Play online chess at Letsplaychess.com
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Emanuel Lasker 1868-1941
World champion reign: 1894-1921
Editors: Tryfon Gavriel, Janet Edwardson of Barnet chess club (London, England)
Feedback welcome
Personal Background
Match/Tournament History
Lasker game philosophy
Lasker's personality
Literary contributions
Lasker games
Lasker quotes
Research references and credits
 | He was a German player of Jewish origin |
| He was born in Berlinchen (after 1945 when it became a Polish town, it became known as Barlinek) , a small town in the Prussian province of Brandenburg on Christmas Eve |
| He had one brother and two sisters |
| He was taught the moves by his elder brother Berthold on a visit to Berlin |
| He finished his mathematical studies at the Universities of Heidelberg and Erlangen gaining his doctorate |
Introduction
Lasker's record of success in tournament play extends further than any other great player over a period of forty years. From 1895 to 1924 he played in ten major tournaments, winning or sharing eight first prizes, one second, one third. His 78% score in these events (+119=46-18) spread over 30 years, was easily the best tournament record of the time.
After gaining the title of World Champion at a young age of 25, he held the title of World Champion longer than any other world champion - 26 years and 337 days
Uncrowned Kings
Lasker's three main rivals prior to 1908 were Tarrasch, Maroczy and
Pillsbury. Pillsbury was unfortunately very unwell and died in 1906. Tarrasch was
particularly dominant in the chess world and arguably an "uncrowned king"
through winning five major tournaments between 1889 and 1894:- 1889 Breslau Master
Tournament, Nuremberg 1888, Manchester 1890, Dresden 1892, and Lepizig 1894. Tarrasch
should have perhaps accepted Lasker's initial match proposal in 1892, and history might
have been different.
After 1908, Lasker had to face Schlechter, Rubinstein, and Capablanca. Rubinstein's
tournament record between 1909 and 1912 was better than anyone else in the world. It was
the outbreak of war which prevented the scheduled match between himself and Lasker in
1914. Schlechter held his own in his match against Lasker, and unfortunately chess lost a
brilliant player as he died in 1918 from a combination of malnutrition and pneumonia.
Lasker was greatly affected by Steinitz's impoverishment and demanded high fees whenever he played, believing a champion should be properly rewarded. He attempted to provide a more rewarding climate for his contemporaries to survive in. It was unfortunate for the chess world however, that many could not.
Lasker could go for many years without playing in a tournament, because he also had demanding professional interests in mathematics and philosophy. The rarity of his appearances contributed to his ability to raise the stakes when he did appear.
| Year | Description and implications | Result |
| 1888 | Café Kaiserhof annual Winter tournament | Won (+20) |
| 1889 | The Hauptturnier of the German Schachbund tournament held in
Breslau. [Editor's note: This is like the UK's Hastings challengers event and the Hastings
Premiere event. Tarrasch had won the premier event, Lasker the challengers] Implications: Lasker's victory brought him the title of German Schachmeister (master title) which increased the probability of Lasker taking up chess professionally rather than following one of his other many interests. He had even told his brother prior to the tournament that if he did not obtain first place he would abandon serious chess. In this respect, it is interesting to note that if Lasker's main rival in the tournament had not had a position set up incorrectly after adjournment, Lasker might not have been able to catch up, and then win the play off giving him sole first place. The winner of the master tournament was Dr Siegbert Tarrasch, who was destined to be one of Lasker's greatest rivals throughout his life. |
Won |
| 1899 | Amsterdam | 2nd place |
| 1890 | London tournament | Defeated Bird (+7=3-2) |
| 1892 | London tournament | First prize (+5=3), half a point ahead of Blackburne |
| 1892 | Match with Blackburne Implications: He first challenged Tarrasch, who suggested that he win a major tournament before making the challenge. He then decided to challenge the official world champion Steinitz, making the bold step of going to the USA. |
Won (+6=4) |
| 1894 (May) |
Venues: New York, Philadelphia, Montreal Implications: Steinitz immediately wanted a rematch, and wrote a letter full of venom to Lasker, which including such comments as: "I shall therefore take the fullest responsibility of retaining the champion title, which you have forfeited by your letter of June 22nd, after the expiration of the time of grace which I gave you for reconsideration... I have the honour to subscribe myself... yours very truly, W.Steinitz Chess Champion of the World" Lasker found himself in the same position as a later world champion Karpov was to be
in. He had the title, but had to prove himself to the chess world, by winning some major
tournaments. |
Won (+10=4-5) |
| 1895 | Hastings Implications: There was still tension as to who was the best player in the world. St Petersburg Chess Club was motivated to resolve this tension by arranging a tournament inviting all five in an all play all shootout in 1895-96. Unfortunately Tarrasch was unable to attend due to ill health. |
3rd place (+14=3-4) after Pillsbury and Chigorin, ahead of Tarrasch and Steinitz |
| 1895-6 | St Petersburg, Russia, four master match tournament Implications: Lasker re-asserted himself as a worthy world champion by winning this all play all. |
