Talk:Emanuel Lasker/Archive 1

Quotations emoved

I have removed the following from the "quotations" section:

- The game of chess... is not a game. It is a fierce mental struggle between two combatants. During the course of the game I am no longer Emanuel Lasker. I become... something else, entirely, that horrible "other" which, outside of the chess board, only shows himself in strange dreams and flights of fancy. The greatest chess player is that man who, in deliberating upon the best moves, lets himself be guided by the moon of his non-being.

I've not read everything Lasker ever wrote, but I am skeptical in part because the person who added the above also added some questionable "information" to the John Nunn article (see Talk:John Nunn). If somebody has a source, fine, but I'd be uncomfortable seeing it added back without one.

On a similar note, if anybody has a source for the quote about Go, it would certainly be good to include it (I don't really doubt Lasker said it somewhere - it certainly seems more likely than the above and I know he was interested in a range of games - but we should always give sources for these kind of things). While we're on the subject, does anybody have a page number for the Manual of Chess quote? Just for my own gratification... --Camembert 19:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the game presented in this article can be considered one of the best ever! It is very interesting, but the combination is not very deep, and arguing that both bishops were sacrificed is excesive, given that the light bishop was rather exchanged for a knight and a pawn!

Regarding the double bishop sacrifice, a similar sacrifice occured in Burn-Owen, 1884 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272117), so Lasker's was not the first.

You are true, but in this case the sacrifice was a fiasco; so Lasker was at least the first known person who used this type of combination with success.--Ioannes Pragensis 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

wtf --- life, childhood, etc??

was this article vandalized or did it just not occur to anyone to include any information about the life of Lasker (other than being made to leave Germany for being Jewish)??? early life? family background? when did he start playing, how? etc. kthx.

I agree with the commenter above. The article only briefly mentions Lasker's life outside of chess, even though Lasker was perhaps the world champion who was least interested in chess. The stages of his chess career are also quite interesting, and again barely addressed -- Lasker was like Fischer in that he repeatedly stopped playing for years at a time, then repeatedly came back and amazed the world with how strong he was. (Big differences, of course: Fischer cared only about chess, with Lasker chess took a back seat to everything else; Lasker kept coming out of retirement after financial/personal disaster stemming from (1) hyperinflation in Germany after WWI, later (2) financial ruin after being forced to leave Germany upon Hitler's rise.) Only a brief mention of Lasker's phenomenal win at New York 1924, taking first with 16-4 (80%!) in very strong tournament, 1.5 points ahead of the "great" Capablanca, who had dethroned him three years before, and Alekhine, who would become world champion three years hence. Nothing about Lasker's move to USSR in 1935, then move to US, death in Mt. Sinai Hospital in NYC a year after Capablanca died there. Amazing result at Moscow 1935 after years of inactivity, at age 67!!, also not addressed (1/2 point out of first, behind Botvinnik and Flohr; only undefeated player; ahead of Capablanca, whom he crushed. There is also a fascinating contrariety of views about Lasker, which the article says nothing about, although it cites Soltis, who does. E.g., Botvinnik said that Lasker was "of course" the greatest of the champions; Korchnoi calls Lasker "my chess hero"; Fischer called him a "coffeehouse player" and omitted him from his 1964 Chessworld list of the world's 10 best, but then according to Benko later admitted that he'd greatly misunderestimated Lasker (as Dubya would put it); Reti thought Lasker was a master psychologist who deliberately played bad moves; Tarrasch thought Lasker was just perpetually lucky; Euwe (who was +0 =0 -3 against Lasker) said that Lasker had founded no school -- how could he?; while Soltis himself said that Lasker was far ahead of his time and that "we're all his students." This article needs a lot of work. Krakatoa (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of Krakatoa's comments. Perhaps the Lasker articles needs a structure something like that that of Alexander Alekhine, i.e. chronological "periods" that contain both career and bio information. Then follow up with an "Assessment" section that can accommodate contemporary and recent comments as well as statistical assessments ('Warriors of the Mind', Chessmetrics).

Re playing strength in old age, a comparison with Korchnoi would be interesting - I think Chessmetrics actually has a page on the subject. And Steinitz was pretty good at age 60, see his Steintiz-von Bardleben (Hastings 1895).

The financial aspects particularly deserve more emphasis (cf. Alexander Alekhine), especially in the light of Lasker's determination to avoid Steinitz' fate.

A selection of representative games would be good - preferably games that feature in both player applets (e.g. chessgames.com) for instant play through and in books for annotations.

The idea that Lasker was perhaps the world champion who was least interested in chess would need refs. And Botvinnik would be very strong competition in that respect - arguably Botvinnik achieved more in electrical engineering than Lasker actually achieved in maths or philosophy.

I'd pitch in myself but I already have 4 projects on the go :-( Philcha (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Capablanca was also pretty uninterested in chess - but passionate about baseball (One Man’s Mind) Philcha (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote

• "Chess is a game restricted to this world, Go has something extraterrestrial. If ever we find an extraterrestrial civilisation that plays a game that we also play, it will be Go, without any doubt."

was removed from this page by User:Sibahi, who said that "I believe the omitted quotation is by Edward Lasker, not Emanuel". A Google search turns up a handful of pages and nothing definitive, but also attributes it to Albert Einstein, which indicates it predates Edward Lasker, and there's at least one page (apparently independent of Wikipedia) that attributes it to Emanuel.--Prosfilaes 13:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello everybody. Hannak attributes this quote to Emanuel Lasker and dates it into his second phase of retirement, around 1927. The quote can be found in chapter 29 of my copy (p. 253) of the Hannak biography.

• "Laskers Verehrung für Go versetzte ihn manchmal in eine Art mystische Seelenstimmung. Einmal sagte er, dass Schach ein Spiel sei, beschränkt auf die Einwohner unseres Planeten; Go hingegen sei etwas "Überirdisches", es müsse offenbar auch auf dem Mars gespielt werden."

• "Laskers reverence for Go sometimes put him into a kind of mystical sentiment. Once he said that chess is game restricted to the

inhabitants of our planet; Go on the other hand is something "unearthly", obviously it must also be played on Mars"

Oliver Uwira (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Players owning their games

I've got refs for Em. Lasker's arguments that players should own their games. I remember seeing a Web page that said it was a condition of entry for Hastings 1895 that the players collectively owned the copyright in the games, and would like to quote this as a precedent for Lasker's arguments - but of course I can't find it now!! Can anyone help? Philcha (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hastings tournament book says (p7) "Scores of the Games - All the games are the property of the Committee.The winner of the game, or the first player in a drawn game, is bound to deliver at the conclusion of the same a correct and legible score to the member of the committee in charge. Until this is done, the result will not be entered on the score-sheet."RayJohnstone (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew about the Hastings copyright rules in general terms, but that's great. Can you provide full bibliographic details for a citation? -- Philcha (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. "The Hastings Chess Tournament 1895", edited by Horace F. Cheshire, 1896RayJohnstone (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First wife???

UXL Encyclopedia of World Biography: Emanuel Lasker says "His first wife died in the early 1900s, and he remarried in 1911" but gives no other details of the alleged earlier marriage. I can find nothing else on the Web about a wife before Martha Cohn. Can anyone help? Philcha (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply untrue. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. Thanks! Philcha (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Snippets

Use if found useful:

• Isaac Rice (of Rice Gambit) (a) wealthy; (b) had ideas that war would become more like chess page 35 of Lasker’s Chess Magazine, November 1907.
• Lasker: New Approaches

-- Philcha (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Martha Cohn

I've found various accounts of her on the web (more sources, but these basic stories):

• Dr. Emanuel Lasker (1868 - 1941) Schachweltmeister 1894 - 1921 says she was the widow of piano manufacturer Emil Cohn. Lasker had been friendly with the Cohns since about 1902. At a critical point in the Laser-Tarrasch match 1908 Emil, although bed-ridden with the illness that killed him in 1910, sent Martha to support Lasker. The web page is in German (try Google's translation for a laugh). I've also seen an English version of this, but of course I can't find it now I'm actually looking for it.
• Emanuel Lasker's match and tournament record says she was the widow of an industrialist. (I've found this site useful for 19th century chess, and am inclined to regard it as reliable.)
• Bill Wall says Martha was already a grandmother when she married Lasker.
• Most other sources on Google say Martha was the daughter of Emil Cohn.
• Lasker: New Approaches says Martha Cohn wrote popular stories under the pseudonym "L. Marco".
  

Can anyone clear up Martha's background? Philcha (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again.

According to the Hannak biography, Martha Lasker outlived her husband, but it only states in the preface that she "soon followed his husband to eternity". In the meantime, she provided Hannak with personal accounts about their life. I don't know exactly when she died.

Hannak writes that Martha Lasker was born at Nov 19th 1867 in Berlin as Martha Bamberger. Her father was Jacob Bamberger, head of the bank L.M. Bamberger on Königstraße in Berlin. According to Hannak, Bamberger supported the young Lasker with 10 marks per month around the end of the 80's. Martha married Emil Kohn in 1886. Kohn was the owner of the "Trautweinsche Pianoforte-Fabrik" (Trautwein's piano factory). During the first year of their marriage, Martha gave birth to her daughter Lotte. Emil Kohn died around the same time Lasker was playing Schlechter for the WC in 1910. While Martha was in her mourning year, Lasker gave lectures and exhibitions in South America. He returned in March 1911 and proposed marriage to Martha. They got married in July 1911.

Hope this helps. I know the Hannak biography has issues, but I'm sure he wouldn't have made up to have worked together with Martha after Lasker's death.

Greetings, Oliver Uwira (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, Oliver Uwira! Do you want to edit it in? I see you want to contribute to chess articles. -- Philcha (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Negotiations for title match with Rubinstein?

Before my recent edits, Emanuel Lasker contained this:

Just before World War I, Lasker was supposed to play Rubinstein for the World Championship. Capablanca planned to play the winner. World War I interrupted these matches.

