Emanuel Lasker: Jack of all trades, master of some

by Siegfried Hornecker
11/28/2020 – Emanuel Lasker, the second official World Chess Champion, used to play Bridge with his brother Berthold in coffee houses in Berlin at the end of the 19th century. He was also interested in Lasca, Go, Pokerette and Whistette — but, luckily for chess enthusiasts, he ended up dedicating his life to the royal game. Columnist Siegfried Hornecker presents the German’s endgame studies, plus a controversy surrounding an adjourned game which could have led to Lasker giving up on chess.

ChessBase 16 - Mega package Edition 2021 ChessBase 16 - Mega package Edition 2021

Your key to fresh ideas, precise analyses and targeted training!
Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it. Start your personal success story with ChessBase and enjoy the game even more.


Study of the Month: November 2020

When I got the idea of writing about Emanuel Lasker, it became necessary to order the new biography about him. I vastly underestimated the wealth of information in it, making it certainly impossible to even begin drawing a comprehensive picture of the second World Chess Champion.

Exzelsior VerlagThe information in this article is taken from the new Lasker biography (in English) by the German “Exzelsior Verlag”. It was written by Tischbierek, Forster, Negele [editorial board], et al. [writers].

Also: I capitulate. I admit my defeat. This is the article where I must acknowledge that I can’t even begin to comprehensively write about the subject at hand. There is so much information that it is simply impossible — and as such readers interested in Lasker will need to read further in other sources, especially the (expensive but comprehensive) ones that I used. First, we will see how Lasker became World Chess Champion.

Born on 24 December 1868 in Berlinchen (after World War II: Barlinek, Poland; the German might be confusing to German readers, as “Berlinchen” literally means “small Berlin”), ten years later Lasker was sent to Berlin (today the German capital) to live with his brother Berthold and study mathematics. Wikipedia tells as much, but other important information is not found there: Lasker played in “Cafés”/”Kaffeehäusern”, i.e. coffee houses.

Side note: There might be a certain misconception that coffee houses were 17th to 19th century relics, but coffee houses with board games existed decades into the 20th century and they were not only used for chess but also for many other games. In a sense, it is a lost part of history, and it is with an incomprehensible sadness for me that I can, in my best conscience, supply a photo of the legendary Simpsons in the Strand for this article. Dr. Sue Black, the famous cryptography historian, encouraged me to visit Bletchley Park in 2011, but I unfortunately didn’t meet her. Prior I spent a few days in London where also the memories here were photographed.

Coffee House

Emanuel and Berthold Lasker played chess in the coffee houses in Berlin, but Emanuel also played Bridge there (under old rules called “Auction Bridge”; the new ones called “Contract Bridge” were invented in the 1920s and have become the nearly only way of playing), a game that would later be important in his life, but to which only few resources are available in connection with Lasker. Thankfully, the second volume of the biography contains a chapter about it. Nonetheless, in this article we will concentrate on chess, so Lasker’s interest and engagement in Lasca, a game, which he invented in 1911, Go, Bridge, Poker, Whistette, and other games shall only be shortly mentioned here, as this is what the title “Master of some” refers to. While he did not really reach a master level, he was considerably strong, stronger than just a “Jack of all trades” would be. His numerous publications on various games confirm his expertise, be it as books, articles, or in one case even as a radio broadcast that — to my knowledge — has no recording but an article about it.

Let us get back to Lasker’s biography. Berthold and Emanuel parted ways early on, as Berthold moved to Berlin to attend school there. Emanuel was 4 years old at the time, and as he continued to grow up in Berlinchen, he playfully explored the village and surroundings. In Berlin, he later visited Café Royal [unrelated to the same named café that exists today] and the Teehalle regularly. I found no further information on either place on the internet. The biography gives us a map and names the addresses: Oranienburger Straße 5 (Teehalle) and Kommandantenstraße 76 / Beuthstraße (Café Royal) as of 1890. Likely, both cafés don’t exist anymore. The Café Kaiserhof, another center of chess life in Berlin in the 1880s, was part of the Hotel Kaiserhof at the Wilhelmplatz, destroyed on 24 November 1943.

Lasker’s school years were hard, but at the age of twelve, he learnt chess. Two years later he gained a deeper understanding of the royal game when he took a year off school. As we read later, due to antisemitism in the German Empire, it would have been very difficult for Lasker to pursue an academic career — Lasker was a jew whose surname likely came from the town of Lask where one of his ancestors, a rabbi, lived. So more important than his school career, in my opinion, was that he met Tarrasch in 1887. Oskar Cordel wrote on 28 August 1887 (Südwestdeutsche Schachzeitung) about Berthold Lasker, and added that his younger brother, Emanuel Lasker, was a splendid player already.