1st (+8=7-3) ahead of Steinitz, Pillsbury and Chigorin |
| 1896 | Nuremberg | 1st (+12=3-3) ahead of Maroczy, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Steinitz and Chigorin |
| 1896-97 | World Championship return match against Steinitz held in
Moscow Implications: Lasker confirmed his status of World Champion to the chess world. Editor's note: It could be argued that Steinitz's openings were an "open book" to Lasker, because Steinitz had given away many of his secrets in 1889 with the publication of the Modern Chess Instructor. This not only encapsulated Steinitz's general theories of chess, but also gave detailed accounts of opening analysis. |
Won (+10=5-2) |
| 1899 | London | (+18=7-1) 4.5 points ahead of Janowski, Marcozy and Pillsbury who shared 2nd place |
| 1899 | Haupitturnier, Breslaw | Gained German master title |
| 1900 | Paris | (+14=1-1) ahead of Pillsbury and Maroczy |
| 1904 | Cambridge Springs Implications: This minor setback coming behind Marshall, was the precursor to the Marshall World championship match. |
2nd equal (+9=4-2) with Janowski, two points after Marshall |
| 1907 | World championship match against Marshall held in the USA Implications: This was one of the most one-sided world championship matches ever |
Won (+8=7-0) |
| 1908 | World championship match against Tarrasch held in Germany Implications: Pillsbury dying in 1906 through syphilis, had left Tarrasch as one of Lasker's last remaining rivals. This match victory by Lasker brought an end to one of the longest feuds in chess history. Lasker at forty years of age had triumphed. The practical game philosophy of Lasker was victorious over the more dogmatic "rule-bound" style of Tarrasch. |
Won (+8=5-3) |
| 1909 | St Petersburg | 1st place with Rubinstein (+13=3-2) ahead of Duras and Spielmann |
| 1909 | Janowski exhibition matches | Drew 1st (+2-2), won 2nd match held a few months later (+7=2-1) |
| 1910 | "World championship match" against Schlechter
(the
public after the match decided to call it a "world championship match". However
there is little evidence to believe that Lasker would want to risk his world title on a
short 10 game match.) Thirty games were originally proposed, but this was reduced to 10 because of a lack of funds. Implications: Some mystery as to the match clauses surround this match. Schlechter lost the final game, but was unusually playing very hard for a win. It could be speculated that the match conditions were such that the challenger (Schlechter) had to win by two clear points. If this were the case, in the context of such a short ten game match, then this was a heavy condition for Schlechter to accept. It could also be speculated that Schlechter was simply being a sportsman, trying to win in the last game. Editors note: In order to clarify these speculations, please Email the editor if you have convincing evidence of the match clauses, or explanation of Schlechter's final game approach where the "drawmaster" played like a hacker |
Draw (+1=8-1) |
| 1910 | World championship match against Janowski held in Berlin | Won (+8=3-0) |
| 1914 | St Petersburg Tournament highlights It was the first tournament encounter between Capablanca and Lasker. After beating Capablanca, Lasker commented |
1st stage: All play all between 11 players, Capablanca scored 8, Lasker 6.5. These two together with Alekhine, Marshall and Tarrasch then competed in the next stage: a double round all-play-all 2nd stage all play all: |
| 1918 | Berlin | 1st (+3=3) ahead of Rubinstein, Schlechter, and Tarrasch |
| 1921 |
World championship match vs. Capablanca held in Havana The match was scheduled for 30 games, but after 14 games, Lasker resigned the match on the grounds of ill-health. In defence of Lasker Lasker was attracted to play through the large purse at stake despite being disillusioned and not overly enthusiastic about the game. He had even previously written to resign his title in favour of Capablanca with the congratulatory words: "You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge but by your brilliant mastery." |
Lost (-4=10) |
| 1923 | Mahrisch-Ostrau tournament held in Czechoslovakia | 1st (+8=5) |
| 1924 | New York International chess tournament Implications: 11 Grandmasters took part in this tournament, and Lasker at the age of fifty-five showed them who was dominant. He finished 1.5 points ahead of world champion Capablanca |
Won (+13=6-1), ahead of Capablanca and Alekhine |
| 1925 | Moscow The planned New York 1927 tournament did not include Lasker in its invitees, and this may have had an effect on Lasker giving up competitive chess for a long time. Implications (of Hitler): When Hitler came to power Lasker was forced to leave Germany and had to come out of retirement in chess to make enough money to live. Gareth Williams, writing in "Chess Monthly", describes the last few years of Lasker's life:
|
2nd (+10=8-2) after Bogoljubow ahead of Capablanca |
| 1934 | Zurich | Fifth (+9=2-4) |
| 1935 | Moscow tournament Implications: This tournament fully demonstrated that Lasker could hold his own still against the best players in the world. This was absolutely outstanding for a player in his 60's. He played 19 games without a single loss against very tough opposition. It should be noted that he beat his old rival Capablanca again in this tournament as well as finishing ahead of him! |
Third (+6=13-0) after Botvinnik and Flohr ahead of Capablanca |
| 1936 | Nottingham [Editor's note: We are now in scope of the excellent British games archive "BritBase" courtesy of John Saunders, and you can therefore see all the games of this great tournament by downloading the relevant file from the 1930-1939 section!]