Can anyone provide sources? Fine in World's Great Games of Chess wrote that Rubinstein had no chance of a match because he had no wealthy friends to back him. Philcha (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Israel Horowitz in "From Morphy to Fischer" (Batsford 1973, p.69) says the same thing. He writes how Lasker/Capablanca negotiations broke down in 1912, and then he writes: "Late in 1912 Lasker opened negotations with Rubinstein. Despite Rubinstein's prodigious string of victories, however, money to finance a meeting was not to be found; his self-effacing personality had won him few rich friends. Nevertheless it was agreed that they would contest a match sometime in 1914, should various clubs in Germany, Poland and Russia contrive somehow to raise sufficient funds"... Horowitz then writes a bit about the 1914 St. Petersburg tournament (Lasker 1st, Capa 2nd, Rubinstein =6th), a bit more about rules for future matches, then on p.70 "Since funds for the match with Rubinstein had not yet been collected, and since the two men (Lasker and Capa) were again on speaking terms, it would have been logical had negotiations begun in earnest for a meeting with Lasker and Capablanca. Logic, however, was to have precious little say in the affairs of the world for the next four years..."

So the claim is unsourced and we've got two sources which say something different. So we should delete what's there, and put in what Fine + Horowitz say, i.e. neither a Rubinstein nor Capablanca match was organised before WWI broke out. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter Ballard! A few follow-ups:

• Would you consider Horowitz reliable on this? I'm asking because I vaguely remember a page (possibly by Winter) that said the "prolific" writers (e.g. Fine, Horowitz) were often too busy to check the facts.
• If not, can you suggest other sources?
• Horowitz says, "... since the two men (Lasker and Capa) were again on speaking terms ..." When and why did they fall out? Philcha (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Last one first: Horowitz is referring to the fact that Lasker/Capa match negotiations broke down, somewhat acrimoniously, in 1912. As for reliability: I've found that Fine at times gets his facts wrong (I own the Fine book you mention above), but Horowitz is pretty good. Having said that, I don't doubt that Winter is better still. If we can have a good reference that there was a 1914/15 match actually organised (either with Rubinstein or Capa), then it can go in. But we can't have it as an unreferenced claim when two writers say otherwise. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for the clarification re the relative accuracies of Fine & Horowitz, I'll stop worrying about Horowitz.

I'll edit in what you've said about Lasker and Rubinstein, unless you get there first. Feel free to check that I don't over-interpret :-)

Re Lasker and Capa, any idea why negotiations broke down? Philcha (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Largely over Lasker's insistence of Capa needing to win by a 2 point margin. See http://members.aol.com/graemecree/chesschamps/world/world1921.htm which seems to largely, but not exclusively, use Horowitz' book. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW I just checked Fine's book and it didn't have an error I thought it had. So I think Fine is pretty good too, though Horowitz has more detail. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for http://members.aol.com/graemecree/chesschamps/world/world1921.htm, which I'll need to analyse carefully. I note it says Lasker-Capa negotiations started in 1911, so Emanuel Lasker needs to be changed.

BTW re Fines's reliability, I first had doubts when I noticed his varying accounts of why he did'nt play the 1948 World Champ Tournament. Then while working on Howard Staunton I found Fine was extremely prejudiced against Staunton; now I notice that Fine says nothing about Lasker's propensity for tortuous title match negotiations after his scare with Schlechter in 1910. I've concluded that there are some subjects on which Fine is not reliable, and the only way to find out which is which is to lokk at other sources; where he's consistent with these, I'll still use him. Philcha (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion... I was browsing Akiba Rubinstein (duh, why didn't we of this?) and the reference is Jeremy Silman (2007), Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner to Master, Siles Press, ISBN 1-890085-10-3, p.477. Though personally I find Silman a slightly dubious source here, because this is an endings book not a history book.

3 different Laskers

I am deleting this introductory section:

Between about 1890 and 1940 there were 3 notable chess players whose family name was "Lasker": Emanuel, the subject of this article; his older brother Berthold (born 1860), who himself became one of the world's 10 strongest players in the early 1890s;[1] and the chess player and engineer Edward Lasker, who was apparently a distant relative.[2] Hence this article will use their full names wherever necessary to avoid ambiguity.

This is the "Emanuel Lasker" article, and therefore it is clear that "Lasker" means "Emanuel Lasker". Plus, the other two are several orders of magnitude less notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's helpful to warn against possible confusion, especially in the early years and especially for the benefit of readers who have less prior knowledge. But thanks for raising the issue. Let's see what others think. To that end I'm reinstating the para for now. Philcha (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, I don't think it's necessary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK to have something to warn of confusion, but maybe the top banner could be slightly extended to say "For other persons named Lasker, including other chess players, see ..." Having two introductory comments like this does seem a bit over the top. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, whatever the outcome of this specific discussion. What about repeating the "chess players" banner just under the heading "Life and career"? Philcha (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not enthusiastic about expanding the "other Laskers" top banner. IMHO, such banners are there in order to facilitate navigation; the shorter, the easier to assess (or ignore) in a semi-automatic reading process, when you open an article.

On the other hand, shortening the section about other Lasker chess players, and there repeating the banner, somewhat expanded, seems good. Perhaps, also we could formulate it more from the perspective "Emanuel belonged to a family which produced more chess players"? JoergenB (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about emphasising the family aspect. At present I've seen only 1 source about the relationship of Edward Lasker to the brothers, and that puts it in rather tentative terms. Of course if someone finds a reliable source that is more confident, then the family aspect is worth emphasising.

Is there an article on "famous intellectual families"? I can think immediately of 3 other examples, Darwin, Penrose and Polgar - 2 with strong chess connections, but that just might be sampling bias :-) Philcha (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The most famous "intellectual family" probably would be the Bernoulli's; to a high degree since they were so many and active for such a long time. (There is one obvious disadvantage with associating patrilinear surnames and historical achievments, anyhow. I guess you associated to Erasmus and Charles Darwin, a while ago, but did you automatically also consider Francis Galton as a member of that family, Philcha?)

By a strange coincidence, while I was having the wiki-rest in which you typed your question, I was reading Matt Ridley's book "Nature via Nurture", which reminded me of Galton's relationship to the Darwins. I think we call that a draw. :-) Philcha (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As for "famous parent-and-child" cases, I have had a recent (afterwards amusing) experience. I glanced through Emanuel Lasker's long 1905 article in Mathematische Annalen, and found that he in several places were referring to the important work in the field by Noether. On the other hand, I also looked at Noether's article from 1921 in the same journal, where she referred to Lasker's work. Confused, it took me a while to realise that Emanuel was referring to the famous algebraist Max Noether, whose even more famous algebraist daughter Emmy Noether in her turn referred to Emanuel...

Damn, I missed that while researching for Emanuel Lasker on maths. You're 1-0 ahead :-( Philcha (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with establishing relations (or not...) between Emanuel and Edward is that Edward seldom is mentioned. Most encyclopaedias I've looked in just mention two male Lasker's: Emanuel, and the German liberal politician Eduard Lasker. Actually, the Swedish Nordisk familjebok, the "owl edition", 'uggleupplagan', treats Eduard and Emanuel in the same article, and explicitly claims that they were related. If this is confirmed elsewhere, it ought to be added.

"Edward seldom is mentioned" is plain wrong - the 1st chess book I ever read, Fine's World’s Great Chess Games, presents Ed. Lasker's Q sacrifice against George Thomas; and the 2nd chess book I read was Ed. Lasker's "Chess for Fun & Chess for Blood". More scientifically, Google returns over 10 pages of hits for Edward, and hardly any are wiki-clones. 1-1 :-) Philcha (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The de:WP article de:Edward Lasker has this to say:

Er war nach eigener Aussage weitläufig mit dem Schachweltmeister Emanuel Lasker verwandt. Wegen der Namensähnlichkeit wurden Partien der beiden gelegentlich in Schachpublikationen verwechselt.

As usual, other WP articles in themselves are not good "reliable sources"; this might actually be translated from English. However, it would be nice to know if there really was any confirmable confusion between Emanuel and Edward in the chess literature; if so, we do have a good raison d'etre for an "avoid confusing Laskers" section. JoergenB (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Chaos in a Miniature re George Thomas vs Edward Lasker, London, 1912 (Danish Gambit). So much for chess publications as WP:RS :-)

http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030716.htm A Tribute to Ken Whyld : Three New Lasker Games] mentions some other potential confusions that were cleared up. These 2 pages are the only relevant pages I could find in 5 pages of Google results.Philcha (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The 3 Laskers section at the beginning is distracting and unnecessary, in my opinion. As Peter Ballard said, the other two Laskers are far less important, and I don't think there is a significant problem with confusion of the three -- unlike, say, the three Polgar sisters and GMs Mikhail, Dmitry, and Ilya Gurevich. Krakatoa (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lasker's approach to the openings

I've just found a 2-part article (Steve Wrinn. "Lasker and the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez - Part 1" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-06-09. and Steve Wrinn. "Lasker and the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez - Part 2" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-06-09.) that says Lasker only used the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez against top-class players, twice in "must-win" situations, and very successfully (+10 =3 -1). The whole thing sounds to me very like Botvinnik's approach to the openings: rather than looking for "one-shot" tactical tricks, look for sets of positions that he understood better than his opponents. It makes me doubt the conventional story that Lasker paid little attention to the openings (as does something I read about him deliberately choosing lines an opponent was known to consider inferior, if Lasker thought it was sound - if only I can find that ref again - *#$!). Can anyone add anything on this? Philcha (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Using Chessmetrics for rankings

