|
Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints
Advertise
with
Chessville!!
Advertise to
thousands
of
chess
fans
for
as little
as $25.
Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each.
From the
Chessville
Chess Store
From the
Chessville
Chess Store
|
Why Lasker Matters
Reviewed by
Michael Jeffreys
|
 |
by Andrew Soltis
Batsford Chess, 2006
ISBN 0713489839
320 Pages, softcover, $21.95
Figurine Algebraic Notation |
Who says Lasker doesn’t matter?
And then there was Euwe, who said there was simply no
way to imitate Lasker.
“It is not possible to learn much from him,” Euwe wrote, “One can only stand
and wonder.”
- Pg. 4, Why Lasker Matters
I’ve always had a love-hate relationship with Andrew Soltis. Some of
his books I really like, such as his excellent hardback book on the US
championships put out by Mcfarland. However, others I find quite
frustrating, such as The Inner Game of Chess which claims to teach
you how to calculate in your head but doesn’t.
I remember reading in that book where he asks you to play through a 30-move
chess game in your head, i.e., blindfold chess. Then he says, “But
don’t try to see the entire board. Nobody does that.” And
at this point I was reading very carefully because I was sure in the very
next sentence he was going to explain to me the mystery that is blindfold
chess and tell me how to do it.
However, to my utter and complete frustration, he failed to tell me
anything! That’s right. Instead of explaining HOW to visualize a
chess position, hold it in your mind, make a move, hold that new image or
however you’re suppose to do it (I still don’t know!), he simply jumps right
into the moves of the game! Ugh. I eventually gave up on the
book as it completely failed to live up to expectations.
And so now we come to Mr. Soltis’ latest effort, Why Lasker Matters.
First of all, I really like the cover shot. It features a young Lasker
sporting a snappy looking black bow tie and old-time glasses. However,
as much as I like the photo, I have to tell you that I hate the book’s
title. I mean, who in their right mind thinks Lasker doesn’t
matter? Okay, besides Fischer, who once infamously called Lasker a
coffeehouse player!? (Although he later took it back.)
I mean, the guy was world champion for 26 years, so obviously he
matters. What this book is really about (and what the title should
have thus reflected) is Soltis’ attempt to breakdown and shed some light on
Lasker’s cagey yet elusive style.
And after sifting through 100 of Lasker’s games, what was Soltis’ big
conclusion? Well, I’ll let him tell you as after giving the final game
in the book he wraps things up with the following two paragraphs:
We’ve come to the end of the Lasker story. Is there a solution to
the mystery? The best answer is that he employed many of the
techniques that have become common today. He violated general
principles when he felt confident in doing so. He played “practical”
moves. He focused on the specifics, such as targets, rather than the
theoretical. He didn’t calculate what didn’t have to be calculated.
He realized the clock was the 33rd piece. He complicated
before his position got bad. He took calculated risks. He
sacrificed for purely positional compensation. He used tactics to
advance positional goals.
It used to be said that Lasker, unlike his contemporaries, formed no
school of thought. But we’re all his students.
Are you kidding me? After 300+ pages of material Soltis ends by
telling us with a straight face that the reason Lasker mattered was because,
“He violated general principles when he felt confident in doing so.
He played “practical” moves. He didn’t calculate what didn’t have to
be calculated. He realized the clock was the 33rd piece.
He complicated before his position got bad. He took calculated risks.
He sacrificed for purely positional compensation. He used tactics to
advance positional goals.”??
I’m sorry, but this is just lame. I mean, what strong player
doesn’t do these things? If you are going to base an entire book
around a single premise, namely, that Lasker matters, you must make a
convincing (and hopefully original) argument for why this is so. And
here Soltis fails big time.
Does this mean that I am giving the book a big thumbs-down? No,
because it does contain 100 of Lasker’s games, annotated by Soltis, and thus
as a games collection it has merit. In fact, had the book been called,
“100 Selected Lasker Games” or “A Fresh look at Lasker” I would have had
very little to gripe about!
Of course, of all of Lasker’s great games his most famous is his demolition
of Bauer utilizing the two bishops as “bunker busters” to destroy the Black
King’s fortress. Here is that game, complete with all of Soltis’ notes
in italics. (I’ve added several extra diagrams in order to make it easier to
follow.) Ok, take it away Andy:
Okay, it can’t be delayed any longer. This is the brilliancy that
made Lasker famous. But it was for the wrong reasons. Thanks
to it, he became known for his originality in combinational play.
But his combination had been played before. What is generally
overlooked is that White’s victory is based on a well-grounded plan that
was designed to create a huge mismatch on the kingside.