Emanuel LaskerLess than two years later, Emanuel Lasker shared the first/second place in the Breslau premier tournament with Emil von Feyerfeil. See the first appendix below if you want to see what happened (according to Christian Hesse) in the last round game of von Feyerfeil against Lipke. As it was, Lasker was set for a play-off against Von Feyerfeil, which he won, despite having lost their earlier game in the tourney, earning Lasker 300 Marks and the master title. Despite qualifying for the master tournament, Lasker never participated in any tourney of the German Chess Federation again.

Lasker, after freshly winning the tourney in Breslau, signed up for the first international tourney of the Dutch Chess Federation in Amsterdam, reaching second place (6 out of 8 points) behind Amos Burn (8), in front of seven other players, including endgame study composer Louis van Vliet.

After matches against Curt von Bardeleben, that was cancelled after a few games, and against Jacques Mieses, that Lasker clearly won, in 1890 England became Lasker’s new place of interest — we won’t mention every tourney and match in which Lasker participated from now on. Lasker’s England tour likely was connected to economic reasons. After later returning to Germany, Lasker decided to play in the 1890 Manchester tourney, but first participated in July in a tourney of the new “Vereinigung deutscher Schachmeister” (German chess masters union) in Berlin. The tourney was a complete failure, as participants withdrew — the events there were scandalous, and the Lasker brothers were declared winners by the tourney director. The news reports about the tourney did seemingly have a lasting effect on Emanuel Lasker’s reputation — he beat his brother in the tourney’s play-off for the title. He would not participate in Manchester.

Less than two weeks prior to this tourney, Lasker made a name for himself with a chess study that would go down in history as one of the best ever conceived, reprinted in nearly every endgame book about rook endgames. It appeared in the same magazine that after the tourney would heavily criticize Lasker for winning the tourney in Berlin.


Later (when?) the position was improved by moving the black king to a6. A position where additionally the white king was moved to a8 was published in 1895. The systematic maneuver leading to the win should be easy to find for readers; otherwise, you can find it at the beginning of the replayable studies below.

After playing in Austria, Lasker returned to Germany and continued his studies in Berlin while playing in coffee houses such as the Teehalle (which by its name rather would have been a tea house). Lasker found paid work in a chess pavillion at an exhibition in London in July 1891. Lasker remained in England and after further successes beat Blackburne 8-2 in an 1892 match for 50 pounds. Afterwards, Lasker started publishing the “London Chess Fortnightly”. Lasker’s lack of business experience and irregular appearance of the magazine led to its quick demise.

Eventually he sailed to America, as he wanted to challenge Steinitz, aboard the British steamship “Spree”. He visited the World Champion, and then played several tourneys and matches, including one in Cuba in early 1893. Eventually, in 1894, the organization of the match became a realistic hope. With a prize fund of $2,000 per player, Steinitz agreed to a match for the title against Lasker. Lasker won 10-5 (the four draws were not counted). The revanche match in 1896 was again won by Lasker, this time by a 10-2 score (and five draws).


In already superior position, 54.Rxf1 secured the win in the final game of the revanche match. (0-1, 59)

Emanuel Lasker remained World Chess Champion until 1921. The rest of this story, when Lasker was at the top of the chess world, is not relevant for his endgame study composing career, neither are his later endeavours in numerous fields shortly described at the beginning of this article.

José Raúl Capablanca, Emanuel Lasker

José Raúl Capablanca and Emanuel Lasker

Let us explore Lasker’s family situation. Lasker’s large family tree is researched several generations back, but more important is the family he wanted to found. The great master had no children of his own, but was married twice. Just like a beautiful love song by Meat Loaf, his wife, whom he married in 1911, was named Martha (Martha Rebecca Cohn; née Bamberger, 1867-1942). This second marriage of hers was not on the grounds of breaking an oath, as Cohn’s first husband, Emil Ekiva Cohn (1855-1909), who was a friend of Lasker, had died two years prior. Martha provided a lot of information about Lasker later on.

