27-time champion was formidable even in old age
Saturday, July 5, 2008 3:06 AM
By SHELBY LYMAN
How strong a player was Emanuel Lasker, who was world champion for 27 years (1894-1921)?
A young Bobby Fischer obscured Lasker’s legacy when he wrote in 1964 that he “was a coffeehouse player” who “knew nothing about openings and didn’t understand positional chess.”
For many, Fischer’s famous statement has been the final word. But he apparently reversed himself later when he told fellow grandmaster Pal Benko that “Lasker was a truly great player.”
A measure of Lasker’s ability was his performance at age 67 in the 1935 Moscow International Tournament. He finished in third place, only a half-point behind Mikhail Botvinnik and Salo Flohr but ahead of Jose Capablanca, the acknowledged chess genius who had wrested away Lasker’s world title 14 years earlier.
Capablanca regarded Lasker — even as the latter neared 70 — as the most dangerous player in the world in a single game. No other contemporary, he thought, surpassed the former world champion in his ability to evaluate a position and find the correct strategy.
Lasker was notable for his lack of fear and his willingness to take on new challenges. Siegbert Tarrasch wrote: “Lasker occasionally loses a game, but he never loses his head.”
His friend Albert Einstein offered an impressive non-chess tribute: “I shall remember with gratitude the pleasing conversations I enjoyed with that incessantly eager, truly independent and yet most modest of men.”
Source: Columbus Dispatch
Maybe, yeah in the older days. Today, almost any ICC or Playchess hustler could beat him in a bullet match.
To Anonymous: that’s true only because Lasker is now dead (said jokingly). Seriously, we would be making a great mistake to demean the strong players of the past. There is a good reason Kasparov chose to write 5 volumes about his “Great Predecessors”, of which Lasker is one (covered in Volume I).
bullet match is zero skill
Lasker has as much claim to being the greatest ever as Kasparov- in fact Kasparov was the Lasker of a hundred years later- both were top dog for 20+ years, dominating tournaments etc.
Imagine how you would feel with the same discussion with Kasparov is my point- there would be many more posts saying how great he was and ridiculing any put downs. Do not forget that Lasker is one of the top 2 ever!
to annoy 1 y dont know hell boy, bullet is for loosers like me, in a classical game is for authentic champoions!! how many years oopps sorry days have u been a world champion???????????? jb.
He was great, but he was a ONE time champion, not a 27-time one. Sheesh.
Not that it changes anything regarding his greatness, but…
Lasker was a world champion for 26 years, not 27. He forfeited the title without a fight to Capablanca in 1920. The 1921 match was played as best from 24 games OR first to 8 wins, and it had a clause that in case of a 12-12 tie the reigning champion (Capablanca!!!) retains the title. Lasker resigned the match prematurely at score 9-5 (4-0 counting only wins) in favour of Capablanca.