged success as world champion for like twenty years or something. Cannot say if it was deserved or not.
It's interesting to see Fischer's reasoning for his 'Top 10 Players'
that excluded Lasker, who he called a coffee house player and Botvinnik.
You can find the whole article here.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer4.html
I've taken a few lines about each player from the above link to whet your appetite
But you should read the ful ...[text shortened]... raws,
even against players he could beat easily. Maybe he lacks self-confidence.’
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sundown316Was he too young to know better maybe?
He held the title for 27 years, a record NOBODY will ever break, especially by the cookie-cutter GMs of today who trade the various, watered-down versions of the title amongst themselves practically every month. Fischer later amended his views about Lasker.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLasker spent a lot of time being a top flight mathematician rather than top flight chess player. That may have resulted in less time spent on chess and fewer tournaments and matches played. He could certainly turn it on when he needed to though.
I read that even in his own day Lasker was considered a weak player despite his prolonged success as world champion for like twenty years or something. Cannot say if it was deserved or not.
Originally posted by sonshipEmanual Lasker was world champion and died before Fischer was born. Edward Lasker was U.S. Open Champion and was alive when Fischer was playing Chess. So it appears they were both good during their time. Maybe Fischer was actually referring to Edward instead of the World Champion, Emanual Lasker.
Was Bobby Fischer fair to describe Emmanual Lasker as an overrated grandmaster ? Coming from anyone else we might llisten. Coming from Fischer, maybe he was on to something.
How much validity would you associate to Fischer's criticism of E. Lasker ?
How much dare to correct Fischer on his criticism of Lasker ?
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course he meant Emanuel. I was joking about Edward.
Emanual Lasker was world champion and died before Fischer was born. Edward Lasker was U.S. Open Champion and was alive when Fischer was playing Chess. So it appears they were both good during their time. Maybe Fischer was actually referring to Edward instead of the World Champion, Emanual Lasker.
Originally posted by woodypusherEmanuel Lasker (December 24, 1868 – January 11, 1941) was a German chess player, mathematician, and philosopher who was World Chess Champion for 27 years (from 1894 to 1921). In his prime Lasker was one of the most dominant champions, and he is still generally regarded as one of the strongest players ever.
Of course he meant Emanuel. I was joking about Edward.
His contemporaries used to say that Lasker used a "psychological" approach to the game, and even that he sometimes deliberately played inferior moves to confuse opponents. Recent analysis, however, indicates that he was ahead of his time and used a more flexible approach than his contemporaries, which mystified many of them. Lasker knew contemporary analyses of openings well but disagreed with many of them. He published chess magazines and five chess books, but later players and commentators found it difficult to draw lessons from his methods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Lasker
Well, I really don't know what Fischer said, but if he said Emanuel Lasker was over-rated, then obviously he is wrong.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by RJHindsI heard he was a defensive player. And I like one of his simple rules.
Emanuel Lasker (December 24, 1868 – January 11, 1941) was a German chess player, mathematician, and philosopher who was World Chess Champion for 27 years (from 1894 to 1921). In his prime Lasker was one of the most dominant champions, and he is still generally regarded as one of the strongest players ever.
His contemporaries used to say that Lasker used ...[text shortened]... what Fischer said, but if he said Emanuel Lasker was over-rated, then obviously he is wrong.
When you spot a good move just take a moment to see if you see a better one.
Fischer was a very good player who is oft quoted as saying:
"I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves."
Playing over Lasker's games was not his cup of tea.
It was his opinion (which changed from time to time as he got better).
Lasker's games did not suit his style which was to look for the best move
rather than an OK moves that set OTB problems.
(which is not really Lasker but in some of Lasker's games Fischer would
have seen better moves.)
It's a matter of taste. Lasker was a hero of Korchnoi who produced some games
I could never understand and I'm not alone here.
Lasker's playing record and tournament wins speak for themself.
I don't think he was overated as a player.
His psychological approach is, the famous one being him adopting the exchange
variation of the Lopez against Capablanca in St.Petersburg when Lasker needed a win.
A few weeks prior to this game someone played an exchange lopez v Capa.
Capa won but his opponents play could have been improved upon.
Lasker did a bit of prep, Capa drifted into a bad game and lost.
In some ways Fischer's play was like Lasker's, in that he was content to "pass the ball around until there was a shot".
I have a theory that Fischer did not respect Lasker as much because they were similar. We tend to value the exotic and discount the familiar, and that could be the case here for Fischer.
Fischer and Lasker were opposites and perhaps niether of them could have fully appreciated the other. Many of us can early on sense the kind of game our opponent wants to play, either generally(style) or specifically (mood), but how many of us can relentlessly exploit that sense from first move to last? In that, Lasker stands alone, mowing down neo-romantics, "scientists", hypermoderns, founders of the "Soviet School" and many others...for decades and into his sixties. Lasker's longevity, his record and his games , speaks for itself. Recommended: A. Soltis' book WHY LASKER MATTERS and Dr. J Hannak's book, EMANUEL LASKER; THE LIFE OF A CHESS MASTER. Fischer's statement on Lasker is akin to the young lady who declared that The Matrix was the greatest film of all time and Citizen Kane was "boring". the answer is the same, it goes, "Dear, Citizen Kane (and Lasker) is for adults."