Was Lasker an Overated Player?

Originally posted by caissad4
I don't believe Lasker was over rated. Chess is a game of errors, not perfection. Emanuel was perhaps the greatest at exploiting psychological weaknesses in his opponents. When analyzing his games I invariably say to myself "What the ....". Same for Korchnoi.
When Jen Shahade interviewed me for her book on women in chess she asked who my favorite chessplayer is. I answered, Emanuel Lasker. 😏

Just think if you had known me at that time you would have answered unequivocally, Robbie.

Before criticizing Lasker, read what Reti has to day about him (Masters of the Chessboard, Dover Ed.). I don't mean the line about Laker playing intentionally bad moves. Reti remarks that Lasker often carries out strategic maneuvers by means of tactical threats. His opponents were thus forced to fend off the immediate tactical threats and thus could not adequately respond to the longer range strategy. Lasker was deeper than most people gave him credit for. His showing in Nottingham 1936 was nothing short of miraculous: at the age of 68, he drew all the champions who succeeded him: Capa, Alekhine, Euwe, and Botvinnik, as well as Flohr, Fine, and Reshevsky. I doubt Pillsbury or Rubinstein even in their primes would have held their own against the next two generations of Hyper-Moderns and their successors.