Lasker is 2nd from left seated. Implications: Lasker's final tournaments put him in the World record book for chess longevity. |
7th (+6=5-3) |
| 1941 | Died at age of 72 in New York |
Introduction
Lasker represented the link between Steinitz and the modern chess world. He ensured that the principles of Steinitz were given maximum reward. Together with Steinitz, positional play in chess was well and truly introduced, elevating the game to a new level.
Lasker's game philosophy from a psychological perspective, is extremely interesting because he uniquely put human frailty into the equation for being an effective chess player. Through the examples of his games which were for a long time not understood, he taught players to respect the psychological elements of chess. [Editor's note: Chess for Tigers is a very good little book teaching one to play on one's strengths. This is a kind of echo of Lasker- who was not so much interested in trying to play a "perfect", correct game of chess, as much as an effective game of chess].
Examples of psychological factors affecting Lasker's choice of plan: He would tempt defensive opponents onto the attack, he would create a very tactical unclear climate for his positional opponents. He was clearly aware that a bad move against one player, might be a very effective move against another player of different playing style. [Editor's note: Basically he was a psychological nightmare to play against! Perhaps Lasker would have been a great anti-computer chess player if he had been alive today, using for example very closed positions devoid of tactics, to remove the metal monster's counterplay completely before doing anything active to win!]
To further emphasise the practical implications of the Lasker philosophy, it is interesting to contrast it with the "correct" and "perfect" philosophy of Tarrasch who asserted facts irrespective of the opponent, for example that after 1.d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 that c5 was the only "correct" move as it challenged the White pawn centre. Lasker never asserted such statements, and thus conceded in effect that Chess was far too complex for man. Thus "effectiveness" was more appropriate a philosophy than "correctness", as the latter was impossible for humans to obtain in his view.
In the opening Lasker liked to leave the beaten track and was not concerned that that sometimes left him with a slight disadvantage, providing the position offered scope for his talent. He believed that such positions were defensible and had the talent and resourcefulness to back this belief. He had a deep understanding of the boundary between hopeless positions, and difficult positions, and used the latter as a psychological weapon against his opponents where appropriate.
Because Lasker, was no opening theoretician, his games became a model for fighting, resourceful chess after the opening positions reached, rather than for example, the technical capitalisation of winning advantages. This is a good lesson to us all, in that memorisation of thousands of opening lines, should be weighed against simply knowing the fundamentals of the openings, and being a highly resourceful player within that framework.
The following game is a classic cited by many books, paradoxially demonstrating Lasker's fighting spirit through a seemingly innocuous opening where a draw was the implied result. Lasker had to win this game.
source: "Weltgeschichte des Schachs", v11, Wildhagen 1958, 11-389.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4
                  |
Lasker had to win this game!
7...Bd6 8.Nc3 Ne7 9.0-0 0-0 10.f4
 |
Lasker shows fighting spirit with this move. He is indeed trying for a win!
10...Re8 11.Nb3 f6 12.f5
|
A controversial decision, leaving the e4 pawn backward on a semi open file.
