Later Tarrasch had another explanation. Lasker hypnotized his opponents. And then there was Euwe, who said there was simply no way to imitate Lasker. It worked—he won. In his era, science had great cache and Steinitz claimed to have applied the scientific method to formulate eternal rules Anyone could apply these rules against an opponent.
Only the board mattered. It is well nigh impossible to underestimate the influence that Steinitz and his disciple Tarrasch had on chess thinking during their era. What could explain it? Reti thought he figured it out when he read an interview Lasker gave to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf after his victory at New York The primary evidence cited by Reti and his successors in advancing the psychology hoax are: -Lasker played obviously bad opening moves — such as g2-g4 in the Dragon Sicilian.
Lasker — Levenfish Moscow Le. Some computers recommend retreat 27 W 2 although that would likely lose without a fight Lasker played 27 Ee3!
When his strategic plan proves to be refuted, Lasker boldly and skillfully creates tactical complications and nearly always comes out of them the victor. Today we would say White complicated because he had to. His moves were part of elaborate mind games. Lasker sacrificed his queen with In fact, Lasker did play the man. A member of the audience asked whether the reason he chose certain openings was that his opponent had declared those lines to be unsatisfactory and Lasker had found flaws in the analysis.
Lasker denied this. He chose the openings because they were grounded in solid, general principles, he said. Considering how rarely he combined, this must be one of his final jokes upon the chess world. Lasker was more candid in an interview he gave nearly 40 years before, to the Berliner Schachzeitung in , which can serve as a brief autobiographical introduction.
Lasker, a brilliant, diligent student with an aptitude for mathematics, began to play chess seriously at The Lasker of the history books, the one he presented to the world, went from W-odds player at 16 to garden-variety amateur at 19 — to international star at 21 How did he manage this last Leko-like leap if he was a devoted student? Most of all, he learned to sit on his hands.
As a result Lasker blundered less often than any world champion End of interruption, Back to the official story. Every player paid a thaler to enter and the winner collected the entire amount. Lasker won every game. He was convinced by an admirer to enter the biennial German Chess Congress, which would be held in Breslau in These events were hugely important at the time. So began my chess career. No one has provided a satisfactory answer. Where is Lasker-Bauer?
You know, the 2 bishop-sacrifice. What was truly typical of Lasker is that he relied on tactics, not combinations. He pursued his goals with the help of tactics, often just two or three moves deep, in much the same manner as Sammy Reshevsky, Anatoly Karpov and Peter Leko Most of all Lasker wanted to win games with a logical, rational plan, as Steinitz so often did. Among its oints is that 6 d4 allows What was he thinking? To limit Black counterplay and keep the center somewhat closed, he felt White needed RXxc6.
A fine idea of Louis Paulsen, the first great defensive player. Black prepares the maneuver. One principle suggested the player with the two bishops should give them scope But Steinitz also said a player should not open the position until he finishes development.
Of course. So why the double exclam? The answer is: Not in A main line was But Svetozar Gligoric introduced a daring idea, The Why Lasker Matters conventional wisdom said that once Black castles kingside, the only open lines he wants there come from But that had repeatedly failed.
Instead, Gligoric said, Black should challenge g4 head on. But Black is not eager to dissolve the h3 target. Instead, his plan is.. Now 15 gxh5? With the g-file opened and h3 exposed, Black should win with simple moves 16 2. Petersburg tournament of ; finally, the defeat of Pirc at Moscow in , a game featuring a then innovative rook sacrifice in the Sicilian Defense. Overall, these are outstanding games that are full of fight and imbued with subtle strategic ideas.
Soltis is a good annotator, an amicable and occasionally humourous companion. His analyses seem sound and he gives good, perspicacious explanations of the play, making good use of contemporaneous sources. Along the way he gives a summation and portrait of Lasker as player and thinker. Lasker was a supreme pragmatist. He was neither as dogmatic as the classicists like Siegbert Tarrasch nor as flighty and unrealistic as many of the Hypermoderns. Both were in a sense too one-dimensional for Lasker, for his theorizing was always rooted in the struggle of the game itself.
Chess is a fight; it requires thought, but this thinking cannot be divorced from competition. Emanuel Lasker held the world chess championship longer than any other player in history to He competed against such greats as Capablanca, Rubinstein, and Alekhine at the height of their game, and was consistently successful yet almost no one studies his games today. International grandmaster Andy Soltis is a professional journalist and popular chess writer.
As the author of numerous chess biographies, including Bobby Fischer Rediscovered also published by Batsford, he is able to provide an objective, entertaining and qualified review of the world's chess greats and their most exciting games. He lives in New York. Convert currency. Add to Basket. Date: Bg5 and 5.
O-O 6. O-O, but Lasker's continuation is quite acceptable and it's part of his strategy for the match. The reason lies far into the ending He has enticed Steinitz into a Queenless middlegame!
For reasons that are beyond my comprehension engines give black a slight advantage here. In the game cited black did go on to win, but that may well have been due to the rating difference. Powered by Aquarium. Tex February 18, at PM. Newer Post Older Post Home.
0コメント