Martha had a child with her first husband, but the bloodline ran dry two generations later, as daughter Charlotte had one child, Lissi, who remained childless. The Lasker family itself lives on in other branches — notably, Lasker’s sister Amalie not only married and had children of her own, but also adopted a man whose name readers will easily recognize: Curt von Bardeleben. Another famous family member was Berthold’s wife Elke Lasker-Schüler. 75 years later, she still is regarded as one of the best female German poets, but under the pressure of the Nazi regime she had to flee to Jerusalem.

Finally, Lasker’s endgame studies and problems are of interest. For an interesting observation that is not in the biography (yet?), see the second appendix to this article. Lasker composed a number of orthodox chess problems, i.e. mate in x moves. Unfortunately, only a selection of them is in the biography.

As a small illustration for readers, I chose two chess problems. You can try solving the problems, one is easy and one is difficult. The solutions are replayable below, as are a few endgame studies. Ralf Binnewirtz writes that Lasker preferred simple, clearly arranged and game-like positions, but due to his composing style he can’t be attributed to any “school”  — during Lasker’s lifetime the transformation from the “Old German School” to the “New German School” took place, the latter of which focused mainly on logical problems, i.e. where a base plan fails at first but can be executed after a “safety plan” (Rudi Albrecht, also inexactly, called it “foreplan”).

Lasker’s endgame studies depicted game-like positions regularly.

Lasker was also a good solver of chess problems. As (non-scientific) experiments show, this also is true about many modern grandmasters. Naturally, through their careers, they are also confronted with positions that could have been endgame studies, although to my knowledge no thorough research on how often those positions are correctly played (i.e. endgames where a sequence of unique moves is necessary) exists.


There are 79 “Lasker” entries in the database of Harold van der Heijden, but those include also the works of Eduard Lasker as well as versions and corrections. Counting manually, there are likely around 30 different endgame studies by Emanuel Lasker.

Emanuel LaskerIn this article, we were only able to explore the first years of Lasker, the establishment of himself in the world as the strongest chess player, a title which he held until he was defeated by Capablanca in 1921. Yet, he continued playing many tourneys afterwards. Already when he nearly had lost his title to Carl Schlechter in their 1910 match, Lasker was world champion for as long as Kasparov nearly a century later would be. The 1890 endgame study, reproduced in a version above, anticipated the rise, not only in the Soviet style, of systematic maneuvers by several decades. Being a player first and foremost, many of Lasker’s studies fail to impress by modern standards; many are just positions that could have stemmed (and often likely did) from practical games. As such, the example in the second appendix is interesting.

It would go far beyond the scope of the article to list Lasker’s practical successes, but we offer quick information on Lasker’s final years and heritage: 

After losing his title, Lasker still participated in many tourneys, and after antisemitism grew in Europe and the Soviet Union, in 1937, Lasker settled with his wife in the United States where his chess and bridge skills allowed him to give lectures. On 11 January 1941, Lasker died in New York City. Germany’s greatest chess master, as a Jew a persona non grata in his own country, unfortunately did not see Germany returning to admire him.

In Potsdam, on 11 January 2001, exactly 60 years after Lasker’s death, the Emanuel Lasker Gesellschaft was founded, Without that society, the research done into Emanuel Lasker would have been unthinkable. More than 150 years after his birth, 125 years after becoming World Champion, Lasker still remains as fascinating as always, and his endgame studies, his problems, even his practical play, are only facets of a personality that went far beyond a single game. Emanuel Lasker, in the truest sense of the phrase, was a Jack of all Trades, and a master of some.

Appendix I: The von Feyerfeil - Lipke controversy

Emil Ritter von FeyerfeilEmil Ritter von Feyerfeil [pictured], an Austrian player, is largely forgotten today, and only his date of death is preserved, but not his birthdate. Likely he was born in the 1850s (“around 1855”), dying on 28 February 1917. Paul Lipke (30 June 1870 - 8 March 1955) was a German player of a high level, likely grandmaster strength. His chess career also ended early, as after Vienna 1898 he stopped playing in high-level tourneys. Michael Negele wrote an extensive article in German about Lipke in 2016.

The controversy in which adjourned game was wrongly reinstated, with a pawn missing, is a curiosity that supposedly prevented von Feyerfeil’s victory ahead of Lasker at the tourney. Christian Hesse wrote in his beautiful “Expeditionen in die Schachwelt” (2006, p.34) that this little pawn on h2 might have changed chess history forever. Had it been correctly placed, Von Feyerfeil likely would have drawn the game, and Lasker might have stopped playing chess tournaments, as he had announced that he would not pursue a professional chess career if he did not win the tourney.