Lasker,Emanuel - Bauer,Johann Hermann
Bird’s Opening, Amsterdam, 1889
1.f4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3 This was considered a
sophisticated plan at the time. White obtains a powerful bind after
3…c5 4Nf3 Nc6?! 5Bb5! Bd7 6Bb2 followed by Bxc6 and Ne5—a plan that
served Nimzovich well in the 1920s just as it did for Fischer in 1970.
Today’s players recognize it in reversed form, from lines of the Bogo-
and Queen’s Indian.
3…e6 Savielly Tartakower suggested White was avoiding
Nf3 because he didn’t want to rule out Qf3 and Nh3. But this is
an error that Black should punish with 3…d4!
4.Bb2 Be7 5.Bd3 (And now Lasker has his two “bunker
busters” pointed directly at Black’s kingside, ready for launch! –MJ)
       
  
 
     
5…b6 6.Nf3 Bb7 7.Nc3!? Henry Bird had tried nearly
every piece configuration to make White’s first move work. Along
with Na3 and Nbd2, as well a quick Bb5+ and Be2, he experimented with
Bd3 and Nc3-e2.
For example, Bird-Burn, Match 1886, went 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Nf6
4.b3 Be7 5.Bb2 0–0 6.Bd3 c5 7.0–0 Nc6 8.Kh1 a6 9.a4 Bd7 and now 10.Nc3
Nb4 11.Ne5 and Ne2. That’s the same basic recipe Lasker has in
mind: Shift everything to the kingside.
7…Nbd7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Ne2 Another rightward shift, used
by Tchigorin, is Ne5, Qf3 and Nd1-f2-h3-g5.
9…c5 Jean Dufresne, who helped make this game famous
in his Das Buch der Schachmeisterpartien, recommended 9…Nc5 and
a quick …Nxd3, which would equalize.
10.Ng3
In light of what follows one might have expected 1.f4 to become a
regular part of Lasker’s arsenal. Yet he never played it again
except for exhibition games.
10…Qc7 White has to begin a plan before Black gets
going with …c4, or …a6/…b5 first. White has a logical idea.
If he can trade off all four knights, what remains on the kingside is
one Black piece to defend against White’s queen, king’s rook and two
bishops.
11.Ne5 White is already threatening 12 Nh5 and 13 Nxd7
– and surely must have seen the basic idea that would make him famous,
that 12 Nh5 Nxh5 could be met by 13 Nxd7 Qxd7 14 Bxh7! as in the game.
11…Nxe5 White’s last move granted Black another chance
for …d4. After 11…d4 12 4texd4 cxd4 Black’s queen bishop
diagonal is opened, White’s diagonal is closed and the c2-pawn becomes
a target on a half-open file. Black’s idea is tactically based
on 13.Bxd4 Bc5!, which regains his pawn and equalizes. However, 13.Qe2
and 14.Rae1 is much better, as Kasparov pointed out, e.g. 13…Qd6
14.Rael Nc5 15.f5
12.Bxe5
This move invariably goes by without a comment but 12.fxe5 deserved
a look. White is threatening a Nf6+ sack following 12…Nd7 13.Nh5
and would be better after 12…Ne4 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Qg4. However,
he’ll be lucky to get a perpetual check after, say, 12…Nd7 13.Nh5 Nxe5
14.Nxg7 Kxg7 15.Qg4+ Kh8 16.Bxh7 d4
12…Qc6 The immediate 13 Nh5 allows Black to threaten
mate with 13…d4! and buy time for a safe …Nxh5.
13.Qe2! Kasparov called this a psychological trap.
White seems to be threatening 14.Bb5 but his real goal is to play
14.Nh5, which is stronger now that g2 is protected and 14…d4 would not
threaten mate.
13…a6??
But there is another good explanation for this move that has
nothing to do with psychology. Black’s counterplay comes from
…c4, which White just delayed by preventing 13…b5. Bauer, whose
promising career was cut short at age 29 by tuberculosis, may have
simply been preparing 14…b5 and what he overlooked was the sacrifice
of both bishops. As in many great games, it is easy to find
improvements (13…Ne4/14…f6 and even 13…g6).
14.Nh5! Thanks to White’s last move, 14…d4 could be
ignored – 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Qg4!, e.g. 16…e5 17.Be4! Qxe4 18.Nxf6+ or
16…Kh8 17.Rf3 and wins with 18.Nxf6 gxf6 19.Qh4 (or 17…Rg8 18.Bxh7!)
14…Nxh5 There are several quick losses such as 14…Ne8
15.Bxg7! The best try was 14.Rfd8 but 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bxh7+!
(16…Kxh7 17.Qh5+ Kg8 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qh6!) or 15…gxf6 16.Qh5 Kf8
17.Qh6+ lose eventually.
