lichess.org
Donate

Can we stop with all the Lasker nonsense?

@jupp53

"Lasker used psychology as an art form. This has been used in every world championship since. Excluding Alekhine, Tal, and Fischer, what has any WC done?"

Fischer was a master of psychology. From the NYT:

'Whatever it was, the Spassky mindstyle was being swamped and overwhelmed by the Fischer mind‐style. The Fischer aura had enveloped him.'

www.nytimes.com/1972/09/03/archives/psychic-murder-at-the-chessboard-encounter-at-reykjavik-boy-wonder.html

Fischer had Russians tearing chairs apart trying to find the way he was secretly mind-controlling Spassky. 50 years later the vast majority of people can't understand what Fischer did and just write him off as "crazy". The fact is though, Fischer won and Lasker's "psychology" looks like parlor tricks compared to the way Fischer mind-****ed an entire country.

"Morphy played some horrible positional games"

Reti:

Morphy was the first positional player who,...understood the strategic basis for attack...his exploitation of open lines prepared the way for Steinitz's scientific treatment of closed positions and the era of modern chess. "

Capa:

"His main strength lay not in his combinative gift, but in his positional play and general style."

Botvinnik:

"To this day Morphy is an unsurpassed master of the open games. Just how great was his significance is evidant from the fact that after Morphy nothing substantially new has been created in this field."

Fischer:

" In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today... Morphy was perhaps the most accurate chess player who ever lived."

Smyslov:

"His harmonious positional understanding the pure intuition would have made Morphy a highly dangerous opponent even for any player of our times."

Euwe:

" Morphy was a chess genius in the complete sense of the word."

Kasparov:

"Morphy had a well-developed feel for position, and therefore he can be confidently regarded as the first swallow - the prototype of the strong 20th century grandmaster."

http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/quotes.html
Sorry I left out Lasker's quote on Morphy:

" He introduced the rule: brilliant moves and deep winning manoeuvres are possible only in those positions where the opponent can be opposed with an abundance of active energy"
@Savage47

Morphy is your hero. Nothing against it. At his time the best, as Lasker at his time.

You should know about the beautiful completeness of comparing different players of different times, don't you?

You made me cry, me poor little boy, as you didn't quote what Kramnik said directly about Lasker. So you have won the debate and destroyed the crying weakling, lying on the floor, hit by your greatness!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP7CB3wtWSU
As edit doesn't work:

"You should know about the beautiful completeness of the nonsense of comparing ...."

(Apologizing for the bad style of the sentence. But it ain't worthy for more time.)
@jupp53

I quoted most of what Kramnik said. My main point was that, when asked about Lasker, Kramnik spends 75% of his time talking about Tarrasch and Rubinstein. Why would he do that unless he just didn't have anything to say?

The rest of the quote he said Lasker was a "pioneer" (pretty generic) and that some of his games might still hold up today. Compare that lukewarm statement with the quotes about Morphy (who was playing his best chess 50 years earlier).

Let me paraphrase the quote you gave:

Q: What do you think about Lasker?

Kramnik: He was a pioneer I guess but all of those guys sucked including Tarrasch who was better than Lasker. Let's talk about Rubinstein though. Rubinstein was "...an incredibly talented and fantastic chess player. Sometimes he created true masterpieces and was way ahead of his time. " It's too bad Lasker never gave Rubinstein a shot at the title.

I mean literally your "proof" of Lasker's greatness is a quote from a second rate world champion who hardly even talks about the guy the quote is supposed to be about.

The most bold comment about Lasker's greatness is a generic statement about ALL the players of that era being "...prone to rigidity." . Seriously? That's the BEST quote you can come up with? A second rate world champion said players of that era were "rigid" and then spent several minutes talking about guys Lasker avoided.

Come on, man.
@Savage47

You don't quote (retranslated from german):

"He is the first in the chain of univeral chess, when several elements of the fight are seen at one moment."
"Naturally I knew Steinitz as a great chessplayer, but when I studied Lasker I saw kind of a massacre. To be honest it was a cultural shock for me. Never did I see such a grave performance difference in the wc-duels. .... Probably Steinitz was weakened at that time, but not so heavy, as his good tournament results at those days prove."
Further estimates Kramnik Lasker's playing strength around 2700 and Steinitz around 2400.
"As he won the title he was superior to his competitors as nobody elsewise."

Naming Kramnik "a second rate world champion" prompts me to ask: Did you have such a bad childhood? following a film I saw last week. But I take it back. Kasparow lost his match against Kramnik without winning one game! How many would have set money on this result before the match started? This is really second rate from Kramnik!

Btw: The idea of a second rate world champion has its special taste.

To quote you: "Come on, man."

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.