With the pawn on h2 omitted, Feyerfeil played 53.Rh2, and the battle raged on until the 121st move when Lipke won. We have questions about this that won’t be answered: How did von Feyerfeil not notice his Ph2 was missing, a pawn that must have been crucial for the evaluation of the position? Would Lasker really have stopped pursuing a professional chess career? In the end, we can only speculate: writers love a good story. But what really would have happened if Lasker didn’t win the tourney is impossible to know. And it is apparently blatantly easy to omit another crucial detail: even with Ph2, White has not an easy defense. The minor pieces dominate the board easily, and the position very likely is won for Black in a practical game. Would it have been won in a practical game in 1889 as well?

We need to add that other sources give an additional white pawn on a5 in the adjourned position, which seems to be a mistake. They also say that the game was adjourned after 40 instead of 52 moves, which would explain why the missing Ph2 wasn’t noticed. Unfortunately, the Wiener Schachzeitung didn’t exist yet at that time, and I also don’t have any other sources from 1889.

Appendix II: An interesting endgame


Richard Forster wrote (e-mail of 8 November 2020; my translation from German, I slightly changed the presentation for readability, i.e. added a diagram instead of the changes to the position above):

This study originally appeared as endgame no.8 in the “Akademische Schachblätter”, no. 11/12, November/December 1901, p. 97, together with a preceding “twin” (endgame no. 7 [see diagram below])


The solutions appeared in the issue March/April 1902, pp. 33f. Unfortunately I have only a mostly unreadable copy of it. Lasker’s main variation for the twin however seems to have gone as follows:

1...Bb5 2.Kf3 Bc6+ 3.Kf2 Bb7 4.Kg1 Bc6 5.Kh2 Bd7 6.Kg2 Bc8 7.Kf3 Be6 8.Kf4 Bb3 9.g4+ Kxh4 10.Nf5+ Kh3 11.g5 Bf7 12.Ke5 Kg4 13.Kf6 Bh5 14.Ng7 Bf7.

As you can easily reproduce with endgame databases, White has a tight path to victory also after 1.Bb5, and that is by 2.Nf5. It seems to be a fascinating endgame and I didn’t explore all its details. The position after 2.Nf5 would be a draw if the bishop would be on d1 instead of e2, for after 3.Ng7+ Kg6 4.Ne6 Kh5 5.Kf5 Bd3+ 6.Kf6 Kg4 7.Nf4 Kxg3 8.Kg5 Black misses the possibility to return to the diagonal d1-h5 from d3, whereas this would be possible from c2.

A second surprising detail of no.7 is that it is a position of zugzwang and, if I am not mistaken, White to move only wins by inducing this position with Black to move. (1.Nd5 Bd1 2.Nf6+ Kg6 3.Ke5 Bf3 4.Nd5 Kh5 5.Ne3 Be2 6.Kf4).

Emanuel Lasker

I don’t know how far this endgame (prior to or after Nalimov [databases]) has been analyzed in literature — I didn’t research that. In the Megabase there are several examples for this endgame. For example, position no. 7 emerged in the grandmaster game Barbosa v Jones, [Chess] Olympiad 2012, after the 77th Black move. The same is true for Zaragatski v Danielian, also 2012 (with reversed colors), but here either White just resigned or the final moves are missing.

It might be of note that Lasker had an (only optically) similar endgame on the queenside against Pillsbury in the Paris [1900] tourney. [The bishop was of the relatively other square color, i.e. as if it would have been on e1 instead of e2 in the diagram above. Lasker’s two extra pawns won easily. That practical endgame might have been an inspiration for the endgame study.]


Click or tap an entry in the list to switch positions

You probably know that you can move pieces on our replay boards to analyse and even start an engine to help you. You can maximize the replayer, auto-play, flip the board and even change the piece style in the bar below the board.

At the bottom of the notation window on the right there are buttons for editing (delete, promote, cut lines, unannotate, undo, redo) save, play out the position against Fritz and even embed the ChessBase game viewer on your website or blog. Hovering the mouse over any button will show you its function.

Master Class Vol.5: Emanuel Lasker

The name Emanuel Lasker will always be linked with his incredible 27 years reign on the throne of world chess. In 1894, at the age of 25, he had already won the world title from Wilhelm Steinitz and his record number of years on the throne did not end till 1921 when Lasker had to accept the superiority of Jose Raul Capablanca. But not only had the only German world champion so far seen off all challengers for many years, he had also won the greatest tournaments of his age, sometimes with an enormous lead. The fascinating question is, how did he manage that?

