Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints
 

Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as $25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

A version of this review was previously published at Kingpin.

This book has received both bouquets and brickbats from reviewers.  A major point of criticism is that it fails to answer the question why Lasker matters.  This is rather strange as in the Introduction the author takes pains to point out the relevance of Lasker’s play today:

• In strategic ideas he was ahead of his time.

• He was undogmatic, violating general principles whenever the situation demanded it.

• He assessed positions in concrete terms with specific targets in view, rather than abstract generalities.

• He understood positional sacrifices.  He used tactics for positional ends.

• He knew how and when to aim for complications to fight back from an inferior position.

All this is fine.

But the blurb also states that Andrew Soltis reveals for the first time the winning formula behind Lasker’s   phenomenal achievement.  Not really.  There is no such instant formula to be gathered from Lasker’s games (or for that matter, any great player’s games.)  Otherwise, all of us would be copying it to become world champions.

Similarly it is true that few of his contemporaries understood Lasker.  Dr. Tarrasch claimed that he hypnotized his opponents.  Reti thought that he deliberately made“ bad” moves to confuse his opponent.

But Soltis seems to have overshot his bolt in criticizing Lasker for misleading the chess world about his elusive style:

The one person who could unravel the mystery of Emanuel Lasker was Emanuel Lasker.  But unlike Steinitz and others of his era, who kept few secrets, Lasker said little about  his chess instincts and often seemed to be trying to mislead his opponents.  In one of his articles he had this to say:  “About my style very much has been written, comprehensible and incomprehensible, deep and superficial, praise and criticism.  And after being silent on this question for a long time, I wish to speak about it myself.”  He then went on, in the Soviet Yearbook  for 1932-35, to say his talent lies in the sphere of combinations”(!)  Considering how rarely he combined, this must be one of his final jokes upon the chess world. (p.7)

Is it?  Soltis has missed the point of Lasker’s self-deprecating observation.  The former world champion was modestly referring to his  tactical skill.  The following homage from one of his great adversaries sheds light on both his positional judgment and understanding of combinations:

“No other great master has been so misunderstood by the vast majority of chess amateurs and even by many masters, as has Emanuel Lasker.  It was often said of Lasker that he had rather a dry style, that he could not play brilliantly and that his victories were the result of his uncanny endgame skill and of his opponent’s mistakes.  That he was a great endgame player is unquestionable; in fact he was the greatest I have ever known.  But he was also the most profound and the most imaginative player I have ever known.

Some time after I had won the world title, my good friend Walter Penn Shipley of Philadelphia wrote me a letter in which he said, “You and Lasker are the only players, so far as I know, who can make combinations which don’t exist on the chessboard on the chessboard!”

When one takes into consideration that Shipley was one of the strongest American amateurs in the United States for a great many years and that he had known Steinitz and Pillsbury intimately, his comment tells us a great deal about Lasker’s style.  Shipley, who enjoyed friendly relations with Lasker over a period of  several decades, had been the umpire of the first match for the world championship between Steinitz and Lasker.

Before this match, Shipley once told me, Lasker had devoted himself to a very thorough study of the openings, particularly those variations which were Steinitz’s favourites.  This disposes of the claim frequently made by annotators to the effect that Lasker never gave much attention to the openings.  The fact is that he had an excellent knowledge of them, but he freely disagreed with much that passed for authoritative doctrine.

He knew what he wanted, but his goals were not the goals of other masters.  Lasker never evaded the complications of the middlegame - a sign of his confidence in his combinative powers and in his capacity for accurate appraisal of any given position.  These qualities were demonstrated in the most convincing manner in his matches.  Even towards the end, during the great Nottingham Tournament, when he was sixty-eight, his quick sight of the board was quite notable.