15.Bxh7+!! Not 15.Qxh5 because of 15…f5 closing
White’s window of opportunity (16.g4? d4 or 16.Rf3 Bf6 17.Rh3 h6)
15…Kxh7 16.Qxh5+ Kg8
17.Bxg7! This and 15.Bxh7+!! established Lasker’s
reputation, much like Carlos Torre’s 25.Bf6!! against Lasker at Moscow
1925 and Fischer’s 17…Be6!! against Donald Byrne. The 2-bishop
sack has been copied dozens of times and dubbed “Lasker’s
Combination,” the title of a 1998 book devoted to it.
But this raises a question that will recur in these pages. Just
how original was Lasker? There had been published examples of the
2-bishop sack before, 1884. Those combinations were carried out by
masters (Cecil de Vere and John Owen) much better known than Lasker was in
1889. Why isn’t it “deVere’s Combination”?
One school of though would argue: What counts is who played an idea for
the first time. Lasker doesn’t deserve the credit for coming in
third.
Another school replies: But Lasker was almost certainly unaware of the
British games. (They were little known until mentioned in the
British Chess Magazine in 2003.) Therefore Lasker was being original
in terms of his own understanding of chess.
Besides, this school would argue, the Bauer game was played in an
international tournament, one of the few held in the 1880s. Surely a
player who first tests his ideas in major events deserves credit.
That’s why openings such as Alekhine’s Defense or the Benko Gambit have
those names even though others played the moves earlier.
The argument can go back and forth: Is every 10-year-old who discovers
the optimal strategy in tic-tac-toe being original simply because they
didn’t know what every previous 10-year-old had discovered? Back to
Bauer...
17…Kxg7 18.Qg4+ Kh7 The prettiest finish is 19…Kf6 19
Qg5 mate.
19.Rf3
19…e5 If not for White’s 22nd move, this
would be a winning defense.
20.Rh3+ Qh6 21.Rxh6+ Kxh6 22.Qd7!
Necessary and sufficient. Black will have only a rook and
bishop to battle a queen and two pawns.
22…Bf6 23.Qxb7 Kg7 Or 23…exf4 24 Qxb6
Kg7 25 Rf1 and wins.
24.Rf1 Rab8 25.Qd7 Rfd8 26.Qg4+ Kf8 27.fxe5 Since
27…Bxe5 loses to 28 Qf5 f6 29 Qxe5, Black played 27…Bg7 28.e6
Rb7 29.Qg6 f6
30.Rxf6+ Bxf6 31.Qxf6+ Ke8 32.Qh8+ Ke7 33.Qg7+ Kxe6 34.Qxb7 Rd6
35.Qxa6 d4 36.exd4 cxd4 37.h4 d3 38.Qxd3
Black Resigns, 1-0
While Soltis’ annotations/comments are certainly not bad, personally I
prefer IM Timothy Taylor’s notes to this same game from his book
Bird’s Opening (Gambit, 2005), which I
reviewed here at Chessville several months ago.
The Bottom Line
Why Lasker Matters contains 100 of Lasker’s games annotated in Soltis’
usual style, i.e., with plenty of historical tidbits thrown-in between
variations. However, there are two reasons why I cannot give this book
an enthusiastic recommendation. First, and it may just be me, but for
whatever reason I just don’t connect with Soltis.
I mean, there are certain chess authors that as I’m reading their books, I
find myself thinking, “Yes, exactly!” or “Oh, he just answered a question
I’ve always had about this position.” Or even better, “Wow, I didn’t
know that!” You know, it feels as if they are talking directly to you.
Unfortunately, in my view, Soltis often misses the mark, and for me this is
one of those times. It’s like he brings up interesting topics and asks
interesting questions, but for some reason I never find his answers as
interesting as his questions. However, this said, I want to again
emphasize that it could just be me, i.e., if you are a big Soltis fan than
my guess is you will like this book.
The other problem that I have with this book (other than the fact that it
doesn’t contain a single photo of Lasker besides the cover shot!?) is, as I
mentioned at the beginning of this review, the book’s title. Not only
do I think it’s dumb, but even assuming that I loved it, the fact is Soltis
doesn’t do a very good job of explaining WHY Lasker matters. The
two-paragraph summary that he ends the book with is appallingly lackluster
and banal at best.
Thus, I can only recommend this book if you don’t already own any good books
on Lasker, or just want a decent collection of 100 of his games with notes.
On a scale of 1-10, Why Lasker Matters gets a 7.
Other books by GM
Soltis reviewed here at Chessville include:
Index of all
Reviews
|
search tips
The
Chessville
Chess Store
|
Chess-Stack
Learn all
chess tactics simultaneously!
Click here
to learn more! |
Reference
Center
The Chessville
Weekly
The Best Free
Chess
Newsletter
On the Planet!
Subscribe
Today -
It's Free!!
The
Chessville
Weekly
Archives
Discussion
Forum
Chess Links
Chess Rules
Visit the
Chessville
Chess Store
|