World Federation for Chess Composition

World Federation for Chess Composition (www.wfcc.ch)


Siegfried (*1986) is a German chess composer and member of the World Federation for Chess Composition, subcommitee for endgame studies. His autobiographical book "Weltenfern" (in English only) can be found on the ARVES website. He presents an interesting endgame study with detailed explanation each month.


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

Ajeeb007 Ajeeb007 3/20/2021 12:13
"The great master had no children of his own, but was married twice. " Really? Nothing I've ever read about Lasker mentioned this. Who was his other wife and when did he marry her?
Rupal Rupal 1/26/2021 05:26
Scorpion129 appears to confuse ability and knowledge. Obviously, chess KNOWLEDGE has increased very greatly since Lasker's time but the fact that a player may know less in no way implies that he or she is a less able player in absolute terms. That is why it is impossible to make meaningful comparisons in 'strength' between players from different eras or to assign hypothetical elo ratings to them because you are not starting from the same baseline.

The fact is, that if one looks at Lasker's domination over his contemporaries, the length of his tenure as world champion, his extraordinary ability to play for decades at the highest level, his extraordinary 3rd place in a grandmaster tournament where he was undefeated at the age of 66, and his magnificent general tournament record, to dismissively describe him as a just '2400 world champion' is ludicrously inappropriate. He was far, far better than that.

By Chessmetrics' reckoning, Lasker was the number 1 player in 292 different months—a total of over 24 years. His first No. 1 rank was in June 1890, and his last in December 1926—a span of 36½ years. Chessmetrics also considers him the strongest 67-year-old in history: in December 1935, at age 67 years and 0 months, his rating was 2691 (number 7 in the world). That is a staggering achievement.

Reti claimed that Lasker sometimes deliberately played bad moves for psychological reasons. If that is the case then his rating at its peak would be much closer to Frits Fritschy's 2850 plus if not higher.
malfa malfa 12/8/2020 03:05
Scorpion29, definitely it is you who desperately need to study the basics, then at least you will understand that you are asking a very stupid question.
Scorpion29 Scorpion29 12/7/2020 06:52
malfa You speak as if you understand chess so well, then pray explain to me why should I study a 2400 World Champion's games when I can instead see how chess is perfected through Stockfish or Leela? You are the one here with a superficial understanding of the game. Go back to the basics and you will understand what I said.
malfa malfa 12/1/2020 02:40
The less they understand of chess, the more they indulge on ridiculous comparisons between champions of different ages. Like claiming that a Spitfire was a bad plane compared to a Mig-25...
MauvaisFou MauvaisFou 11/30/2020 08:26
What everybody tries to tell you, Scorpion, is that you must understand what was chess knowledge
when Steinitz or Tarrash or Lasker came, and that their followers did not start from scratch.
It can be in science, chess, sport, ... it is the same.
Why do jumpers jump higher than 50 years ago ?
Not because they are better.
Scorpion29 Scorpion29 11/30/2020 03:33
Now let's take on what Lasker contributed. Psychological aspects? Sure, but how do you say that it was he who started it all. Isn't Morphy or Anderssen's aggressive chess also a form of psychology? Unfortunately history is written by the winners, and that is why we are so fortunate to be chess players - the games of the greats show who they actually were.
Scorpion29 Scorpion29 11/30/2020 03:31
Objective analysis shows that Lasker, despite his (hmm...) "immense" contributions to chess, is clearly not at the level of say a Capablanca or an Alekhine. Those days information travelled slowly, so it's not as if Capa had databases of games to prepare for when he met Lasker. Capa's strength, despite this being the 1920s, was clearly a modern day 2650+, and in my opinion at his peak he played at today's 2700 elo level.

I have seen examples of Steinitz, Lasker and Capablanca. I have also seen the number of mistakes these 3 made. It is only after seeing all this that I say that Steinitz and Lasker are not true world champions. Not at all. They chose who they wanted to beat and ran away from struggles against the very best of their time. Hendrick's recent book On the Origin of Good Moves exposes this hoax. Objectively, the concept of the World Championship started from Capablanca simply because he is scarily strong even in today's context.