In this connection I am reminded of the  following incident:  I had just won a very important game and was on my way back to the hotel.  During the course of the game, my opponent* built up a magnificent position.  At a certain point he saw an opportunity to win the exchange and did so.  Yet he lost the game.  Some of the world’s greatest masters, who were present, began to study the game.  All of them began their investigations from the point where my opponent had the exchange, for they assumed that this had been the proper course, and that his error must have occurred later on.  They spent a good deal of time on the game, and meanwhile Lasker came in.  They told him how the game had ended and played it over for him; but when they came to the point where my opponent won the exchange, he interrupted them and said, “Oh, no, that move can’t be right.”  The aged master had realized at once what others had failed to perceive: that the win of the exchange was an error which lost not only the advantage, but the game itself.  Lasker saw that it was not my opponent who had made the combination, but I!  Several hours later he met me in the hotel and said, “You must have been relieved when your opponent swallowed the bait.”  Then he added, “These players are not so strong as most people think.”  And so Lasker had been the only one who had appraised the position properly and had been fully aware of the possibilities it contained.” - Capablanca.

(* Historian Edward Winter points out that it was Alekhine!  Capablanca cannot bring himself to pronounce the name of his adversary - NSH.)

Capablanca  - Alekhine
Nottingham 1936, Dutch Defence [A92]
(Notes by Capablanca)

Capablanca

Alekhine

1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 Ne4 7.Qb3

A dubious move.  It would have been better to play 7.Qc2.

7...Bf6 8.Rd1 Qe8 9.Nc3 Nc6 10.Nb5 Bd8 11.Qc2

11.d5 was probably the most correct move in this position. Then would have followed 11...Na5 12.Qc2 c6 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.Nd6

11...d6 12.d5

Here 12.Be3 should possibly have been played.

12...Nb4 13.Qb3 Na6 14.dxe6 Nac5 15.Qc2 Nxe6 16.Nfd4 Nxd4 17.Nxd4 Bf6

From the opening Black has certainly obtained the better game.

18.Nb5

A poor move.  White should have played 18.Be3 threatening Nb5.

18...Qe7 19.Be3 a6 20.Nd4

It is clear that White has wasted a move.

20...Bd7 21.Rac1 Rae8 22.b4 b6 23.Nf3 Nc3

Black goes in for an incorrect combination.  He thinks to win the exchange, after which, however, he ends up with a poor, and perhaps totally lost game.

24.Rd3 f4?

This move is the real error spotted by Lasker.  In his annotations Capablanca misses the stronger line 24...Ba4! 25.Qd2 Ne4 26.Qe1 g5 – NSH.

25.gxf4 Bf5 26.Qd2 Bxd3 27.exd3 c5?

Despair.  Only now did Black realize his mistake and he tries to save the position by artificial moves, which, of course, do not achieve their aim.  He should have continued 27...Na4, but then White would had the extremely strong move 28.Ng5 (Besides, 28.d4 would also have been good, since for a long time the Black knight would have remained out of play.)

28.Rxc3 Bxc3 29.Qxc3 Qf6 30.Qxf6 gxf6

Black has two rooks against three minor pieces and a pawn.  It is true that White's pawn is doubled, but in such positions a doubled pawn is worth as much as a normal one.

31.Nd2! f5

The pawn could not be taken because of 32.Ne4!

32.b5!

A strong move, which deprives Black of his last drawing chances.

32...a5

Of course he cannot play 32...axb5 33.cxb5 after which the knight goes to c4, attacking the Black pawns.

33.Nf1+- Kf7 34.Ng3 Kg6 35.Bf3 Re7 36.Kf1 Kf6 37.Bd2 Kg6 38.a4

In this position the game was adjourned, and was resigned a few days later without being resumed.  Capablanca indicates the winning plan with the regrouping of his pieces.  The h-pawn would advance to h5.  The bishops would move to c3 and h3.  The king would move to f3.  The knight would reach d5 via fi-e3.  Black would have little counterplay against this plan and soon be reduced to virtual stalemate and lose material.

1–0

This magnificent tribute fails to answer only one question: Why did Lasker lose to Capablanca?

In spite of his resolve to confront Steinitz with his own principles, he had engaged the Old master in chaotic struggles and become victorious.  Inwardly, he had begun to develop profound doubts about Steinitzian theories and principles.  Lasker, the believer had now become Lasker, the skeptic.  But there was no cause for anxiety.  He had discovered his own genius in provoking unfathomable complications.  This gave him enormous confidence in his powers.  In the years to come he was to be a law unto himself, breaking old axioms with impunity.  It took a Capablanca to demonstrate to the old warlord and gambler that he could not violate principles of positional play without coming to grief himself.