12...b6 13.Bf4 Bb7 14.Bxd6 cxd6 15.Nd4
|
The knight hops into e6
15...Rad8 16.Ne6 Rd7 17.Rad1 Nc8 18.Rf2 b5 19.Rfd2 Rde7 20.b4
|
Lasker clamps down on Capablanca's counterplay
20...Kf7 21.a3 Ba8 22.Kf2 Ra7 23.g4
|
The start of a kingside offensive
23...h6 24.Rd3 a5 25.h4 axb4 26.axb4 Rae7 27.Kf3 Rg8 28.Kf4
|
The pressure increases on Capablanca. A breakthrough with g5 is imminent
28...g6 29.Rg3 g5+ 30.Kf3 Nb6 31.hxg5 hxg5 32.Rh3
 |
White has carved a clear advantage from the position
32...Rd7 33.Kg3 Ke8 34.Rdh1 Bb7
35.e5!!
|
A stunning and logical pawn sacrifice. The e4 square is vacated for the knight
35...dxe5 36.Ne4 Nd5 37.N6c5 Bc8 38.Nxd7 Bxd7 39.Rh7 Rf8 40.Ra1 Kd8 41.Ra8+ Bc8 42.Nc5
 |
1-0
(Return to / Go to 1914 St Petersburg Tournament)
Lasker's game philosophy can be bulleted as following:-
| To understand the opponent's weaknesses and let this understanding usefully pervade his plans to make them more effective against his particular opponent. In this respect, Lasker's style was based around his own personal philosophy of battle- human battle. He treated his opponents on their own merits- each with their individual personal flaws and weaknesses. For example he exploited Frank Marshall's interest in brilliant combinations and open lines, by deliberately playing cramped, stodgy defence in order to frustrate him |
| He was a fine tactician when he wanted to be, evidenced clearly for example in his outcombining the American champion Frank Marshall who was a brilliant tactician |
| He was an expert in manoeuvring |
| He was one of the greatest defensive players, content sometimes to play very stodgy cramped positions. It was perhaps for this reason, that Fischer referred to him as a "coffehouse player" and expressed suprise that Lasker consistently wriggled out of them |
| His underlying philosophy was to play an "effective" game of chess, as opposed to a "perfect" game of chess and in this respect he was able to take calculated risks |
Introduction
| He was by many accounts, a gentlemanly and equitable grandmaster "A gentleman of culture, pleasing manners, and becoming modesty" wrote Hoffer in 1890 "Lasker may occasionally lose a game, but never his head" wrote Tarrasch |
| Balance and good humour characterised his attitude |
| He generally hated anything artificial including perfume, scented soap, and imitation flowers |
Introduction
Lasker was a chessplayer, mathematician and philosopher contrasting with the more dedicated Steinitz who restricted his intellectual explorations to chess. The great Albert Einstein opines of Lasker in the forward of the book "Emmanuel Lasker: The Life of a chess master"
"Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later life."
Lasker believed that chess was inherently a worthless pursuit, but it was a perfect model for his profound ideas. Chess was not just opening lines and book knowledge. It represented a battle between two individuals, and therefore the style and psychology of the opponent had to be understood.
His philosophical writing entitled "Struggle" encapsulated Lasker's model of
life, but unfortunately it was close to being unreadable, and having few practical
implications, and was thus ignored by the majority of people, and criticised by
professional philosophers because it lacked a logical system. His literary
contributions in the 3 areas of mathematics, philosophy and chess can be summarised as
follows:-
Chess:
| He wrote Common Sense in Chess (1896) which ran to more than 30 editions or translations |
| He wrote Lehrbuch des Schachspiels (1926), rewritten in English by him as Lasker's
manual of chess (1927).  This illustrated his approach to the game. It also provided a sympathetic testimony to Steinitz and offered instruction of the theory of the game attributed to Steinitz. |
| He wrote the tournament book for St Petersburg 1909 tournament |
| He edited 4 short lived chess magazines |
Mathematics:
| He spent 2 years at Heidelberg University 1897-9, culminating in a thesis presented at Erlangen University in 1900, and he gained his doctorate |
| He wrote a book on algebra which many mathematicians considered one of the best on the subject |
| In 1905, he introduced the notion of a primary ideal, which corresponds to an irreducible variety, and plays a role similar to prime powers in the prime decomposition of an integer. |
| His contributions to geometric calculus remains relevant in this age of electronic computers |
| He contributed papers to mathematical journals. A theorem in the theory of vector spaces is still known by his name |
Philosophy:
| He produced many philosophical writings including Struggle, Understanding of the World, and The Philosophy of the Unattainable. He often drew analogies from chess, but philosophers noted that he constructed no logical system. He however, saw this problem himself. Within his book Struggle he suggested that more experienced philosophers should develop the ideas contained in it. |
| His last book was The Community of the Future (1940) |
Miscellaneous literary contributions:
He wrote books on contact bridge (he was an international player in the early 30's) and other games
Lasker games
Lasker game
download (zipped)
World Champions Java
Browser (2nd item on combo-box)
(has 1159 Lasker games so takes a while to load! )
"Chess is a fight"
"Chess is above all a fight"
"If you see the good move, look for the better one"
"The hardest game to win is a won game."