Chess.com has published a picture of accuracy rates of all the players. Lasker is 9th, with an estimated rating of less than 2500. This speaks for itself.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 11/30/2020 02:59
'Standing on the shoulders of giants' was also said by Edmund Hillary after climbing Mount Everest for the first time in 1953, referring to the attempts by George Malory and his team in the early 1920's. Makes a nice comparison with chess: Malory went there with less knowledge of training, far less developed equipment, and far less knowledge about what was awaiting him: 'going where no man has gone before'. You can't possibly state that Malory was a weaker mountaineer than Hillary; it just wouldn't make any sense.
As I wrote before, the Vančura method of drawing in rook endgames, now known to most amateurs rated above 2000, wasn't published until 1924. Around 1900, the top players were on their own, also going where no man had gone before.
If you really feel the urge to compare players from different periods, you shouldn't look at what they knew (i.e. learnt), but at what they found.
chessbibliophile chessbibliophile 11/30/2020 02:14
Did Lasker play brilliantly? What a question! Of course he did. But he rarely won by a direct attack on the king like Chigorin or Alekhine. However, he reveled in tactical complications. Here are a few examples:
1)Lasker –Steinitz, World Championship, Game No. 7, 1894
2)Steinitz-Lasker, World Championship Game No.16,1894
3)Pillsbury-Lasker, St.Petersburg 1895-1896
4)Lasker-Napier, Cambridge Springs 1904
5)Morgan and Stadelman-Lasker, Consultation Game, Philadelphia 1907
6)Schlechter-Lasker, World Championship Game 7, 1910
7)Marshall- Lasker, St.Petersburg 1914
8)Lasker-Alekhine, St. Petersburg 1914
9)Euwe-Lasker, Zürich 1934
10)Kan-Lasker, Moscow 1935

I think, I have offered enough info. on this subject. Now it’s for others to contribute to the discussion.
chessbibliophile chessbibliophile 11/30/2020 02:09
Lasker was world champion for 27 years (1894-1921), not 30 years. He beat Tarrasch, Marshall, Janowsky and Schlechter in world championship matches. How and why there was no match between him and Rubinstein or why his match with Capablanca was delayed till 1921 deserve more space than a reader’s comment would allow here. Did Lasker deserve to be world champion for so long (be it ten years or twenty seven years)? There is a fascinating work, “Die Weltmeisterschaftskampf Lasker-Steinitz 1894” (Edition Marco 1996)by Robert Hübner. Importantly, it also includes games from world championship match with Schlechter. Now Hübner is a stern judge and there is not one exclamation mark given to good moves. They are expected to be played and only explained. Bad moves, however, are assigned question marks and on occasion severely criticized. The analysis itself is detailed and runs into several pages. No, you don’t need to know German to appreciate the sheer wealth of annotations in this book, it helps, though.
chessbibliophile chessbibliophile 11/30/2020 02:07
Anyone who presumes to pass judgement on Lasker should first understand the life and times of Lasker & his contemporaries. For this, a chess player has to do some basic reading. Once upon a time it was “Emanuel Lasker, the life of a chess master” (Deutsch. 1959) by Jacques Hannak. This book carried a preface by Albert Einstein, a friend of Lasker and a biography with annotations of more than 100 of his games. Today it is the trilogy, LASKER by Forster, Niegele and Tischbierek (Exzelsior Verlag. 2018). As of now, two volumes have been released. Apart from the biography each has richly annotated games in the light of modern theory.
What if a player wants to study his games alone? There are two books,
1) “Why Lasker matters” by Andrew Soltis (Batsford. 2005)
2)” John Nunn’s Chess Course” (Gambit.2014)
Nunn takes a lot of trouble to demolish the false myths and narratives that have prevailed over Lasker’s games. Importantly, he does not shy away from Lasker’s failings and they are also listed and enumerated with appropriate examples. Few can beat this book for its treatment of Lasker with detachment and objectivity.
chessbibliophile chessbibliophile 11/30/2020 02:04
“Standing on the shoulders of giants”: What does it mean?
“We see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature.” A statement attributed to Bernard of Chartres, a 12th Century French philosopher. Subsequently it was attributed to Isaac Newton:
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
A few years ago Stephen Hawking, the famous physicist wrote a fascinating work, “Standing on the shoulders of giants” (Book Laboratory. 2004) examining how the work by scientific thinkers from Copernicus to Einstein has contributed to our understanding of the universe today.
Does that apply to chess? Of course. When Kramnik had to play Kasparov in a world championship match, he discovered the Berlin Defence played by Lasker and Tarrasch. Garry found it difficult to cope with the slippery sands of the Berlin and got ony a draw. Rest is history.
Today who is closest to Lasker in spirit? Carlsen. Read Nunn if you need proof.
PhishMaster PhishMaster 11/30/2020 01:06
@Frits Fritschy, it is not totally incomparable. We do see the strength of the games, moves, and understanding.
Steven E DuCharm Steven E DuCharm 11/30/2020 01:31
Lasker Matters
Scorpion29 Scorpion29 11/30/2020 01:03
Tom70 you are welcome to disagree, but the truth remains that by today's standard of play Lasker is not even top 200 in the world today, or for that matter even by the standard of play in the 80s he would barely make the top 50. Such a player, even if he is world champion, doesn't deserve the amount of credit he seems to be getting. Achievements wise he might be superior to Euwe or Smyslov, but strength wise Lasker is definitely weaker than Smyslov.
Scorpion29 Scorpion29 11/30/2020 01:00
Your points do nothing really to counter my argument. Yes, 30 years is a long time at the top, but how did he do it? By refusing matches against players of equal or higher calibre simply based on money. Those were war times, so the social situation was also bad. That's why he got away with such things. With regards to his games, I have yet to see a game where he played brilliant chess and won. Seems like a weak GM strength swindler to me.

