Originally posted by whatEuwewhatEuwe,
Fischer and Lasker were opposites and perhaps niether of them could have fully appreciated the other. Many of us can early on sense the kind of game our opponent wants to play, either generally(style) or specifically (mood), but how many of us can relentlessly exploit that sense from first move to last? In that, Lasker stands alone, mowing down neo-romant ...[text shortened]... . the answer is the same, it goes, "Dear, Citizen Kane (and Lasker) is for adults."
Please explain how Lasker would not have understood Fishcer but at the same time could detect what kind of game an opponent was playing.
Not to be argumentative. I just would like to see how this these two paradoxical observations could both be the case.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThat sounds plausable to me from a psychological standpoint.
In some ways Fischer's play was like Lasker's, in that he was content to "pass the ball around until there was a shot".
I have a theory that Fischer did not respect Lasker as much because they were similar. We tend to value the exotic and discount the familiar, and that could be the case here for Fischer.
Hi Paul.
Cannot agree with you thinking Fischer thought he was like Lasker.
We have the Reti quote:
Lasker deliberately played badly just to upset his opponents.
Which I don't fully agree with either though Reti must have saw some examples
of this to make him write it.
There is no way Fischer would play like this.
Lasker does say and did take awkward positions trusting in his defensive skill
to demoralise his opponent.
"A dogged defence makes your opponent's head go down." or words to that effect.
The trouble is Lasker was brilliant at it.
Be wary of adopting this piece of advice.
Players of Lasker's era did complain they had good positions against him but lost.
Possibly the basis of the Reti quote.
They did have good positions but not winning ones, or if there was a win it was
beyond that players grasp.
Lasker also invited complications fully confident he could match anyone.
Fischer only went for comps if he thought the position warrented it.
Fischer was a booked up, tooled up Capablanca.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Fischer was a booked up, tooled up Capablanca.
Hi Paul.
Cannot agree with you thinking Fischer thought he was like Lasker.
We have the Reti quote:
Lasker deliberately played badly just to upset his opponents.
Which I don't fully agree with either though Reti must have saw some examples
of this to make him write it.
There is no way Fischer would play like this.
Lasker does say and did ...[text shortened]... ps if he thought the position warrented it.
Fischer was a booked up, tooled up Capablanca.
yes i agree, Fischer preferred clear and rational positions.
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34I should clarify- I don't think at all that Fischer thought he was like Lasker- in fact I think he was unconscious of their similiarities.
Hi Paul.
Cannot agree with you thinking Fischer thought he was like Lasker.
We have the Reti quote:
Lasker deliberately played badly just to upset his opponents.
Which I don't fully agree with either though Reti must have saw some examples
of this to make him write it.
There is no way Fischer would play like this.
Lasker does say and did ps if he thought the position warrented it.
Fischer was a booked up, tooled up Capablanca.
I think Fischer playing the King's Indian Attack and 1. b3 (and even the Ruy Lopez exchange) is also an excellent example of his "going Lasker" on inferior opponents. He certainly could have played openings that were better or more forcing (the RL exchange is not white's strongest RL line), but he intentionally chose not to.
My thinking was that both were realistic players. None of the World Champions were or are identical, but Lasker and Fischer were both very "real" about the game, and not hung up on theoretical concepts. When I first posted, I was thinking about Fischer's analogy of "you pass the ball around until you get a shot", and how Lasker would have approved.
Interestingly enough, I was at a tournament this weekend where GM Lars Bo Hansen was speaking, and he classifies players into 4 categories, which are something like Active, Intuitive, Theoretical, and Pragmatic, and he put Lasker and Fischer together in the Pragmatic category. He has a book on the subject, but I'm not sure which one covered it.
I don't want to make too much of it, but they definitely have common characteristics, and I think Fischer tended to discount factors close to his own style or strengths.
1 edit
Originally posted by whatEuweThis may sound funny, but I also agree with you. I was careful to say that in some ways their play was similar, but it is also very accurate to say they were opposites in many ways- and not just in chess.
Fischer and Lasker were opposites and perhaps niether of them could have fully appreciated the other. Many of us can early on sense the kind of game our opponent wants to play, either generally(style) or specifically (mood), but how many of us can relentlessly exploit that sense from first move to last? In that, Lasker stands alone, mowing down neo-romant . the answer is the same, it goes, "Dear, Citizen Kane (and Lasker) is for adults."