"In mathematics, if I find a new approach to a problem, another mathematician might claim that he has a better, more elegant solution. In chess, if anybody claims he is better than I, I can checkmate him."
When asked how many moves he considered when analyzing a chess position:
"Only one," he replied. "But it's always the best move."
A Manual of Chess (London 1932):-
"On the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The
creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating
in the checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite."
"Chess is only a game and not to be classed with ... science ... or the arts"
"Where a mediocre chessplayer sees ten moves to continue his game, a master may see only two or three. He discards the others as not of sufficient merit. The further the master progresses in skill and foresight the more he is restricted in his choice of moves... The higher the class of the artist, the less is his liberty."
Of Tarrasch before their match encounter:-
"Dr Tarrasch is a thinker, fond of deep and complex speculation. He will accept the efficacy and usefulness of a move if at the same time he considers it beautiful and theoretically right. But I accept that sort of beauty only if and when it happens to be useful. He admires an idea for its depth, I believe in its strength. I think that by being strong a move is beautiful too."
Of Steinitz's principles:-
"That Chess follows the principles of Steinitz only in some points is no fault of his theory, which would indeed deteriorate if it tried to embrace all possibilities. The fault lies in the rules with which, in course of time, the game has been burdened."
For the secret of longevity, Lasker said:- (can be found in latter part of letter 1936 written to chess on Lasker's view of chess as a fight)
"I have repeatedly explained my conception of a contest between masters, i.e. between creative minds representative of their period. The fight between them is the necessary and sufficient condition of their creative work. To have a worthy opponent is a boon. He is short-sighted who strives for indisputable supremacy in his domain. If, by ill chance, he succeeds in approaching his stupid goal, he his blinded to his defects and deteriorates. When the outcome of tournaments is uncertain and incalculable, as at present, then is chess passing through its more fertile periods"
"Vanity should never tempt a player to engage in combat at the risk of losing health. It is bad enough to lose without the additional annoyance of paying doctor's bills"
Of chess as a model of life:
"The world did not comprehend how much Steinitz had given it: even
Chess players did not comprehend it. And yet his thought was revolutionary, because of
course, it is not limited to the chessboard - the royal game, after all, is of slight
significance - but extends to every activity towards meaning and purpose... What true of
chess must hold by analogy for other games. And games being, at least in intent, modelled
on Life - simplified, to be sure, but still resembling in it essentials- there must be
some analogy between them. Every activity, then, directed by rules and having a meaning
and purpose, such as, for instance a dispute between persons taking different sides of a
question and applying logical rules in their argument, ever such activity, without
exception, has to follow the same fundamental principle which Steinitz discovered as
governing the game of Chess."
Books
The Kings of chess, by William Hartston
The Guinness book of chess grandmasters by William Hartston
The World of chess, by Saidy and Lessing
The Oxford companion to chess, by Hooper and Whyld
Relevant web sites
See the Deja News 'Chess History' Discussion Group
Lasker biography by "The game is afoot" website
World chess champions
World
chess championship matches
New York 1924
International Chess Tournament
Mathematical web site
Mathematics
and Chess references
Further Reading
The
World Chess Championship : Steinitz to Alekhine
Pablo Moran(Translator)
Presentation credits
| Lasker pictures and Nottingham 1936 picture courtesy of Alan Cowderoy, part of Traveller Chess Sites |
| "Flum" of rec.games.chess.misc in encouraging the use of default font! |
Correction credits
Many thanks to Andreas Thomsen of Bonn/Germany for pointing out that Lasker
was born in the Prussian province of Brandenburg, as opposed to the Russian
province. "At the time, the Kingdom of Prussia with its capital Berlin was the most important state of
Germany, the king of Prussia being also the emperor of
Germany."
A joint Barnet chess club and Chess Corner production
|
Garry Kasparov 13th official FIDE world chess champion, current PCA world champion |
Robert J Fischer the 11th official world chess champion
|
The greatest player of all time? World champions reigning dates |
|
José Raúl Capablanca, the 3rd official world chess champion
|
Alexander Alekhine The 4th official world chess champion
|
Capablanca miniatures Botvinnik miniatures Fischer miniatures Petrosian miniatures Kasparov miniatures with White Kasparov miniatures with Black Karpov miniatures with White Karpov miniatures with Black |
|
Learn about Steinitz The world's first official world chess champion!
|
Emanuel Lasker the world's 2nd official world chess champion!
|
Brilliant Tal finishes |