I am uncomfortable with placing too much weight in Chessmetrics (or any other ratings system) when there were no ratings lists during Lasker's career. I'll try to rewrite some to de-emphasise the use of Chessmetrics. I realise this may lose some information - e.g. that Blackburne was ranked 9th in the world according to chessmetrics when he played a match against Lasker - but I think to present Chessmetrics as an absolute is misleading. (And in some cases downright wrong, because Chessmetrics has its weaknesses). Peter Ballard (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd been fairly careful with the phrasing, e.g. "X's playing record was at that time the nth best ..." Please try to avoid losing information about the strength of of L's opponents, as the striking point about L's early career is that he rose from coffe-house player to top 10 in a year and then cut such a swathe through the top ranks that the NY Times (1894, cited) had no doubts about the validity of his challenge to Steinitz. This was another of the surprises that I seem to get when I research chess bios - what I'd read previously did not make it clear how astonishingly fast Lasker's rise was - as seen by the rest of the world; I'm sure he and brother Berthold thought it quite amusing, but that's WP:OR - unless someone finds a ref :-)

Re your "Chessmetrics has its weaknesses":

• Can you be more specific? That would be interesting for the article on ranking top players throughout history.
• Is it likely to be far wrong, for the purposes of this article?
• Are there alternative statistical systems that reach that far back and have such depth of coverage?
• The only other alternative I can see would be to quote some text ref for each of L's opponents, which would: be vague; open the article to accusations of "ref spamming" / "cite bombing" / your charge of choice. Philcha (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Chessmetrics gives some results that intuitively look wrong, e.g. Petrosian being ranked #6 in the world just before his successful title defence against Spassky. I think its weaknesses are (1) too much penalty for inactivity, and (2) no distinction between "important" and "unimportant" games (the latter a weakness of all ratings systems). In any case, the onus isn't on me, the onus is on chessmetrics to demonstrate its validity. My problem is not so much with the ratings as a guide, but the importance the article text attaches to them. e.g. "Lasker shot up through the chess rankings in 1889" and "opponents with high world rankings" - there were no chess rankings in 1889. The article gives the impressions that the rankings existed. Far better to just leave it vague that the opponents were strong. Or let readers follow links to gauge how strong his opponents were. Or, just say that after these strong results he'd established himself, in the eyes of the chess world, as one of the "big 4". Peter Ballard (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I'm not picking on Philcha here - it's a trend I've seen across a number of Wikipedia chess articles. We've got to bear in mind that chessmetrics is the work of a single person, and he could fix a bug in his algorithm tomorrow, immediately rendering scores (perhaps hundreds) of WP references out-of-date. So I believe any Chessmetrics ranking should always be clarified as being a chessmetrics ranking and never implied to be an absolute. If that makes it so clunky that Chessmetrics rankings are used a little less, then that's probably a good thing. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Peter Ballard, I won't take it personnally.

I think "Lasker shot up through the chess rankings in 1889" is OK - coffee-house champion to 3rd in a decent international tournament in under a year, which even a statistical ignoramus like me would find remarkable. I think it's preferable to e.g "Lasker's playing strength rose very rapidly in 1889" because it's quite possible that his coffee-house opponents were facing a top-10 player but it took a while for everyone to realise it. It struck me while writing that para that the Lasker brothers were the Williams sisters of chess.

But I see your concerns about "opponents with high world rankings". Maybe change it to "top-class opponents" with a footnote that says, e.g. "for example their Chessmetrics ranking were ....", possibly in bands for 1-10, 11-20, 21-30.

I don't actually see an alternative way to make the point, because you hardly ever hear about anyone outside the top 5 in most competitive activities, even to-day. But if you can think of one that's adequately sourced, go ahead. Philcha (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The best example Peter Ballard can give of Chessmetrics "results that intuitively look wrong" is "Petrosian being ranked #6 in the world just before his successful title defence against Spassky"?! That ranking does not strike me as being at all implausible. Recall, btw, that Petrosian just won the 1962 Candidates Tournament by a half point over both Keres and Geller (both of whom Chessmetrics ranks below Petrosian in 1966), and had finished 2.5 points behind Fischer at the 1962 Interzonal. He beat Spassky by just 12.5-11.5 in 1966. His tournament results were not very impressive for a world champion. Shortly after the world championship, both he and Spassky played in Santa Monica 1966, where Petrosian finished =6th with Reshevsky, behind Spassky, Fischer, Larsen, Portisch, and Unzicker. I wouldn't go as far as Fine, who wrote that Petrosian was probably the weakest world champion ever, but he never dominated the chess world the way that Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov did at their peaks. Krakatoa (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't invalidate his main point though, that talking about rankings in this era is historically inaccurate. It can ultimately only ever be a matter of opinion as to who was a "top 10" player in Lasker's time and who wasn't. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was worse than I said: Petrosian was ranked #8 before the 1966 match and #6 after beating Spassky.[1] But my main points (that there were no official rankings, and Chessmetrics is in any case the unofficial work of one person) still stand in any case. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the trouble with giving intelligent examples. :-)

Back, belatedly, to Peter Ballard's point. How about my suggestion to change "opponents with high world rankings" to "top-class opponents" with a footnote that says, e.g. "for example their Chessmetrics ranking were ....", possibly in bands for 1-10, 11-20, 21-30? Philcha (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion I think. We should consign Chessmetrics to footnotes and not give their figures in the main text.Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Chessmetrics isn't the only game in town. It's not as accessible (not on the Web AFAIK, not that I've looked), but Arpad Elo (yes, that Elo) wrote the book The Ratings of Chessplayers: Past and Present, which has tons of this sort of thing. I have a copy, so if anyone wants to know Elo's estimated rating for the best five years of so-and-so's career or some such thing, let me know. (e-mail fsrhine[AT]gmail.com) Krakatoa (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As to how to designate a pre-Elo-ratings-player whom Elo and/or Chessmetrics rates highly, I would be inclined to refer to the player as "a world-class player" or "a leading player of the day" or some such, and drop a reference as to how Elo and/or Chessmetrics ranks the player. Certainly if both Elo and Chessmetrics say someone was hot stuff, he probably was. Given Elo's stature, I would consider his view alone pretty authoritative. Krakatoa (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very useful. How many types of comparison does Elo provide? For example Elo's peak 5-year rating would be useful for "Who was the greatest ever?" but less useful for tracing an individual's playing strength, e.g. Fischer's amazing surge 1970-72 or the fact that Blackburne stayed in the top class for an amazingly long time. Does Elo give that kind of detail?

Does anyone know of any critical comparison of the various rating methods? Philcha (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I hadn't realized it until I saw it in the bibliography of Elo's above-mentioned book, but he had an article in Chess Life magazine, April 1964, pp. 81-82, that gave the best 5-year and 25-year averages for notable players up until that time (roughly Elo 2400 and up). For example: Alekhine 2680, 2660; Blackburne 2550, 2535; Botvinnik 2720, 2690 (identical to Lasker's numbers!); Capablanca 2720, 2685; Charousek 2540 (5-year only; he died at age 27); Euwe 2640, 2610; Fine 2660, 2625; Keres 2670, 2645; Lasker 2720, 2690 (a 25-year-average ten points higher than Alekhine's 5-year best!); Morphy 2690 (5-year only); Najdorf 2650, 2620; Steinitz 2650, 2625 (just a smidge better than Najdorf!). (The USCF sells a tremendous DVD that has Chess Life, Chess Review and Chess Life and Review from 1933-1975.) Table 5.52 of Elo's book graphs lifetime ratings of 36 notable players from Adolf Anderssen to Portisch; unfortunately it's just a line graph, so you have to stare at it to try to approximate a player's rating at any given point in time. Table 6.56 is a similar (very steep) graph of Fisher's development. Tables 9.4 and 9.5 of Elo's book give the best 5-year averages for titled players (i.e. from 1950 on) and untitled greats of the past, respectively. Krakatoa (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

btw, if anyone wants to get Elo's book, someone's selling it on eBay for $19.95 beginning bid or $24.95 ("buy it now"). (No, it's not me or anyone I know.) Good price; Amazon has it for $70 and up. Krakatoa (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't impressed with Peter Ballard's questioning of Chessmetrics based on Petrosian's ranking in 1966. But I've found a Chessmetrics ranking that strikes me as nuts. On Chessmetrics' so-called April 1914 Rating List, Emanuel Lasker (soon to win St. Petersburg 1914, which Chessmetrics plausibly calls the strongest tournament between 1900 and 1930) is ranked twelfth! Yes, that's right, Emanuel Lasker, world champion for a record 27 years, who from 1895-1924 played in 10 major tournaments, finishing first or equal first 8 times, second once, and third once (Hooper and Whyld 1992, p. 218) is ranked twelfth in the world!! Yes, twelfth (I still can't believe it), behind Rubinstein, Capablanca, Marshall (whom Lasker crushed +8 =7 in their 1907 match), Alekhine (whose only win against Lasker came 20 years later), Nimzowitsch, Tarrasch (whom Lasker crushed +8 -3 =5 in their 1908 match), Schlechter, Teichmann, Spielmann, Tartakower, and Duras. Rubinstein and Capablanca are plausible, but the rest are ridiculous. I take it all back: Peter Ballard is right! Krakatoa (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is like that because Lasker didn't play much in 1911-1913. So his ranking got lower. I still agree Chessmetrics isnt proper source for rankings, but it is good source for statistics like tournament results. Lab-oratory (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonas explains that he assigns a fairly strong penalty for absences and a strong weighting to the most recent results in order to: make the list responsive, e.g. to rapidly rising new stars; prevent players from protecting ratings by going into hiding. Similar fluctuations of rating and ranking occur with Steinitz and his many career breaks. The trade-off between stability and responsiveness is a well-known and apparently insoluble problem in time-dependent statistics.

Moul, C. and Nye, J.V.C. (May 2006). "Did the Soviets Collude?: A Statistical Analysis of Championship Chess 1940-64". Social Science Research Network.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (full version widely available online, e.g. [2]) used Chessmetrics in preference to Elo because they found Chessmetrics the more accurate "predictor" of outcomes. From a scientific point of view you can't get a better endorsement. Philcha (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt it is true that most players become rusty when they don't play for a while. Somehow that seems not to hold for Steinitz, Lasker, and (at least looking at the pre-1972 period) Fischer. Krakatoa (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster?