The Matrix/Citizen Kane analogy seems spot on, and it is possibly the explanation why two very practical competitors would diverge with one being the World Champion for decades, and the other was too unstable or immature to last more than one match.
I can't help but think of Fischer in the 1992 pseudo-match where he continuously went to permutations of the Closed Sicilian instead of the open lines, and wonder what Lasker would have thought of that!
1 edit
Hi Paul
"I don't want to make too much of it..."
We are not arguing, we are discussing and talking chess. (how refreshing).
Agree Fischer and Lasker shared the same very strong will to win and would
squeeze a game dry before agreeing a draw.
However Lasker's passing the ball the around differed because he was playing
players that did not have the benefit of Lasker's wins to study. They were
actually taking part in them.
These games would become future GM's building blocks.
Someone mention the Soltis book. Why Lasker Matters an excellent book.
In Lasker's game v Amos Burn (now there is an underated player, he is most
famous for not managing to light his pipe v Marshall). The notes to this game
in the Soltis book are very enlightening.
Burn v Lasker Hasting 1895.
Here Black (Lasker) to play
Lasker played 14....Nxf2.
Soltis has this as a calculated risk and gives it a '!'.
Then after 15.Rxf2 Soltis gives 15....Rxe3 a '?'
Stating that 15...Bxe3 give Black a small edge and that is all.
The argument for 15...Rxf3 is that "White has much tougher decision to make."
(Lasker is gambling on his opponent not finding 16.Be2)
Burn played 16.Nf5 (double ?? from Soltis.) and Lasker hit him with 16...Rxf3.
Another '!' from Soltis with a note a few moves later.
"In retrospect, his choice of 16...Rxf3! gave White more chances to go wrong."
You won't see too many Fischer games with notes like that.
He gambled if he was lost, cannot recall a gamble that could knowingly turned
a slight plus into a loss.
But there again Fischer was not playing Lasker's opponents.
Fischer opponents were better defenders thanks to the games of Lasker.
Active, Intuitive, Theoretical, and Pragmatic.
Fischer is difficult to nail down.
He was also in the Active and Theoretical class (very Theoretical he had to be
for such a narrow and Active rep.) but Pragmatic is good for Fischer if it means
playing what he saw on the board.
If Fischer is hard to nail then what about Lakser? He was unique.
Not sure if pragmatic fits Lakser. (certainly not dogmatic).
Is taking these risks knowing the OTB problems were beyond his opponents pragmatic.
How about problematic.
What the two did have very much in common is that both were brilliant Chess players.
In the 1992 match Spassky was to a certain extent still active after '72.
He played in and reached later candidates finals.
Bobby's Closed Sicilains were avoiding main line theory which Spassky would
have been more up to date with. Very Pragmatic.
The full Burn v Lasker game with notes by another great player.
Harry Nelson Pillsbury.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 11
- Moves
- 143494
Originally posted by greenpawn34Hi greenpawn,
It's interesting to see Fischer's reasoning for his 'Top 10 Players'
that excluded Lasker, who he called a coffee house player and Botvinnik.
You can find the whole article here.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer4.html
I've taken a few lines about each player from the above link to whet your appetite
But you should read the ful ...[text shortened]... raws,
even against players he could beat easily. Maybe he lacks self-confidence.’
It's outdated story here that you had presented. (Although mine is also obsolete... 😉...)
You quoted Fischer's aanswer from 1964 for ChessWorld Magazine.
But in 1970 Bobby made Tv serie in 10 epizodes for ex-Yugoslavian TV Sarajevo with Dimitrije Bjelica his then-friend. "CHESS GIANTS".
Fischer had chosen the folowing players.
Morphy, Steinitz, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Staunton, Tal, Petrossian, Spassky, Gligorić, Larsen, Reshevsky.
He left Tarasch, Alekhine ets. from 1964-list.
It was interesting what Fischer said why he did not make an episode on Alekhine - "He won't mind /.../ I do not understand his style; he wanted to keep all pieces on the tablem but on his peak, he usuallz checkmated his oponents at 25.th move..."