In the Introduction to the book Soltis goes rather overboard in stating that many of Lasker’s moves were based on sound pragmatic considerations.

Soltis takes into account each of these developments and presents the games in proper perspective. If he goes wrong on occasion, it is not surprising. Lasker’s play has always defied annotators, as Kasparov himself would acknowledge. The last word on these games has not been said yet.

Discerning readers would find here fighting draws and miraculous victories with Lasker saving hopeless positions and turning the tables on the opponent. Connoisseurs of openings would find Lasker’s Defence to the QGD and the London System against the Reti valuable. Let us not forget that Kramnik discovered the Berlin Defence to Ruy Lopez in Lasker’s games and used it as a surprise weapon against Kasparov in their World Championship Match. The bemused Garry could not breach the Berlin Wall, and this played a major role in Kramnik’s victory.

Unfortunately there is little biographical detail (space being the constraint) in this book, and Soltis should have resisted the common temptation of Tarrasch-bashing.  The dead cannot speak for themselves.

Now for the games:

Lasker,Emanuel (GER) (2720) - Alekhine,Alexander A (RUS) (2700)
St. Petersburg, 1914

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5

The Albin Counter-Gambit.  This was the only tournament in which Alekhine essayed this opening.  Lasker, on the other hand, had considerable experience playing this opening in a number of offhand games.

3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 Bg4 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Nxf3 0-0-0 9.Qd3 h6

Black stops Bg5 and ensures that he can regain the pawn with ...g6 and ...Bg7.  Not 9...Nxe5?! 10.Qf5+ Nd7 11.Nxd4±

10.g3 g6 11.Bg2 Bg7 12.0-0 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.b4 f5!

Not 14...Nf6?? 15.f4 Bd6 16.c5+-

15.c5 Qe6 16.c6! Ne7!

Black's intent is to allow cxb7+ with the hope that the pawn will get in the way of White's attack.

17.cxb7+ Kb8 18.Bb2 Rd6 19.Rac1 Rhd8 20.Rc2

White prepares to target the c7-pawn and defers making a choice between pushing the queenside pawns and trying to win the d-pawn.

In his otherwise excellent annotations to this game Soltis is under the impression that the exchange of queens leads to a favorable ending for White.  So he prefers 20.Qc4 Qxc4 (20...Nd5? 21.Bxd4!) 21.Rxc4 Nd5 22.Rfc1 Nc3 23.Kf1.  But this line fails to 23...Nxe2! 24.Kxe2 d3+ 25.Kd2 Bxb2.  Lasker understood the dynamics of such positions better.

20...f4!

Not 20...Nd5? 21.Bxd4! Nxb4 22.Bxa7+ Kxa7 23.Qe3+ Bd4 24.Qxe6 Rxe6 25.axb4+-

21.gxf4 Bxf4 22.Rd1 Nf5 23.Bc1?

White should have played 23.Qe4 Qb3 (23...Be5 24.Rc5) 24.Bc1 d3!? 25.Rxd3 Qxc2 26.Bxf4 Rxd3.  After 27.exd3 and 28.Qc4 Qxc4 Black would be playing without the king.  27...Qxd3 (27...Rxd3?? 28.Qe8++-) 28.Bxc7+! Kxc7 29.b8Q+!+-

23...Ne3! 24.Rc5!

Not 24.fxe3 dxe3 25.Rc6 Rxd3 26.Rxd3 Qe7 27.Re6 Rxd3 28.Rxe7 Rd1+ 29.Bf1 Rxc1

24...Qf6!

It is a pity that Soltis does not explain why 24...Nxd1 should not be played.  After 25.Bxf4 Nc3 (25...Nb2 26.Bxd6!) 26.Bxd6 Rxd6 27.e3 White has the upper hand.

25.Qe4! Nxd1

Not 25...Re6?! 26.Qf3 Bh2+ 27.Kxh2 Qxf3 28.Bxf3 Nxd1 29.Bxh6 Nxf2 30.Bf4

26.Bxf4

26...Nc3?