The opening sentence of the article describes Lasker as "a German chess grandmaster, mathematician, and philosopher, and was World Chess Champion for a record 27 years." The infobox also lists his title as "Grandmaster," then adds that he was World Champion from 1894-1921. My inclination would be to omit this "grandmaster" stuff altogether, for four reasons. First, Lasker was not designated a grandmaster by FIDE, having died before 1950. His "grandmaster" status derives from having supposedly been awarded that title by the czar (along with the other four finalists) at St. Petersburg 1914. However, as Edward Winter has documented, the tale of Lasker and the other four being anointed grandmasters by the czar is highly dubious, to say the least; no known source before 1940 supports that story. See Grandmaster_(chess)#Early_tournament_use. Second, even if the story were true, as Peter Ballard once observed, how is the czar's opinion any more meaningful than, say, that of George W. Bush? Third, as the British Chess Magazine once wrote (of Botvinnik, actually, but the same applies even more strongly to Lasker), to call him a grandmaster is to damn him with faint praise. The man was World Champion for a record 27 years. Fourth, as I document in various entries at Talk:Grandmaster_(chess)#Grandmasters_before_1950_FIDE_period and Talk:Grandmaster_(chess)#Dubious_first_use.3F, it appears that no one besides Wikipedia defines the term "grandmaster" by counting anyone to whom FIDE has awarded the title plus the five supposedly anointed by the czar at St. Petersburg 1914. For all of these reasons, I think we should just refer to Lasker as having been "World Champion" and we should scrap the "grandmaster." Krakatoa (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this was settled (largely due to your good work) when we discussed this at Talk:Grandmaster (chess) a while back: that we won't designate anyone as a GM except those awarded the title post-1950 by FIDE, because the pre-1950 usage was inconsistent. So yes, remove it from Lasker, and anyone else pre-1950. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Krakatoa's comments, I don't see that a title awarded by Nicholas II of Russia is any less valid than one awarded by Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. :-)

That's probably a good idea. We never followed up on this, so if we are going to consistently use the simple standard of using GM to indicate only the FIDE title, we should remove Lasker, Marshall, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Tarrasch from Category:Chess grandmasters and also remove them from List of chess grandmasters. The explanatory text at Category:Chess grandmasters should also be updated to indicate that only the FIDE title qualifies. Quale (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs needed

I can't find refs for some points, can anyone help?

• "Even when Lasker was in his late 60s, Capablanca considered him the most dangerous player around in any single game" - in "Chess strength and style", 3rd para. Philcha (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lasker-Steinitz return match

Reinfeld and Fine in "Dr. Lasker's Chess Career say (p75) that Steinitz "overstepped the time limit" in game 6 but Lasker insisted they play on. Is this really true? It isn't mentioned in the British Chess Magazine account.RayJohnstone (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New York 1893 tournament pic

Thanks, Krakatoa! I've swapped the left / right float of the images to avoid kicking the sub-section heading so far right. --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. This looks like a very good article which well deserves to be a GA (or better). I can provide cites for any true chess proposition (and lots of untrue ones, too, for example that Capablanca and/or Alekhine was/were superior to Lasker), so if anyone needs authority for some proposition, just ask. Krakatoa (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the other improvements too!

"I can provide cites for any true chess proposition (and lots of untrue ones, too ..." - should be in the Wikiproject Chess quotes book. --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That quote seems to encapsulate my role in WikiProject Chess as well as anything. To clarify, I do have a preference for the true propositions. Krakatoa (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Euwe-Lasker record

Krakatoa, who's done a lot of excellent work on this article in the last few days, added to the "Influence" section " Euwe had a lifetime 0-3 score against Lasker" (with ref). I don't think this is the right place for their head-to-head record, as the para is about the fact that Lasker was one of a kind. However I'm not sure what would be the right place, unless we had enough material for a para in "Playing strength" about head-to-head records? Any ideas? --Philcha (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emanuel Lasker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am in the process of reviewing this article and I will post my first comments here in no time, based on this version of the article. SyG (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my first comments, based on an "eye-on-the-fly" (?) review. I still have to check the references and various format things. I place the article on hold for now. SyG (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

General remarks

Issues resolved

• Done There are discrepancies in the use of upper or lower case for the first letters of the words "World Champion" and "World Championship". Sometimes it is written "world championship" and sometimes "World Championship". The article needs to be consistent with himself. I would suggest to always use upper cases because this is what is used in the excellent article Alexander Alekhine, that is GA already. SyG (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. No offence meant, but I'm glad someone else is reviewing Wilhelm Steinitz, as we'd have a terrible time deciding when to switch from lower to upper case :-) Philcha (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While mentioning that, kuddos for getting Wilhelm Steinitz to GA-class ! SyG (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I find the treatment of the World Championship matches too brief, as most of the text concentrates on the context of these matches (before the match, after the match, controversies, ...) but says too little on the development of the matches themselves. SyG (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Article says Lasker-Steinitz 1984 was level at 3-3 then Steinitz lost the next 5. I've seen nothing that suggests Steinitz tired after a mere 6 games, please let me know you've seen a good explanation for the collapse. Chess Successby Neil McDonald quotes Kramnik as saying it was a gross mismatch but, as McDonald points out, Steintz was doing better at 3-3 than Kasparov did against Kramnink in 2000, although McDonald syas soon after, "In certain pawn structures Steinitz had no idea what he was meant to do (followed by example from game 15, when the match was almost over). I've been through 10 pages of Google Web and Books results, and that's it.
• It also says Lasker beat Steinitz by ten wins, five draws, two losses in 1896-1897 - I think that's enough.
• It gives the scores of his equally crushing wins against Marshall, Tarrasch and Janowski - little comment required, Lasker was just a whole lot stronger. Re the Lasker-Marshall match, Tim Harding in Chess in the Year 1907 comments that Marshall was out-gunned, but missed a few opportunities. Re the Lasker-Tarrasch match, Harding in Chess in the Year 1908 many commments on how the match came too late for Tarrasch, but says "What is perhaps significant is that it showed Lasker that a policy of seeking complications was preferable, if he got into positional difficulties, than submitting himself to a positional struggle" - a feature of Lasker's play noted in section "Chess strength and style". The 1910 Lasker-Janowski match was a joke - apart from the one-sided score, see Chessmetrics Player Profile: Dawid Janowsky, which ranks Janowski number one in 1904 but 12-14 and falling in 1910. IIRC Janowski had a wealthy friend who supported him beyond all facts and reason, until Janowski insulted him. --00:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• There's plenty about Lasker-Schlechter 1910, a match that needs a good explanation - if one existed.
• Article says of Lasker-Capablanca 1921, "Lasker resigned it after fourteen games, when he was trailing by four games and had won none." I've seen anecdotes indicating that Lasker did not prepare at all for this match, but was not sure about their reliability. In any case Lasker had already resigned the title to Capa, so I think readers may conclude that Lasker's heart was not really in it. Again, if you known of some WP:RS analysis that goes further than "Lasker did not win a game", please let me know. Just to make matters worse, Lasker's and Capa's accounts of the match disagreed hugely, especially Capa's final comment "As to his illness, not being an M.D., I cannot say; all I know is that two or three days after the match was over, Dr Lasker sailed for Europe looking very well and cheerful, far, very far, from the sick man one would imagine after reading his book." The nearest I can find to a decent analysis is Kramnik's comment "In 1921 Capablanca defeated Lasker. By the way, Lasker was not playing badly in that match; he retained great practical strength. In my opinion, this was the first match for the World Championship title where both opponents were very strong. Capablanca was younger, more active and a bit stronger. In the last game Lasker made a terrible blunder. However, the previous games saw an even and fascinating fight."

I'm not sure what else there is to say. For comparison, Alexander Alekhine is pretty brief about the 2 Alekhine-Bogoljubow matches, comments on th length of Alekine-Capablanca 1927 and goes into the fortunes and factors of the 2 Alekhine-Euwe matches because both had major swings and there's been a lot of discussion of the reasons.

Taylor Kingston] comments on Lasker's habit of running up streaks, but adds nothing else that's not already covered. --Philcha (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The article is 102-kb long, which is a lot. Only 47 kb are prose, so I think it passes WP:SIZE but it may need to be reduced in the future. SyG (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And how much longer have you made it? :-)

Seriously, Laker is one of the players who simply did a lot more than most, like Staunton, Euwe & Botvinnik - and unlike e.g. Anderssen, who could be summed up as "published a few books of problems, won a lot of tournaments". Philcha (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• According to readability tests, the average reader shall be about 16-19 years old, which I think is higher than the targeted audience of Wikipedia. I do not think it is a problem for GA-class, but for higher grade it may be necessary to simplify the sentences; SyG (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Early years

Issues resolved

• Done Please give his date of birth in the first paragraph. SyG (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done "[He] finished second in an international tournament at Amsterdam, ahead of some well-known masters including Isidore Gunsberg, who finished third (just half a point out of first place) in the New York 1889 tournament and unsuccessfully challenged for Wilhelm Steinitz' World Chess Championship title, also in 1889."
  While I understand the desire of giving some elements of context on the strength of opponents, here we get to a point where the main information represents 8 words, while the elements of context are up to 37 words. This seems out of balance; if the reader wants to know how strong Gunsberg was, he can always follow the link. I would suggest the following:
  "[He] finished second in an international tournament at Amsterdam, ahead of some well-known masters like Isidore Gunsberg."
  Please note that I would have the same remark for other parts of the text. SyG (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that for a few years Gunsberg was one of the top five but these days no-one mentions him. How about using Chessmetrics Player Profile: Isidor Gunsberg and saying "... Gunsberg, whom Chessmetrics ranks as number two in the world from September 1888 to September 1889" - and leaving the other refs in too, possibly with all the cites rolled up into 1 footnote? --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to do that by pointing out that he was number two in the world at that date. See if you like it. SyG (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks! --Philcha (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• "At New York 1893 he won all of his thirteen games, one of the few times in chess history that a player has achieved a perfect score in a significant tournament".
  Maybe it is so exceptional that we could give as a footnote the list of other times when it happened ? SyG (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"perfect score" wikilinks to List_of_world_records_in_chess#Perfect_tournament_and_match_scores, which I think is a little tooo long for a footnote. --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I realise there are more than I thought, my mistake. I will strike that remark out. SyG (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done The image File:Lasker.jpg seems to have a copyright issue ? SyG (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, the existing tag was valid provided before Oct 2008. But I've changed it to "PD-old" in case they change the rules again! --Philcha (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. SyG (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Chess 1894–1918

Issues resolved

• Done The first and the second paragraph deal with the two matches against Steinitz, but most of the text talks about the negociations and criticisms of the match. Very few is said about the matches themselves. The only sentences focused on the match are the following:

"The match was played in 1894, at venues in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal. Lasker won convincingly (ten wins, four draws, five losses); the scores were even after six games but Steinitz lost the next five in a row. [...] [Lasker] confirmed his title by beating Steinitz even more convincingly in their re-match in 1896–1897 (ten wins, five draws, two losses)."

