Some Observations on Lasker’s Approach to Chess.

O.K. If this rather long article reads a bit like a chapter from a book, well, that's because it was written as a chapter for a book!!

Sadly, at the last moment the work was deemed surplus to requirements. On the good side, I got the rights to the material back, and so I can post it here and you get to read it for free.

The main work of the article is in the game notes, so hopefully you will spend some time on them and try to understand the points that I am getting at . Irritatingly, I had to use the modern database standard transliterations of names too. Ho Hum!!

So here it is.

                         Some Observations on Lasker's Approach to Chess.

A while ago I made the off the cuff remark that anyone who had spent as much time studying
Lasker’s games as I have must be very old, and have had a lot of time on their hands!

As a man Lasker was quite remarkable, and his chess career and games equally so.
He was a very strong player for a very long time. In 1889 – his first year as a ‘Master’ in the
status of the time - he won a game from Gunsberg, who was to draw a match with Chigorin the
next year, and play for the World Championship just two years later.
In 1936 he won a game from Max Euwe who was, of course, the World Champion at the time.
That’s 47 years of being able to beat the World elite.
There are statistics to be found which conclude that, in games against the strongest opposition
available, his results were the best of any player ever. And he achieved all that whilst being, in
effect, an amateur who played very rarely and spent long periods away from the game. He was
clearly no ordinary player!
So, the question at hand – how did he do it?
(Recently a number of authors have tried to give properly thought out answers – John Nunn and
Mihail Marin, in particular, have done especially fine work in that area and are well worth
reading. However, I like to quote the Marx Brothers on such things. “ Who are you gonna
believe – me or your own eyes?” Study the games  for yourself and form your own opinions – then go see what others have to say! And that includes questioning my opinions
which you may, or may not, find yourself agreeing with!)
Well, part of the answer lies in his competitive qualities. He was a true fighter who played to win
in all situations and against all opposition. Painless draws are a rarity in his games and usually
served a practical purpose.
He also had strong nerves and the ability to stay calm and objective under pressure. His winning
percentage in ‘must win’ games was simply astounding, right from the play-off game that earned him the Master title.
Lasker also understood the idea of understanding his opponents, and adapting his approach
accordingly. In a world where sports teams employ analysts, who get paid to examine the
upcoming opposition, such an idea is normal today. It was was far from common practice – apart from a little opening preparation – at the time.
However, it is the way in which he went about trying to win games that I will take a look at for
the purposes of this article.

Chess evolved a great deal over the course of his long career, However, Lasker’s approach to the
game barely changed at all over the years. He understood the concept of evolution very well, and knew that what is strong and successful survives. He played to his strengths, understood them very well, and succeeded with them.

I have chosen to take a look at three recurrent themes in his games.
Creating strategic imbalances.
Resourcefulness in difficult positions.
Manoeuvring.
                                                Creating Strategic Imbalances.
When Lasker was developing as a chess player – indeed, for a lot of his career – most games
began with either 1.e4 e5; or 1.d4 d5. You will find that most of his games with Black
throughout his career start out that way. To fight for the win in the ‘symmetrical openings’
against a strong opponent is not so easy, particularly with the Black pieces. ( Most of the
examples I will give see Lasker as Black) For that reason, Lasker would often try to unbalance
things quite early on. He had confidence in his ability to outplay his opponents in strategically
complex positions, so he did not always play in what would have been seen as the strategically
correct way at the time. Equally, he did not set out on wild adventures.
I recall an interview given by Max Euwe in the 1970’s. In it he mentioned a conversation he had
with Lasker where he said something like “ I have made a blunder! Now I am going to lose
material.” Lasker’s reply was not to worry “at least you have given the game a character!” That
response tells you a good deal about Lasker.
                                             Resourcefulness in Difficult Positions.