Frits Frischy and Phish Master are two of the most ridiculous commenters here. One of you understands the point that I am talking about objective strength. The other is going around in circles about standing on giants. Get this. Capa was a Giant. Not Lasker. Objective strength wise.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 11/29/2020 10:53
At the moment you write 'in today's strength', you are comparing the incomparable.
PhishMaster PhishMaster 11/29/2020 09:53
@Frits Fritschy, I understand that, but that is specifically whey I said "in today's strength". The problem with Chessmetrics is that most people, who quote it, think that it is an absolute in terms of playing strength.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 11/29/2020 06:39
Elo rating compares players at a certain moment in time. So Lasker could well have had a 2850 rating (if elo rating had existed at that moment) if his results against his contemporaries had been outstanding. That doesn't say anything about how he would have fared against modern players. He would have no access to the body of knowledge that has been amassed in over one hundred years. You can't compare him with players from our time.
Modern players are standing on the shoulders of giants. And yes, that means they can look further.
MauvaisFou MauvaisFou 11/29/2020 05:47
To Lovuschka and Frits Fritschy:
the side lines are also pretty, with stalemates everywhere (or losing one of the 3 knights) --
it is a truly wonderful study, with a fantastic final position!

About Lasker, no doubt he would have adapted to his contemporary chess colleagues and would have been,
at any era, among the top top players -- I always find it a little vain to try to compare. Same for Pelé vs Maradona.
Lovuschka Lovuschka 11/29/2020 05:11
@Frits Fritschy: The oversight about Lasca was corrected now, it now is mentioned that Lasker invented it in 1911. Thanks!
PhishMaster PhishMaster 11/29/2020 04:00
@Keshava, after Scorpion29's absurd comment, I knew someone would bring up the utter rubbish that is Chessmetrics. Chessmetrics may compare ratings over the ages, but it totally fails to take into account that our chess understanding has improved by A LOT in 100+ years.