This seems like a very fast way of treating a World Championship. I would expect at least one paragraph talking about each match, maybe not presenting each game in detail but at least a few more hints about what happened. SyG (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See above. There really seems to be little commentary about either match, and the 1896-1897 match was very one-sided. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have written a few lines on the first match against Steinitz. I will expand the second match a bit latter. SyG (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, none of the sources I've seen said Steinitz took a time-out and came back stronger, they just say it was an easy win for Lasker. My respect for Steinitz (pretty high already) has gone up a notch. --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW can you insert a page range or chapter / section heading in the ref to Guide des Échecs - then I'll copy the material into Wilhelm Steinitz. --Philcha (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the page number. Here is the exact text of Giffard:

Jeune homme courtois, bien élevé, [Lasker] n'eut aucune parole désobligeante envers son vieil adversaire. Sa modestie contrastait avec les déclarations d'avant match de Steinitz, pour qui la victoire ne faisait aucun doute.

Après que Lasker eut gagné la première partie, Steinitz déclara qu'il avait une position gagnante, fit une étourderie, puis, de déception, gâcha le reste de la partie. Le match dura un peu plus de deux mois, partagé entre New York, Philadelphie et Montréal. Mené de 5 points avant les 8 premières parties, Steinitz tint pour responsable ses nombreuses insomnies, demanda un repos d'une semaine, suivi un traitement à base de massages, et reprit effectivement le match dans de meilleures dispositions puisqu'il grignota 2 points de l'avance de Lasker. Ce ne fut pas suffisant.

Steinitz ne put admettre avoir perdu contre plus fort, et il réclama un match revanche pour le mois de décembre suivant. Lasker n'était pas pressé, Steinitz dut attendre deux ans.

And here is a tentative translation:

A courteous young man, with good manners, [Lasker] did not have any offending word for his old opponent. His modesty contrasted with Steinitz's public statements before the match, for whom victory was out of doubt.

After Lasker won the first game, Steinitz declared he had a winning position, made a blunder, then spoiled the rest of the game in frustration. The match lasted slightly more than two months, split between New York, Philadelphia and Montréal. Five points down before the eight last games, Steinitz accused his numerous insomniae, asked for a one-week rest, followed a treatment based on massages, and indeed resumed the match in much better shape as he nibbled two points from Lasker's lead. It was eventually not enough.

Steinitz could not admit having lost against stronger opposition, and he asked for a revenge match for next December. Lasker was not in a hurry, Steinitz was to wait two years.

SyG (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As you mention, I have found little to say on the second match against Steinitz, so if you agree this one is done. SyG (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. BTW I've finally pasted your additional material about the 1894 match into Wilhelm Steinitz - many thanks! --Philcha (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done It seems the paragraph starting with "Emanuel Lasker answered these criticisms by..." deals with achievements in tournaments whereas the next one, starting with "Lasker's match record was..." deals with achievements in matches. But then the match against Schlechter should be in this second paragraph, not in the first one. SyG (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine in World's Great Chess Games lists as Laskers most serious "failures" in this period the tournaments where he failed to fininsh 1st and the Schlechter match. I intended this sentence as a "lead" for this para (mainly tournaments), and the next 2 (most of his matches, and the Schlechter mystery). --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As we are dealing extensively with Schlechter's match in a following paragraph, I would suggest to wipe it out from the first paragraph (the one starting with "Emanuel Lasker answered these criticisms..."), so that this paragraph only contains tournaments. SyG (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed. --Philcha (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done "Lasker's match record was as impressive..." as what ? as his match record before 1894 ? or as his tournament record ? (or probably my rusty English is fooling me ?) SyG (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think the natural comparison is with the string of tournament wins. However I know from experience that your English is a lot better than that of the typical 12-year-old that is my target reader. How about getting a second opinion from a native speaker? --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing that may be slightly confusing is that the former paragraph also includes a match, the one against Schlechter. Hence that would get against the implicit interpretation "...as the string of tournament wins". But if you reckon that is clear enough, good for me. SyG (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I will trust you on that one and strike it out. SyG (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done "It is generally regarded as a World Championship match, but one post-match press report cast doubt on this."
  If most sources regard it as a World Championship and only one post-match press report does not, this last one is probably not significant. We could discard it, or put it in footnotes. SyG (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The course of the match mystified everyone at the time and since, so there have been some pretty wild guesses then and since. Even the usually reliable The Encyclopaedia of Chess by Anne Sunnucks tries this explanation: "In 1910 Lasker could only draw a so-called championship match of 10 games with Schlechter" (from Google Books' extract in the search "lasker schlecter 1910"). Perhaps I've got the sentence the wrong way round, and it would be better to say, "One post-match press report said it was not a World Championship match, but it is generally agreed that it was." --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now me is confused. The example you cite with Anne Sunnucks seems to show that "it is generally doubted that this match was a real World Championship", and not that "it is generally regarded as a World Championship match". It seems there is more than just one single post-match press report that casts doubt on this ? SyG (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no-one can understand why Schlechter turned down an easy draw (with a superior position) in game 10. Pachman (Decisive Games in Chess History) calls it "an inexplicable psychological mystery". Fine, a psychoanalyst, is very brief about this match in both the "Emanuel Lasker" and "Carl Schlechter" sections of World's Great Chess Games, saying as little as possible - very uncommon for him! Wild speculations started right after the end of the match (not a championship match, 2-game lead clause, not in the player's interests for Schlechter to win) and continues to Keene's "Schlechter was too honorable". You're not alone in your confusion! --Philcha (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, how about "It is generally regarded as a World Championship match, but some sources put this in doubt in view of the strange outcome of the match.", and then we put in the footnotes your quote of Sunnuck ? SyG (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done I would suggest to rename this section from "Chess 1894–1918" to "Chess competitions 1894–1918", as chess is also talked about in the latter section "Other activities 1894-1918". SyG (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, thanks, done. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done "Lasker was shocked by the poverty..." This paragraph comes like a fly in the oilment. I would suggest to add a new section "Criticism and controversies", or maybe "Personality" to place a description of Lasker-the-real-man. SyG (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I omitted a "Personality" section because there seems to be a lack of genuinely reliable sources - Taylor Kingston and Johannes Fischer both consider established commentaries such as Fine's and Hannak's to be too reverential. Lasker's desire to extract the maximum financial gain from being World Champion showed up in delaying the challenges of Marshall (1904; played 1907), Rubinstein (1912; not played) and Capa (1911; played in 1921 after a few more controversies). The best alternative place might be section "Influence on chess". --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

PS while looking for an answer to another of your queries, I found 4170. Lasker and money - Lasker was well-off mid-1890s to 1933 - ? despite losses on German War Bonds in 1914-1918?. --Philcha (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

After thoughts, a "Personality" section is probably not worth it, so I would agree with your proposal to place everything about the money in the section "Influence on chess". SyG (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done In the section "Other activities 1894–1918", the link of the first reference, titled "Chess World's Doings; Lasker to Test Rice Gambit", does not work on my computer. SyG (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I re-tested this evening and now it works. SyG (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• The treatment of the matches against Marshall, Tarrasch and Janowski seems too short to me. These are World Championship matches, right ? SyG (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See above and the scores - Lasker hardly paused to take his coat off. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the match against Marshall as long as one full sentence. I intend to expand the other matches latter. SyG (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"as long as one full sentence" - ROFL --Philcha (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have eventually found a bit of time to write on the match against Tarrasch, with a new bold full set of writing skills: diagrams, quotes, several sentences and even a few references ! SyG (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

←And you didn't crash the whole of Wikipedia into italics :-)

More seriously, I think there are some difficulties here:

• "was so dogmatic a player that he was nicknamed the praeceptor germaniae" makes "praeceptor germaniae" sound satirical. Fine in World's Greaat Chess Games (admittedly a source I trust less and less on chess history) uses "praeceptor germaniae" as a tribute to the influience of T's writings and suggests he became "praeceptor mundi" (chapter on Tarrasch). The king and I (obit of Unzicker, by Short) also uses the term as a compliment. Nimzovitch et l'hypermodernisme is in Frech, so you're better qualified to judge whether this uses "praeceptor germaniae" as a compliment, sarcasm or neutral (and whether you consider this a reliable source). The following say that T. proclaimed himself "praeceptor germaniae": Thought and Choice in Chess (de Groot; p 32; de Groot is / was a psychologist with no track record in chess history; the snippet at Google Books (search result for "The King: Chess Pieces" by Donner et al); etc. Discussion about the origin and use of "praeceptor germaniae" would probably be useful in Siegbert Tarrasch, but I suggest Emanuel Lasker should steer clear of this mess.

