I've always loved this quote by chess grandmaster Emanuel Lasker, but today a thought struck me: before the end of the nineteenth century, Go wasn't even played outside of East Asia. Why would you expect to find the game on another planet if you couldnβt even find it outside of China/Japan/Korea?
Also: since the rules are so simple and universal, why didnβt people outside of East Asia conceive of the game themselves?
After searching on the internet I found out that one of the best books on Lasker is John Nunn's Chess Course (my rating is 2000 rapid on chess.com )and would like to see if this book is for my level. And if there are any other good books recommendations on Emanuel Lasker games would be much appreciated.
The Porte Monumentale de Paris - a bombastic entrance to the 1900 fair.
The Fair to Remember
At the dawn of the 20th century, Paris was at the forefront of modernization. Ever since the tradition of World Fairs started in 1851, the French capital would host one such event every eleven or twelve years - a tempo that no other Western city could possibly keep up with. More notably, each time a World Fair would occur, the city of love eagerly rushed to deliver it's new architectonic and technological marvels.
1900 was no exception. Under the slogan of summarizing the passing century, the French have unfolded the 160-metres bridge over the Seine, named in honor of their Russian ally, Tsar Alexander III. A gargantuan steam power-based Palace of Electricity was constructed, supplying 100,000 volts of electricity to all World Fair pavilions. 110 meters high, 1660-seat Ferris wheel has been erected and then promptly swarmed by visitors, who, despite it's impressive capacity, would be forced to wait up to an hour for a ride. In the Palace of Illusions, Auguste and Louis Lumière have made a first decent attempt at synchronizing the motion pictures with sound, foreshadowing the dawn of the sound film.
The guest nations were not to be outshone. They'd field 40 distinctly unique, national structures, the largest one covering 4000 square meters. In the German pavilion, Rudolf Diesel, an engineer freshly turned a self-made millionaire, has unveiled an engine operating on peanut oil. The ingenious Art Nouveau luminary, Alphonse Mucha, has displayed his first large-scale set of paintings, depicting a century of Austro-Hungarian multicultural state in the Pavillion of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a two-story pagoda, the Koreans exhibited the original, 1377 Jikji, the world's first book printed with movable metal type, nearly 100 years prior to the more universally revered Gutenberg Bible.
And then, there was the chess tournament. Sixteen rounds. One obligatory bye per player. 30 moves in two hours, followed by 15 moves in one hour. All draws set to be replayed with the reverse colors, th
... keep reading on reddit β‘
I've read on Wikipedia and a couple chess forums that Lasker proposed a new scoring system for draws in 1921. However, I've searched google scholar and my university libraries and can't find a single source. Is this information even correct, and if so, where can I find a source on it?
https://preview.redd.it/gv7wlnski4661.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=9ebdd6ffb1bacc4dd83d7a11005163376c83d4dd
Hey! I've been told that my sort of "style" of play resembles a little of Lasker's style (although Im very far from being that good). So I've been looking for a book on his games, strategies etc... To perhaps improve my play. Does anyone have any good recommendations for this? So far Im thinking about getting "Lasker's manual of chess" and his biography "Emanuel Lasker: The life of a chess master" (which is admittedly more for fun haha).
| Year | Tournament | Players | Rank | Other Top 10 Players | Score | Points | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1889 | Amsterdam | 9 | Unrated | #2, #6 | +4 | 6/8 | 2 |
| 1890 | Berlin | 9 | #1 | #8 | +5 | 6.5/8 | =1 |
| 1892 | London | 5 | #1 | #5, #9 | +5 | 6.5/8 | 1 |
| 1893 | New York | 14 | #1 | None | +13 | 13/13 | 1 |
| 1895 | Hastings | 22 | #1 | #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9 | +10 | 15.5/21 | 3 |
| 1895/1896 | St Petersburg | 4 | #1 | #3, #4, #5 | +5 | 11.5/18 | 1 |
| 1896 | Nuremberg | 19 | #1 | #2, #3, #4, #5, #7 | +9 | 13.5/18 | 1 |
| 1899 | London | 15 | #1 | #3, #4, #5, #7, #9 | +17 | 21.5/26 | 1 |
| 1900 | Paris | 17 | #1 | #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 | +13 | 14.5/16 (first draw replayed) | 1 |
| 1904 | Cambridge Springs | 16 | #8 (inactivity) | #1, #3, #5, #6, #7 | +7 | 11/15 | =2 |
| 1909 | St Petersburg | 19 | #1 | #2, #4, #5, #7, #8 | +11 | 14.5/18 | =1 |
| 1914 | St Petersburg | 11 in preliminaries, 5 qualified to finals | #12 (inactivity) | #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 | +9 | 13.5/18 (6.5/10 in preliminaries, 7/8 in finals) | 1 |
| 1918 | Berlin | 4 | #1 | #5, #6 | +3 | 4.5/6 | 1 |
| 1923 | Maehrisch-Ostrau | 14 | Unrated (inactivity) | #3, #4, #5, #6, #10 | +6 | 10.5/13 | 1 |
| 1924 | New York | 11 | #3 | #1, #2, #7, #8, #9, #10 | +12 | 16/20 | 1 |
| 1925 | Moscow | 21 | #4 | #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9 #10 | +8 | 14/20 | 2 |
| 1934 | Zurich | 16 | Unrated (inactivity) | #1, #3, #4, #5 | +5 | 10/15 | 5 |
| 1935 | Moscow | 20 | #16 | #3, #6, #9 | +6 | 12.5/19 | 3 |
| 1936 | Moscow | 10 | #9 | #2, #5, #7, #9, #10 | -2 | 8/18 | 6 |
| 1936 | Nottingham | 15 | #11 | #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 | +3 | 8.5/14 | =7 |
(Bolded text indicates tournaments played as reigning World Champion)
(Tournaments included are elite level with at least one other top 10 player present. The exception being New York 1893 which did include Pillsbury, soon to enter the elite).
(Rankings are based on Chessmetrics as official ratings didn't exist then).
Among the pre-war champions, Lasker tends to get rather overlooked compared to Capablanca and Alekhine. When he is mentioned, it's usually in reference to his record 27 year reign as World Champion. Detractors will then say that this reign was exaggerated, due to not playing some of his strongest rivals and that there was an 11 year gap between his last title win (1910) and when he actually lost his title (1921).
Lasker's tournament record then, gets a little less attention. For most of his career, he usually played only in the strongest events, in comparison to say, Alekhine, who played a bunch of fairly weak events. For a period of 47 years, from the ages of 20-67, he won 12 of 20 tournaments in which he played. If you exclude
... keep reading on reddit β‘