I cannot fault Lasker for not knowing more compared to today, but Scorpion29 is correct that Lasker's actual playing strength is more like 2500-2600 in today's strength, not the absurd 2878 number attributed to him by Chessmetrics, and most people do not get that subtlety.
chessbibliophile chessbibliophile 11/29/2020 02:48
When John Nunn wrote his well-known manual,” John Nunn’s Chess Course” (Gambit. 2014) he chose Lasker’s games as the focus of his instruction:
“ I certainly gained a great deal from looking at his games in detail, and felt that my own understanding of chess had become broader as a result…”
In this book he calls Lasker a misunderstood genius.
“His talent lay in creating situations in which the normal rules and evaluations didn’t apply; his opponents would fail to realize that something was amiss until it was too late. This technique was so successful that not only Lasker’s opponents, but also many later commentators, have failed to appreciate Lasker’s modus operandi. As a consequence, the myth has developed that many of Lasker’s wins were based on swindles, pure luck or even the effect of his cigars. In reality, there was nothing mystical or underhand about his games; they were based on a deep understanding of chess, an appreciation of deceptive positions and some shrewd psychology.”
chessbibliophile chessbibliophile 11/29/2020 02:47
Botvinnik also had a high regard for Lasker and wrote on what he learnt from him and his games in great detail. Here is his comment on Lasker’s chess longevity.
“For a further 14 years after his loss to Capablanca Lasker performed brilliantly in tournaments. His last success was in Moscow 1935, where the ageing former world champion (he was in his 67th year) took third place, did not suffer a single defeat and finished only half a point behind the winners.”
Lasker was Korchnoi’s role model as the latter himself wrote. Kasparov who on his own admission had a poor opinion of Lasker revised his opinion of the Second world Champion after a careful study of his performance. He devotes a major part of “My Great Predecessors (Vol. 1) to the analysis of Lasker’s games.
chessbibliophile chessbibliophile 11/29/2020 02:46
In “Capablanca’s Last Lectures” the great Cuban pays a rich tribute to his predecessor,
“No other great master has been so misunderstood by the vast majority of chess amateurs and even by
many masters, as has Emanuel Lasker. It was often said of Lasker that he had a dry style, that he could not play brilliantly and that his victories were chiefly the result of his uncanny endgame skill and of his opponent’s mistakes. That he was a great endgame player is unquestionable; in fact he was the greatest I have ever known. But he was also the most profound and the most imaginative player I have ever known.”
In the same work he quotes Walter Penn Shipley who wrote, “You and Lasker are the only players so far I know who can make combinations which don’t exist on the chess board!”
Then he cites his own game with Alekhine from Nottingham 1936, a game that fellow grandmasters were kibitzing. All of them thought, Alekhine had made a good combination winning the exchange. Only Lasker saw the inherent dangers in winning material in that position…
Keshava Keshava 11/29/2020 01:58
Chessmetrics calculates Lasker's rating over the period of his activity. It must be said that part of his longevity as world champion was that he could pick his opponents and have long streaks without putting his title up for challenge:
philidorchess philidorchess 11/29/2020 01:52
Lovuschka Lovuschka 11/29/2020 11:49
I think you mean this one, but it was by Herbstman and Kubbel, Leningrad Central Chess Club Tourney 1937, 1st prize: wKg2 Nh3, bKd2 Nh5 Nf1 Pe2. White to move and draw: 1.Ng1 Ne3+ 2.Kh3! Nf4+ 3.Kh2 Ng4+ 4.Kh1 Nf2+ 5.Kh2 e1N 6.Nf3+ Nxf3+ 7.Kg3 Ke3 stalemate.
tom_70 tom_70 11/29/2020 11:49
@Scorpion. I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of Lasker. While he may not be in Capablanca's league, I don't think you can be world champion for as long as he was without a lot of talent and a lot of hard work. I would certainly place him ahead of world champions like Euwe, and Smyslov.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 11/29/2020 11:22
On the fifth position: I also vaguely remember a study by Troitzky where, after a black knight promotion (the third black knight on the board) a white knight forks king and knight! (leading to stalemate a move later) It was something like this: WKh2 Ng1, BKd2 Nf4 Nf2 pawn e2. 1... e1N 2 Nf3+! Nxf3 3 Kg3 Ke3 stalemate!
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 11/29/2020 10:59
A point to note is that in the second study, the position after move 5 is a draw with the white king on d2 and the black rook on a3: 5... Kg7 6 Kc2 and now the only move is 6... Rh3!! With any other rook move, the black king and rook get into each other's way. I wonder how much was known at the time this study was made, as for instance the Vančura position was only discovered 30 years later.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 11/29/2020 10:26
Interesting you write Lasker was 'interested' in the game of Lasca. I always thought Lasker invented that game; him having interest in it then sounds a bit weird. But maybe you have a point, as Lasca just seems to be an adaptation of the Russian draughts-based game of Bashki to the English draughts rules. The English wikipedia page even seems to suggest that the name was just a way of branding by a games manufacturer. Can anyone shed a light on this?
Gerald C Gerald C 11/29/2020 09:16
Just one word for this beautiful article: Thanks !
Davidx1 Davidx1 11/29/2020 07:49
He is a Master for everyone, not for some.
He was World Champion for 30 years.
We become chess masters (as I did in 1994) because we win real matches, neither for a superficiality of rhetoric ,nor for milions of likes, nor because we put our underwear on the internet.
The book is vey beautiful however.
Scorpion29 Scorpion29 11/29/2020 07:44
The Most Over-hyped World Champion out of the 16. Playing level was barely 2500 compared to Capa and Alekhine's high 2600s. But good endgame studies and nice article!