You are right, I certainly did not want to use "praeceptor germaniae" in a satirical sense, even if his principles eventually restricted Tarrasch's natural talents. I have changed the sentence accordingly. SyG (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen another version of "For you, Dr Lasker, I will have only one word to say: checkmate" e.g. "I will have only three words: check and mate" - Mark Weeks, The Atlantic Times. Whichever version the article uses, I think the ref should note the other version, with citations.

I will keep your version, as my reference is in French and I had to translate it, so better to stick to the common English story. SyG (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no doubt that Tarrasch hated Lasker, but the implication that Lasker actually hated Tarrasch is at odds with the usual view of Lasker as a guy who kept his cool. Can you produce anything to support that? Chess in the Year 1908 (Tim Harding, who AFAIK has never given reason to doubt his relaibility) says, "Tarrasch refused attempts at reconciliation," but also "what we really need are thoroughly researched modern biographies of the two grandmasters, which do not exist in English."

Here is what my source (Giffard) says in French:

Lasker and Tarrasch se détestaient cordialement, et ne le cachaient pas dans leurs écrits. Tarrasch considérait Lasker comme un joueur de café, ne remportant ses victoires que grâce à des pièges peu glorieux. Lasker s'en prenait à l'orgueil démesuré du praeceptor germaniae qui brillait plus dans les salons que sur l'échiquier.

And here is a possible translation, where I have changed the verb "to hate" by "to dislike", maybe more appropriate here:

Lasker and Tarras intensely disliked each other, and did not hide it in their writings. Tarrasch considered Lasker as a coffeehouse player, winning games only thanks to unglorious traps. Lasker mocked the arrogance of the praeceptor germaniae who shone more in salons than in front of the chessboard.

SyG (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If "... of the praeceptor germaniae who in his opinion shone more in salons ..." (i.e. it's Lasker's opinion, not Giffard's), then I like that better than the current text. It's concise and has real bite (not to mention snarl, miaow, etc.) --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented your suggested change. SyG (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re game 2 of the 1908 match, after playing through at chessgames.com it I think it look like a good example of how much better Lasker understood dynamics (see Kramnik on Lasker's superior grasp of dynamics) - Tarrasch's combination at move 15 looks clever and leaves Lasker with a quite ugly position, but it turns out by move 23 that Lasker can build up a K-side attack much faster, and by move 36 Tarrach is trussed and roasted like a Christmas turkey. However the commentary at Chess in the Year 1908 says Lasker's 14... Ng4 was an attempt to escape "difficulties", T's 15 Bxg7 should have given T a winning position, but 19 Qxa7 was a mistake. I have to go with the commentary (WP:NOR). The commentary at also say the game is an example of Lasker's view that "a policy of seeking complications was preferable, if he got into positional difficulties, than submitting himself to a positional struggle". I've looked unsuccessfully for other commentaries on the game. My own feeling is that this game is too long and has too many debatable points to go in the main text. I'd suggest putting it in "Notable Games" and cite Chess in the Year 1908 about Lasker seeking complications in inderior positions - but we have quite a lot of games already. Re the diagram, I'm not sure it's the right position to choose but I'm not sure what would be the best one. If we keep the diagram I think the caption should link to chessgames.com.

I have added the link to ChessGames in the caption, as you suggest. I agree with you the game is too long to go fully in the main text, that is why I only reproduced the typical position that is presented by my source. Tarrasch played 15.Fxg7 because he thought the resulting position would be in his favour, not only because of the pawn ahead (I do not think Tarrasch was a pawn grabber), but also because of the static aspects of the position (doubled pawns, bad bishop). Alas, Lasker was to demonstrate the dynamic aspects of the position (weakened king, possible pawn thrusts in the center) outweighted the static ones. In other words, this game gives a summary both of the development of the match, and of the difference of conception between Tarrasch and Lasker. SyG (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re "Tarrasch was thinking he would win easily", did T commnet on this after the game?

Not that I know of, and my source is more general. I have changed the sentence accordingly. SyG (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being such a pain!

PS I found this while searching - you might enjoy it. --Philcha (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No pain at all, my sentences are always eagerly waiting for improvements. And thanks for the link, it was an enjoyable read. SyG (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the coverage on Janowski. Although the coverage of Marshall is still light, I think on the whole 3 paragraphs for these 3 world championships is roughly adequate. Have a look. SyG (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the paragraph on the match against Schlechter deals with the 10th game. I agree this is the most important one, especially with such a dramatic outcome. But I would also like to have some hints on what happened before, like the swindle that is briefly mentioned. SyG (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a run through the 10 games would be too long. However Decisive Games in Chess History by Ludek Pachman gives nice summary, which I could mention in a footnote after "... in 1910 by winning the last game that was played". --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I could also include in the footnote game 5, which Lasker lost from what should have been a winning position. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1918 – end of life

Issues resolved

• Done "Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, gained dictatorial powers in March 1933, and in April 1933 started a campaign of discrimination and intimidation against Jews. Lasker and his wife Martha, who were both Jews, left Germany in 1933, and all their assets in Germany were confiscated."

I find the first sentence a bit long, as it is only there to give a context. I would propose the following:

"In 1933, due to the campaign of discrimination against Jews started by Adolf Hitler, Lasker and his wife Martha left Germany, and all their assets there were confiscated".

SyG (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have been unable to discover exactly when the Laskers left. Lasker: New Approaches says, "It speaks for Lasker's political insight, that he, unlike so many others, was under no illusions whatsoever about the nature of the new German rulers. It also indicates his inner strength that with 65 years of age he decided to give up all his possessions in Germany and went into exile," which makes appear as if he decided to get out before things became much, much worse. OTOH Unknown Quantity (by John Derbyshire; a history of maths; 2006; p. 235) says, "The Nazis confiscated all of their property and drove them penniless out of their homeland." I've asked Karakatoa if he has any info. If not, I think it's best for the article to tiptoe round this, for example, "In April 1933 Adolf Hitler began a campaign of discrimination and intimidation against Jews. Lasker and his wife Martha, who were both Jews, left Germany in 1933, and all their assets in Germany were confiscated." --Philcha (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Krakatoa's research indicates Lasker was pushed:

"It may well be that, but for the stormy events of 1933, Lasker would have lived out his life contentedly in the quiet retirement of his country home. But it was not to be, and for the Laskers, no less than for so many Germany Jews and other anti-Nazis, the advent of the Hitler régime meant the loss of their property and citizenship, it meant being uprooted from their home and forced into exile." Dr. J. Hannak, Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master, Simon and Schuster, 1959, p. 268.

"As a result of the persecution of Jews he and his wife were driven out of Germany in 1933 and their property confiscated." David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed. 1992), p. 218.

"In 1933 he and his wife left Germany. Their property confiscated, he had to begin all over again." Anne Sunnucks, The Encyclopaedia of Chess, St. Martin's Press, 1970, p. 275.

So I've revised the text. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is very well for me. SyG (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done The image File:Krylenko.jpg does not seem to have a clear copyright description, nor an explanation for fair-use rationale ? SyG (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed it. --Philcha (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no description of the match against Capablanca, only a lengthy description of the preparation. SyG (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I could add Kramnik's comment that Lasker seem to play fairly well - which I suppose would imply (without saying so explicitly) that Capa consistently played a little better, and thus won 4 and lost none. --Philcha (talk)

Added Kramnik's comment. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Chess strength and style

Issues resolved

• Done "Richard Réti even speculated that Lasker would sometimes knowingly choose inferior moves if he knew they would make his opponent uncomfortable." A reference would be nice. SyG (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Lasker matters and How to defend in chess (review) cover it all, down to "... counterattacking and complicating the game before a disadvantage became serious." --Philcha (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot find a mention of Réti in your second reference. Anyway, your first reference is enough to back the claim, so I have added it in the article. I understand, however, that in this reference Watson is quoting Soltis, himself quoting Réti, so we are very far from the original source. I would have loved to find the quote, but I could not find it in Modern Ideas in Chess, the only book from Réti I have. SyG (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

5679. Deliberately bad play says it was in Masters of the Chessboard". --Philcha (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a ref to 5679. Deliberately bad play in the existing footnote about Reti's statement. --Philcha (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done "Even when Lasker was in his late 60s, Capablanca considered him the most dangerous player around in any single game." This seems to have little to do with Lasker's skills in openings ? SyG (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The first half of the para is about openings, the 2nd half about Lasker's skill generally, and especially Capa's opinion. This sentence was in before I started on this article. I've looked for a ref and have asked others to do so, with no result. I'm prepared to delete the sentence, as there's enough well-sourced material about Capa's high opinion of Lasker's skill. --Philcha (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All right, I have removed the sentence. SyG (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have several concerns with the paragraph on the famous game against Capablanca with the exchange variation:

1. In the first sentence, Kramnik's explanation is presented as a rebuttal that Lasker had a "psychological" style. However Kramnik is talking about the moves of the game, and not about the choice of the opening itself. Also, no deep positional understanding could beat Capablanca by itself, as this was exactly the style in which Capablanca was a genius. SyG (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole of the opposing argument is that Lasker psyched out Capa in 1914, by choosing a drawish variation when he needed a win. Kramnik's part of the rebuttal is that, once the game started, Lasker outplayed Capa. "no deep positional understanding could beat Capablanca by itself" sounds a little like hero-worship of Capa or an insinuation that Lasker used voodoo :) --Philcha (talk)

Yep, I agree my argument is not 100% scientific :-) However, the beauty of choosing this variation at that moment is much more sophisticated than just choosing a drawish variation. See my more detailled explanation lower. SyG (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The third sentence starts a long list of facts, in a very heavy style as the sentence runs on 6 lines. And then there is no clear conclusion: what do these facts tell us ? I guess the conclusion would be something like "Thus Lasker could possibly have chosen this opening just because he used to win with it", but this is not stated for the moment. SyG (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Could cut it down to " However an analysis of Lasker's use of this variation throughout his career concludes that he had excellent results with it as White against top-class opponents, and sometimes used it in "must-wins situations" - and put the details in the footnote. --Philcha (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good solution, provided this analysis and conclusion are done by a referenced, reliable, authoritative source. SyG (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The paragraph does not explain why this choice of opening was considered as very psychological: the winning endgame that White has from the start, the compensation of the two bishops that Black must use actively, the fact that Capablanca's position in the tournament made it difficult to play this opening appropriately, etc. SyG (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time everyone except Lasker thought the Exchange Variation was harmless (see the quote from Fine a sentence or 2 earlier) and Fine, being a psychiatrist, thought it was a psych-out. --22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

