A Century of Chess: Emanuel Lasker (from 1910-1919)

Lasker’s career can be thought of in three distinct stages. In the 1890s, he was the usurper — vaulting ahead of other rivals to win his match with Steinitz and never completely convincing the chess world that he was the rightful world champion. In the 1900s, he was the undisputed champion — quieting the whispers about him by playing matches with each of his major rivals (Marshall, Tarrasch, Janowski) and decisively defeating all of them. In the 1910s, he moved into a different phase of his career, as the aging lion, the big-game player, who might be a step or two behind certain of his rivals in the technical aspects of chess but had an uncanny ability to prevail in high-pressure situations. 

This ability was evident in the must-win Game 10 of the Schlechter match in 1910 where Lasker, trailing by a point, complicated the game straight out of the opening, reaching a wild, irrational position where he managed to keep a cooler head. And it was evident as well at St Petersburg 1914, which remains one of the great competitive performances in chess history. Lasker, who had not played since the Schlechter match, struggled initially in the tournament, losing a game to Bernstein and needing to win his last two games of the preliminary round to be sure of qualifying. But he won both those games and then scored 7 out of 8 in the finals against the crème de la crème of the chess world to overtake Capablanca and win the tournament. There wouldn’t be many more opportunities to play during the decade — Lasker won a short match against an out-of-form Tarrasch in 1916 and he won a quadrangular tournament held in Berlin in the closing days of the war — but St Petersburg was a fitting capstone to his career.  

It was clear that Capablanca would eventually take his title — and Capablanca won it fairly smoothly in 1921 — but somehow it’s Lasker’s 1914 triumph that’s stuck in the minds of the chess world. It’s like an enactment of the adage about age and treachery prevailing over youth and skill: it happened precisely at the moment when Capablanca appeared most indomitable, giving his master class all through the tournament and cruising through the field, but Lasker was somehow able to find an even higher gear, outfoxing all of the world’s best on the largest possible stage to win what may well have been the single greatest tournament ever held. 

Lasker’s style

1.Imbalances

Nobody in this era could quite understand how Lasker was able to be as effective as he was. Réti’s answer that he relied on psychology — and deliberately played inferior moves in order to throw off particular opponents — has a grain of truth to it but has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Euwe’s line that Lasker can only be admired, not learned from, is, of course, a non-answer. The simplest way to talk about Lasker is that he had an acute sense of imbalances in a position and so was able, instead of thinking in terms like ‘objectivity,’ to look for various levers in the position by which he might be able to seize an advantage from an opponent in various sections of the board. 

2.Resourcefulness

Lasker was famous for his defensive skills and for clutching victory from the jaws of defeat. Much of this was about an innate confidence he had, and an equilibrium he was able to maintain. In contrast to a player like Capablanca, Lasker could often get outplayed over the course of the game, but he kept it together right in the moments when many players’ nerves would give it. As Tarrasch put it, "Lasker may sometimes lose a game but lose his head — never." 

3.Opportunism

Lasker was computer-like in his ability to find bizarre-looking, even ugly moves that were nonetheless the most optimal approaches to a position. This is in contrast to his more classical rivals who could be misled by visions of beauty and harmony and would miss the importance of a clear ‘shot’ and forcing line. 

Lasker in the Opening

Lasker didn’t play enough to fully take part in theoretical disquisitions. But, not surprisingly, he was capable of innovative play in the openings. At St Petersburg 1914, he helped to drive the Open Ruy Lopez — a somewhat neglected opening during the classical period and which gained in popularity due to Lasker’s endorsement. As white, Lasker was a specialist in the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation, and this was a weapon of his in must-win games — in his exhibition match with Janowski in 1909 and in his game with Capablanca in 1914. Réti’s explanation is that black players, faced with the queenless middlegame of the Ruy Lopez Exchange, tended to drift around and play for a draw, but the middlegame was inherently a ‘Lasker position,’ rewarding activity and fighting spirit.

Sources: The best source on Lasker, Taylor Kingston's Emanuel Lasker: A Reader, actually has fairly little on this decade. Andy Soltis has a great book on Lasker, Why Lasker Matters.