Losing.  Black had two good alternatives to reach a level position:

1. 26...Nxf2 27.Bxd6! Rxd6 28.Qe8+ Rd8 29.Qe5 Qxe5 30.Rxe5 d3! 31.exd3 Nxd3 with a murky endgame.;

2. 26...R6d7! 27.Qf3 Qf8÷

27.Bxd6! Qxd6

Not 27...Nxe4 28.Bxc7+ Kxb7 29.Bxe4+ Ka6 (29...Kc8 30.Be5++) 30.b5# mate.; 27...cxd6? 28.Qc6!+-

28.Qe5 Qb6 29.Qe7!

The clearest road to victory.  The other line is more complicated: 29.Rc6 Qxb7 30.e3 d3 31.Rxc3 d2 32.Rd3 d1Q+ 33.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 34.Kh2 Qc8 35.Qb5++-

29...Qd6 30.Re5

White cannot afford to relax his vigil.  Not 30.Qxd6 cxd6!

30...d3 31.exd3 Qxd3 32.Re3 Qd1+ 33.Kh2 Nb5 34.Re6!

To stop ...Qd6+ and prepare the winning maneuver.

34...Nxa3 35.Rf6!

Black resigns in view of the threat Rf8.

1-0

A great game between the World Champion and the World Champion-to–be.
 

Kan,Ilia Abramovich - Lasker,Emanuel
Moscow, 15.02.1935

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5

This game was played in the first round of the tournament.  Kan, a rising star of the younger generation, did not want to take any chances against Lasker.  Hence, the Slav Exchange Variation.

4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bf4 Bf5 7.Qb3

This excursion is a bit early.  Modern theory considers 7.e3 preferable, preserving the option of playing Qb3 later.

7...Na5 8.Qa4+ Bd7 9.Qc2

This move runs into an unpleasant pin.  9.Qd1 is preferable.

9...Rc8 10.e3 b5! 11.a3 e6 12.Bd3 Be7 13.Ne5 Nc4

Each player has his own reason to maintain the knight outpost.  If White plays Nxc4, Black recaptures with his b-pawn, drives the white bishop off the d3-h7 diagonal and gives black rooks a target at b2.

14.Qe2 0-0

The tempting move 14...Nxa3?! is refuted by 15.0-0! with threats of Nxd7,Nxb5 or Rfc1 followed by Rxa7,once the knight retreats.

15.0-0 Be8!

A Steinitzian retreat preparing ...Nxe5 and ..Nd7.

16.Rac1 Nd7 17.Nxc4!?

White disturbs the symmetry of the position first, preparing the advance e3-e4.  He has a sounder alternative in 17.Nxd7 Bxd7 18.e4 dxe4 19.Nxe4 (19.Qxe4 g6 20.Bh6 Re8 followed by ...Bc6.) 19...Bc6.

17...bxc4

This move is not questioned by Soltis.  17...dxc4 18.Bb1 Nb6 restraining White's advance e3-e4 and retaining a mobile pawn majority is better.

18.Bb1 f5! 19.f3 Nb6

19...Nf6 is met by 20.h3 and 21.g4.

20.Bc2

This move prevents...Na4.  20.e4 dxe4 21.fxe4 Qxd4+ drops a pawn.

20...Bd6 21.Bxd6 Qxd6 22.Rcd1 Bd7 23.Qd2

Hereabouts White begins to vacillate.  The principled continuation 23.e4 offered better chances.  For example, 23...dxe4 (23...Bc6) 24.fxe4 f4 25.Qh5!  So Black should play 23...Bc6.

23...Bc6 24.Rfe1 Rcd8 25.Re2

Aimless play.  25.e4 dxe4 26.fxe4 fxe4 27.Nxe4 Bxe4 28.Bxe4 Nd5= at least clarifies the position.

25...Rd7 26.Rde1 g6

Declaring his intention to play..e5.

27.Rd1

Not 27.e4 dxe4 28.fxe4 e5 29.d5 fxe4 30.Bxe4 Bxd5.

27...Rb8 28.Qe1 Rdb7 29.Rdd2 Nd7 30.Bb1 e5! 31.Qg3 Qe6?