PS do you have a ref for the view you've just presented? While I've seen enough to discount the idea that "Lasker played inferior moves to unsettle opponents", I remember something that said Lasker did choose openings that made opponents uncomfortable if he thought they were actually OK - and there's already the Capa ref that Lasker disagreed with contemporary evaluations of some openings. --Philcha (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the analysis I have always been presented with for that game. In this opening, White has a very simple way to win: exchange all pieces, and then the K+P ending is winning because White can create a passed pawn on the kingside while Black cannot do the same on the queenside. Hence White has a strong positional advantage from the start. This advantage is balanced (and even slightly more) by the advantage of the two bishops for Black. But that means Black has to play actively to maintain the balance. He has to open the position for his bishops, keep the right pieces, push his pawns to harrass the knights, etc. And this is exactly what Capablanca, being sole first, was not in the mood to do. So this is a bit more elaborated than just going into a drawish variation randomly chosen. In reality, if Black does not react in the appropriate way, the exchange variation is winning "in line" (as we say in France). SyG (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis is consistent with what Taylor Kinston's review (more informative than Watson's, IMO) of Why Lasker Matters says about Lasker's ability to create positions where errors by himself were less serious than errors by his opponents - starting with 4.BxNc6 in this case. Do you have a ref for it?

Of course this is not the same as the Reti / Fine idea that Lasker played the man, not the board - he played what he considered good moves but, where there were equally good choices, tried to tempt his opponents into errors. --Philcha (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence on chess

Issues resolved

• Done "Lasker's Defense to the Evans Gambit (which effectively ended the use of this gambit in tournament play)" We should precise that it was ended only until Kasparov revived it. SyG (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've made me look, Evans Gambit gives a 1963 win by Fischer against Fine - from whom I got the pronouncement of death! - as well as a couple of wins by Kasparov. According to Tim Harding, Kasprov's revival of the Evans was short-lived. OTOH MCO, 2008 edition, p. 26 says that the previous edition's prediction of a decline in the Evans had been falsified. Since this article is about Em. Lasker, and is unlikely to be updated every time the latest view of the Evans changes, I suggest the furthest it should go is "(which effectively ended the use of this gambit in tournament play until the 1960s)" and summarize the other points in the footnote. --Philcha (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

PS while looking for an answer to another of your queries I found 4202. Pillsbury’s opening preferences in 1901 recommends the Lasker Defense or refusal of the Evans Gambit. --Philcha (talk)

I have implemented your suggestion in the text. SyG (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the Evans Gambit item to "until a revival in the 1990s", citing MCO (2000). --Philcha (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Friends and relatives

Issues resolved

• Done I would like to know more on Einstein's relationship with Lasker. How did they meet ? What did they discussed ? What was Einstein's opinion on chess, and on Lasker ? Was Lasker knowledgeable enough in physics to get a grasp on Einstein's theories ? SyG (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Einstein friendly with Lasker in the 1930s but disliked the competitive nature of chess - Einstein and the Generations of Science by Lewis Samuel Feuer, chapter=Prologue, p. xxxiv; World Chess Championship 2001-02 Braingames & Einstein quotes Einstein's foreword to Hannak's biography of Em. Lasker, "I have to confess that I have always disliked the fierce competitive spirit embodied in that highly intellectual game [of chess]."

Lasker contributed "a mere eight lines, criticizing Einstein for giving a finite velocity to the speed of light" to the book "A Hundred Authors against Einstein" - The Attraction of Gravitationby John Earman, Michel Janssen, John D. Norton - p 257, chapter=The Reaction to Relativity in Germany: III A Hundred Authors against Einstein. From the same source: the Theory of Relativity was generally accepted in germany in the 1920s, but interest declined as the theory offered few testable predictions, and quantum mechanics took centre-stage; "A Hundred Authors against Einstein" was a booklet consisting of 28 short signed statements agains the Theory of Relativity (Special or General); the organisers of this included a handful of scientists who had opposed Einstein in the 1920s, and most of whom later supported Hitler and / or other right-wing groups. The booklet eventually begame part of Nazi propaganda against "Jewish science". Lasker's comment is dumb, as James Clark Maxwell calculated the speed of light in a vacuum in 1864. I don't know whether Lasker was pressured into contributing to "A Hundred Authors against Einstein", and his comment is so dumb that it may have been a coded disavowal of "A Hundred Authors against Einstein" (see theories that mis-spellings and other errors in Alexander Alekhine's anti-Semitic articles were coded messages). The whole thing's not worth bothering with.

David Hilbert, Lasker's mentor at Erlangen, worked on the Theory of Relativity (Erlangen, by Gary C. Fouse, p 207 , so it's a fair bet that Lasker knew quite a lot about Einstein arounf 1905, when Einstein published the Special Theory of Relativity - but without WP:RS, ...

That's all Google's got me. IMO only Einstein's dislike of chess is usable. --Philcha (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added a few lines, including a quotation from Einstein on Lasker. SyG (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice quote - how did I miss it? But Lasker did not understand physics well enough, as Einstein's "Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers" gently points out - see History of special relativity for all the 1890s and early 1900s work that Lasker did not grasp. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I have removed the mention of Lasker's criticism of Einstein's theories. SyG (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the thought for the deed - I've removed it. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be possible to expand this part slightly further, but I will thake that as done for the sake of this GA-review. SyG (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable games

Issues resolved

• Done We may have a disagreement here, but... who find these games notable ? I mean, I would prefer that each of these game is referenced in a book that presents it, because if we Wikipedians consider these games are more notable than others, I would consider that as WP:OR. SyG (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Emanuel Lasker vs Johann Hermann Bauer, Amsterdam 1889 - the 2-B sac, with a ref.
• Harry Nelson Pillsbury vs Emanuel Lasker, St Petersburg 1895 - one of the 3 Em. Lasker gmaes Fine gives in full in World's Great Chess Games.
• Wilhelm Steinitz vs Emanuel Lasker, London 1899 in 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower & Du mont (game 209, p. 270).
• Frank James Marshall vs Emanuel Lasker, world Championship Match, 1907, 1st game because it's amusing how Lasker ties Marshall in knots at the start of the endgame - and Capa uses it in Chess Fundamentals (exmaple 30, on R & B (Lasker) vs R & N (Marshall).
• Emanuel Lasker vs Carl Schlechter, match 1910, game 10 is a poor game but historically important.
• Emanuel Lasker vs Jose Raul Capablanca, St Petersburg 1914 is another of Fine's choices, and very relevant to the "psychological approach" debate.
• Emanuel Lasker vs Jose Raul Capablanca, St Petersburg 1914 good example of Lasker's strength as at age 66, featured in Colin Crouch's How to Defend in Chess (also in contents list at ecampus.com) - see Watson's review. --Philcha (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added these refs. --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is great, thanks for your understanding ! SyG (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Match results

Issues resolved

• Done Please disambiguate Logansport and Kokomo. SyG (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Google gives only 4 pages of results for "lasker showalter match logansport kokomo" and none of them gives the state of either town. --Philcha (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have dewikified them, until we know more. SyG (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Passing the article as GA-class

After all this work (doh!) on the article, here is my assessment of the article against the Wikipedia:Good article criteria:

1. Well-written:

   No problem that I can see. The chess jargon is avoided as far as possible, there are few lists, and the Lead is appropriate.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   Abundantly referenced, and no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   Parts of the article could probably be slightly summed up further or put in footnotes, but not to the point where I would call it "unnecessary detail".

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

   No problem on that side, although the part dealing with Lasker's style may be seen as slightly biased towards contemporary judgment that Lasker's style was not psychologic.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   The article has been abundantly changed during this review, but I do not think it counts as an edit war.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   Images that did not have correct copyright status have been removed.

So I am passing this article as GA-class. Congratulations to Philcha for all his superb work ! SyG (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbering

Minor point: when you're discussing the first Steinitz-Lasker match, you start out using words for the games: (first, second, sixth), then you switch to numbers (11th, 12th etc.). WP:MOSNUM says you're supposed to use one or the other in a passage, not switch - even when you go from below ten to above ten. Krakatoa (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

God, you're crotchety after that FA review :-) Changed all to numerals as there are a few above 10. Personally I prefer numerals, but some reviewers get grumpy about them. In future I'll use WP:MOSNUM against them, thanks for reminding me >-)

I'll let you off with the American use of "through" (at least it wasn't "thru"), since you're right, it is more precise in this case.

Thanks for the additional refs! --Philcha (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here in the U.S., I've seen T-shirts for sale posing the question, "Does anal retentive have a hyphen?" FA reviewers are the kind of people who have a firmly established position on that. :-) Krakatoa (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you'll love this on my Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's exactly the sort of thing one encounters on FA and GA review. Krakatoa (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Consider using these someplace:

• Viktor Korchnoi, of Lasker: "My chess hero." - quoted by Soltis in Why Lasker Matters, page 3.
• Mikhail Tal: "The greatest of the champions was, of course, Emanuel Lasker." Soltis, page 3 again.
• "He had an immense influence on younger players in the Soviet Union, and Tal and Korchnoi, in particular, regarded Lasker as their chess hero." Crouch, Colin (2000). How to Defend in Chess. Everyman Chess. p. 115. ISBN 1-85744-250-4. Krakatoa (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gr8, they're in, although when I searched for the Korchnoi text I think I've got the actual source. Many thanks!