Fischer said that at the time he made the list for ChessWorld Magazine, he has been studying only old masters...
...
And now about the Lasker.
Lasker is predecessor of Kortchnoi.
Fischer might not have liked Lasker because he did not always want to find "the best" move in the opening, but used so-called psychology.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 11
- Moves
- 143494
Originally posted by Paul LeggettHm, that reminds me of Vladimir Vuković wrote in "Šahovski Glasnik" (Chess Messenger) after big tournament in Zagreb-Rovinj 1970 (Fischer won by great margine):
In some ways Fischer's play was like Lasker's, in that he was content to "pass the ball around until there was a shot".
I have a theory that Fischer did not respect Lasker as much because they were similar. We tend to value the exotic and discount the familiar, and that could be the case here for Fischer.
- Fischer had a lot of benefits of studying Alekihnes games at his peak.
Maybe Fischer din not to reveal that he was studying Alekhine?
But I think that Fischew was similar neither to Lasker noor Alekhine.
He was 70 percent pf Steinitz and 30 percent af Morphy ("only" improved).
He had crisis in 1962 - when he tried to emuate Tal's play.
But he returned to the roots 😉 ...
Originally posted by greenpawn34Well said. I would only add that they also shared a predilection for the RL Exchange. I know Fischer played through Lasker's games, but how much they were an influence would be hard to say.
Hi Paul
"I don't want to make too much of it..."
We are not arguing, we are discussing and talking chess. (how refreshing).
Agree Fischer and Lasker shared the same very strong will to win and would
squeeze a game dry before agreeing a draw.
However Lasker's passing the ball the around differed because he was playing
players that did not h ...[text shortened]... 7. gxf3 Bxf5 18. Bxf5 Qg5+ 19. Bg4 h5 20. Qd2 Be3[/pgn]
GM Hansen moved to Central Florida over a year ago, and he has already made a very big impact. He actually plays in local tournaments, which is cool all by itself, but he is also a very willing chess thinker and theorist, and his willingness to discuss his philosophies and approach has been a breath of fresh air for Florida chess.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Just checked out MIKHAIL TCHIGORIN - nice games on chessgames.com
It's interesting to see Fischer's reasoning for his 'Top 10 Players'
that excluded Lasker, who he called a coffee house player and Botvinnik.
You can find the whole article here.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer4.html
I've taken a few lines about each player from the above link to whet your appetite
But you should read the ful ...[text shortened]... raws,
even against players he could beat easily. Maybe he lacks self-confidence.’
I think Fischer was 'on' chess, its worse then crack you know!
Hi Vanders.
Correct we are out date.
I did say somewhere that Fischer changed his mind as he got better.
I stayed with the earlier list because it is in that article he calls
Lasker a 'Coffee House Player' and this is a thread about Lasker.
I changed my mind on some of my heroes as I got better.
I think we all do.
It started off with Morphy, Marshall Blackburne and Mieses,
then hello Alekhine, Keres and Tartakower.
A very big nod and eyes opened wide with Tarrasch.
Originally posted by greenpawn34This weekend my friends and I were talking like this, and I remarked about how much more I appreciate Karpov now than when he was World Champion.
Hi Vanders.
Correct we are out date.
I did say somewhere that Fischer changed his mind as he got better.
I stayed with the earlier list because it is in that article he calls
Lasker a 'Coffee House Player' and this is a thread about Lasker.
I changed my mind on some of my heroes as I got better.
I think we all do.
It started off with Morphy ...[text shortened]... en hello Alekhine, Keres and Tartakower.
A very big nod and eyes opened wide with Tarrasch.
20 years ago I didn't know enough about the game to fully appreciate him, and the more I learn, the better he gets!
I enjoy all the games of the champs, but he is definitely one of the ones where I learn the most from his games.
I don't believe Lasker was over rated. Chess is a game of errors, not perfection. Emanuel was perhaps the greatest at exploiting psychological weaknesses in his opponents. When analyzing his games I invariably say to myself "What the ....". Same for Korchnoi.
When Jen Shahade interviewed me for her book on women in chess she asked who my favorite chessplayer is. I answered, Emanuel Lasker. 😏