Black had probably planned 31...Qf6! but he could not see his way after 32.dxe5 Nxe5 33.Nxd5 Bxd5 34.Rxd5.  Black has winning chances with 34...Rxb2 35.Rxb2 Rxb2 36.Qxe5 (36.Rxe5 Rxb1+ 37.Kf2 Rb2+ 38.Kg1 Qd8!) 36...Rxb1+ 37.Kf2 Qh4+ 38.Qg3 Rb2+ 39.Kf1 Qxg3 40.hxg3 c3

32.e4! exd4!

The only move.  Other lines lose:  32...dxe4? 33.d5!; 32...f4? 33.Qh4 Qf7 34.exd5 Bxd5 35.Nxd5 Qxd5 36.Be4

33.exf5?

Tempting, but wrong.  White misses a win with an incredible variation: 33.exd5! dxc3! 34.dxe6 cxd2 35.Rxd2 c3!? 36.exd7! cxd2 37.Ba2+! Kg7 38.Qe5++-

33...Qf6! 34.Re6

Soltis thinks that 34.Nd1 is perfectly playable and gives the variation 34...c3 (34...Nf8 35.fxg6 hxg6 36.Re5 d3) 35.Re6 cxd2? 36.Rxf6 Nxf6 37.fxg6+-  But this is not convincing in view of 34...Nf8 35.fxg6 hxg6 36.Re5 d3.  Chances, if any, are with Black.

34...dxc3! 35.Rxf6 cxd2 36.Rxg6+!

The obvious move 36.Bc2 fails to 36...Nxf6 37.Qd6 Bd7!  The analysis by Soltis stops here.  But it is important to see what happens next.  In the tournament book Belavenets continues with 38.fxg6 (38.Qxf6 Bxf5 39.Ba4 Rxb2-+) 38...Rb6 39.gxh7+ Kf7-+

36...hxg6 37.Qxg6+ Kf8

Black was hoping for 38.Qh6+ and Qxd2.  He anticipated that he would win after the subsequent ...Rxb2.

38.Qd6+?

White misses a wonderful opportunity to complicate the game with 38.Bc2!  In that event Black would have to find 38...Rc8! (Not 38...Rxb2 39.f6! Rb1+ 40.Kf2 Re1 41.Be4!+-) 39.Qd6+ Ke8 40.f6 Nf8 41.Qe5+ Kf7 42.Qh5+ Kxf6 43.Qf5+ Ke7 44.Qxc8 Rxb2 45.Qf5 Ne6 46.Bd1 d4

38...Ke8 39.Bc2

This threatens 40.f6 and looks strong.  But it is one move too late.

39...Rb6!!

Not 39...Rc8? 40.f6! Kd8 41.f7+- [Editor's Note: 40...Kd8 leads directly to mate, while 40...Nf8 appears to hold, at least for now, and offers White a draw by perpetual check with 41.Qe5+ Kd8 42.Qd6+ Ke8 etc.]

40.f6 Kd8 41.f7 Kc8 42.f8Q+ Nxf8 43.Qxf8+ Kb7 44.Qf6

44.Qf4 Rxb2 45.Qxd2 fails to 45...d4 46.Qc1 c3-+

44...Ka6!

The proud monarch would not crouch in a corner.  44...Ka8?! 45.Qd4 Rxb2 46.Qxd2 d4 47.Qh6÷ gives White needless chances.

45.Qd6

Once again the attempt to take the d-pawn with 45.Qd4 Rxb2 46.Qxd2 fails to 46...Ba4-+

45...Re8 46.h4 Re1+ 47.Kh2 Rc1! 48.Bf5

If 48.Qg6 Ba4-+ Curtains.

48...d1Q 49.Bc8+ Ka5

White Resigns.  There are no more checks after 50.Qc5+ Ka4.

0-1

A terrific struggle, with both players fighting on the edge of the precipice.
 

The
Chessville
Chess Store
 

Reference
Center
 

The Chessville
 Weekly
The Best Free
Chess
Newsletter
On the Planet!

Subscribe
Today -
It's Free!!

The
Chessville
Weekly
Archives

Discussion
Forum

Chess Links

Chess Rules

Visit the
Chessville
Chess Store