BTW I was about to save my response then you added the Crouch one - edit conflicts occasionally have their uses. --Philcha (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Math lecturer

I have math-oriented sources for 1901 and 1903. Reshevsky wrote, "He was a respected professor of mathematics at Heidelberg University in Germany for many years. Lasker was determined not to devote all of his time to chess." Can we find corroboration and dates? - this is the kind of subject on which GMs often retail urban myths. Philcha (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he did mathematical research of encyclopaedic interest. (Primary decomposition, both of ideals and of modules, is a well-known part of the 20'th century approach to commutative algebra; it is what mathematicians loosely often calls "central to the field". I'm not able to judge the importance of his contribution to game theory, since, I have not accessed it.) I have not been able to find further information about his academic career, however. He is not listed on de:Liste berühmter Persönlichkeiten der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg; which of course does not prove that he wasn't a "professor" (in the American sense) there. If he had been a "Professor" in the German sense, then there should be some mention of his Habilitation, somewhere, I think. A disadvantage is that the authors of the various encyclopaediae articles were much more interested in his chess career, and thus may have omitted or been ignorant of much else. However, at least "der grosse Brockhaus" (1955) ought to have mentioned a formal professorship for Lasker, if he got one.

Therefore, my guess would be that he only taught in subordinate academic positions, in the German fairly hierarchical academical world. I really don't know; and none of my sources indicates what he was doing after he "retired" in 1925 - nota bene from his chess career - and until he "became active" again in the '30's.-JoergenB (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, JoergenB! I think what I've written from other sources covers Lasker's mathematical significance well enough, and I notice you haven't suggested any changes. And thanks also for putting my mind at ease about not using the Reshevsky quote at the top of this thread. Philcha (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't suggest any textual changes (unless and until we find more information, of course). I did add some category and project information, since I think Lasker also is of some interest as a mathematician; thanks for bringing this fact to my attention, by the way. JoergenB (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lasker was not really a serious mathematician. Though he had some talent, his chess took precedence over his studies. In Professor Otto Haupt's (a young professor at Erlangen at the time that Lasker got his Doctorate there) words, he got his doctorate "between trains." Lasker did prove something interesting for a special case of Rings (the existence of primary decomposition for polynomial rings), and Emmy Noether proved the general case some 20 years later. Thus he shares billing with her on the Lasker-Noether theorem. That being said, Lasker was just not prolific enough to be counted as an important mathematician, let alone a titan like David Hilbert or Emmy Noether. (If Carl Friedrich Gauss is Babe Ruth, Hilbert and Noether are Lou Gehrig and Ty Cobb. Lasker was a guy who played a few weeks in the majors.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.126.74 (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Horowitz1973MorphyToFischer

Tag missing. SunCreator (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thsnks - fixed it. --Philcha (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for Editing

Just curious as to the definition of the following reversion of an edit made: 'needs consistency with rest of article'.

In what way was the edit inconsistent? Maybe the reverter can explain.Hushpuckena (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't change it, but I see two things (1) we usually capitalize World Champion, and (2) not everyone understands (+8 -3 =2). Bubba73 (talk), 02:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; it's just that as it previously stood, at the beginning, the reference to the short drawn match was thus: (+2 -2).

If that's the problem, then I'm mystified, as I've seen the same terminology elsewhere in this article, and if consistency is the goal. I'm all for keeping it the one way, whichever way that happens to be.

As to the capitalisation of the WC title and matches, what are the exceptions? Seems redundant to me to always capitalise WC, same as Grandmaster, or in another frame of reference, 'Major League Baseball'. Hushpuckena (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who reverted, and I agree I could have given more explanations in the edit summary. My action was based on the fact that we usually write World Chess Championship with upper case, and scores in the article are mostly written in letters, e.g. "Lasker eventually won by 10½−5½ (eight wins, five draws, and three losses)".

That being said, as you mention, the notation (+8, =5, -3) is also used here and there in the article, which is inconsistent. I will now go through the article and change them. SyG (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the text parts of Hushpuckena's edit were simply less concise than in the version that was restored - conciseness is desirable when the article is already long because of Lasker's non-chess activities and some historically important controversies in his reign.

Re won/lost/drawn scoring, I suggest articles should follow one of 2 possible approaches:

• Words in all cases. Except that I'd use and explain +X -Y =Z in results tables.
• +X -Y =Z in al cases, but with explanation in parentheses after first instance per section (or every 2-3 sections, if there's a run of short session). --Philcha (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My preference for that is the first one: words in text, but +x -y =z in tables (with explanation). Bubba73 (talk), 15:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable games

What about Emanuel Lasker vs William Ewart Napier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.170.75 (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

With all these masters, you have to stop where. To be "notable" a game needs to be assessed as notable by an independent experts, i.e. a another very widely respected as a top player and commentator. Reasons for notable can vary a lot - the 7 for Em. Lasker include both great play and historical importance ("Emanuel Lasker vs Carl Schlechter, match 1910, game 10". ChessGames.com. was so important that both tried to the game). --Philcha (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Soviet citizen

It is clearly cited that Lasker renounced his German citizenship, and received Soviet citizenship. The same case is in the article about Bobby Fischer, with the difference that Fischer renounced his American, and received Icelandic citizenship. The fact that Fischer is categorized in the category "Icelandic people" should be used without suspection in categorizing Lasker in the category "Soviet people". Regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think "Soviet people" is wrong, remove it. --Philcha (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the rules about the nationality on this language edition of Wikipedia, but it's obvious that we must respect them of any sort. As categories like "American people", and "Canadian people" exist on this Wikipedia, without reference to the fact that American people, and Canadian people do not exist, and when the main consideration of people is by their citizenships, then the category "Soviet people" is not far from these rules. Many times I've proposed to change these rules, but this did not give positive impact to the holders of the pages of this kind, so I decided to use it for all articles, just to annihilate the articles, where the rules are omitted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A good article, BUT...

Hey there, This is a pretty good article and I enjoyed reading it, but I was irritated by all the weasel words. Too many times it says this like "Lasker was often..." "It has often been said that..." "Many people say...", etc. Also, in the introductory paragraphs, there are a lot of poorly-written passive sentences beginning with the word "Although..." Just my 2c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.92 (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We appreciate your comments. Don't hesitate to improve the article yourself, see Wikipedia:Be bold. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to remove some "often" here and there. Please tell us if you feel that is better. SyG (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

References

The introduction makes some very strong claims (especially in paragraph 2) but provides no references to support the claims. For example who said that Lasker was very advanced for his age.The Gaon (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lasker's style

I think there is a game v Capablanca where Lasker played the Ruy Lopez exchange as he knew that Capablanca was uncomfortable with the positions that arose from the Ruy Lopez exchange. Could anyone find that game if so could it be used in the section that talks about Laskers style saying that this was an example of psychological play.The Gaon (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You can replay the game there. Regards, Stefan64 (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Emanuel Lasker explains why Lasker used the exchange variation. --Philcha (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Meaning?

What does " seventh equal" mean? Is it another way of saying "tied for seventh"? I am a native speaker of English and have never seen or heard this phrase. Maybe it's specific to chess?Kdammers (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I see (that phrase) used a lot, too, in chess articles, and have never liked it (it seems to be an older-type chess expression!?). I'd vote for a replacement expression that's modern & clear. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

'Issue'?

What does 'his later writings about card games presented a significant issue in the mathematical analysis of card games.' mean? Specifically, what does 'issue' mean in that sentence? 'Issue' often means 'problem' but the word is used so loosely it has probably lost all meaning. 109.148.210.165 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emanuel Lasker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/relative.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/lasker.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Historians debate or not?

This is for Quale to explain their repeated reversion, after I explained and asked not to. Quale, you just reverted without explanation, and instead asked me not to! Amazing. I see on your talk page people have objected to you doing this before - repeatedly reverting without explanation. I have explained (briefly) why I thought those links were better deleted - you have referred to such things as what appeared in a Ray Keene book as 'historians debating'. Which strikes me as ludicrous. If there is the actual debate of historians that you claim, then including reference to a Keene book is superfluous. If not, it's doing nothing but misleading. I ask you again not to just revert without explanation as you have already done once. I see you have contributed to a lot of chess pages, so maybe you feel like you can do whatever you like on here without being civil, or justifying your actions at all. I feel you have acted entirely inappropriately. I deleted what I did because I felt it improved the page, and I've explained why. Now it's your turn. 110.20.168.169 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You removed four cites from the page, not just one cite by Keene. Justify removal of all four, please. Your edit comment "Sorry, but to portray such things as an error in a Keene book as historians disagreeing about something, is just silly" does not justify removing four cites. In fact there has been disagreement by chess writers whether the 1909 Janowski match was for the WC, although I think it's generally agreed today that it was not. Probably the text describing that issue can be improved substantially both here and at World Chess Championship 1910 (Lasker–Janowski), but in my opinion removing it completely is not an improvement. Quale (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master by Dr. J. Hannak, first published in 1959, also says that the 1909 match was for the title, but Winter's research looks convincing to me. I like the statement at World Chess Championship 1910 (Lasker–Janowski): "The longer 1909 match has sometimes been called a world championship match, but research by Edward Winter indicates that the title was not at stake." Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Evidence

Reference N° 62. There is no mention of David Hilbert on that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.1.47.224 (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"Recent analysis, however, indicates that he was ahead of his time and used a more flexible approach than his contemporaries, which mystified many of them." What recent analysis? By whom? When? This should have a source. Tpkatsa (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to briefly summarize the fairly extensive discussion in the Emanuel Lasker#Assessment section, but this part of the lead could probably be improved. I'm not sure that that sentence is the best bit from the assessment section to put in the lead. Quale (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emanuel Lasker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530021654/http://www.anders.thulin.name/SUBJECTS/CHESS/SteinitzChigorin1889.pdf to http://www.anders.thulin.name/SUBJECTS/CHESS/SteinitzChigorin1889.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126000035/http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html to http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309155152/http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSTS000000000000111000000000000010100 to http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSTS000000000000111000000000000010100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)