Of course, trying to create strategically complex positions has it’s risks. Lasker ‘died in the
attempt’ rather painfully on a number of occasions. However, he was also legendary for his
ability to not only survive in difficult positions, but often to turn them round and win the game.
As I say, he had strong nerves and a cool head. There is a little story that I like, recounted by
Feodor Dus-Khotimirsky ( Lasker and His Contemporaries. Issue 4. Page 139.)
Savielly Tartakower also happened to be passing through Prague in those days. He had
just participated in a tournament in Vienna, and showed us, not without some satisfaction,
some of the games he had played there. He would never allow the shadow of a doubt
concerning the advantage in his positions, and would ward off the attacks of the sceptics
with some form of ironic jest, always witty and caustic.
So it was this time as well. Tartakower was demonstrating one of his games, which he
won as White in excellent style. And, commenting on his concluding attack, he
recapitulated, somewhat categorically; ‘’This position can be won any way you like,
against anyone in the world!”
He was taken at his word immediately: “ What if your opponent were Doctor Lasker?”
“Lasker? So What?” answered Tartakower, “ Lasker is a god, certainly; but even the gods
must play chess by the rules...”
Lasker was found in the neighbouring hall, the position set up, and the analysis begun.
Slowly, as though unwilling, the Champion began to move the pieces. Unhurriedly, he
picked up this piece and that; just as methodically, he slid it to a new square. As the piece
was completing its journey to the new square, Lasker still seemed to be thinking his move
through.

Looking at him at these moments, it was hard to believe that this same man who could
also pay lightly and easily ‘a tempo’; but so we had seen, and on more than one occasion.
Again and again, Tartakower sought the smallest opportunities to sustain his attack, in
order to maintain his position. But every attempt inevitably ran into a hidden defensive
resource. Move by move, Lasker beat back the enemy forces and regained territory. And,
like tanned leather, the life of White’s position shrank, move by move. Finally, it came
time to start thinking about White’s King….
“Well”, Tartakower was asked, “What do you say now?”
“I still say”, he replied, “that the position can be won any way you like, against anyone
you choose – only not Dr. Lasker.”
                                                       Manoeuvring.

When his attempts to unbalance the position didn’t work out and the position became closed or
sterile, Lasker wouldn’t give up trying to win. He would go into manoeuvring mode. ( you will
also find games – notably those where as White he began with 1.d4, or early in an event when he was playing himself into form – where he deliberately set out in manoeuvring mode)
It was one of his great strengths. His patience and eye for tiny details in that eventuality were
extraordinary. Indeed Nimzovich – not one over anxious to praise his rivals too much as
Alekhine once noted – wrote that “ There is no Master – living or dead – who’s manoeuvring
ability approaches that of Lasker”.
He won many games in that way – although it is worth noting that he seemed to find it tiring ( he was never particularly physically robust) and would often make errors when switching from a
period of manoeuvring to more direct play. As he himself pointed out, in a famous letter to
CHESS magazine, No human being is perfect.
Indeed, many of his games are far from ‘perfect’ in the analytical sense, but he just kept on
beating strong players!
So, I will give some games that illustrate these aspects of his chess. The notes - unless otherwise
indicated (contemporary opinions are always fascinating) are my own. No long computer
generated lines or debates on the opening theory, just my humble attempts to explain what
Lasker was trying to do at the board, and the role that those three elements played in his ability to outplay strong opponents in practical struggles over the board.
By way of illustrating all three in the same game – and to show that he had the relevant skills
from the very start of his career - I will begin with the game of his that I have spent the most time with over the years. You won’t find it in any anthologies or ‘best games of’ books, but it is
fascinating, and taught me a lot about how Lasker played chess.

The next game was played in a match that played a very important role in establishing his
reputation in the chess world. Rather than settling for equality he loses a little time to get the
Bishop pair, and unbalance the Pawn structure. Afterwards he tries for a little too much and
comes under a fierce attack. He manages to escape with a draw thanks to some brilliant defence.

The following game is interesting on a number of levels. Lasker wasn’t in great physical shape at
the famous Hastings tournament, and was playing catch-up throughout. Some fine chess was
interspersed with some patchy chess – we see both in this game! Lasker avoids a theoretical
debate – although he clearly knew the theory of the time – creates an unbalanced Pawn structure, and then starts to drift into a bad position. A miscalculation loses a Pawn after which many commentators concluded that he was lost.
Then he really starts to play!! He takes every chance for active play and, although a Pawn down,
is playing for the win. He gives his opponent enough rope to hang himself in his efforts to prove
that he stands better, which he eventually does.

At the Paris 1900 tournament there was a ‘replay rule’. i.e. if a game was drawn then it was
replayed with the colours reversed. It ‘forced’ the players with White to push for a win, which
seems to have been fine with Lasker! In his game with Schlechter he forced his notoriously
peaceable opponent into a complex struggle, with some typical Lasker style unbalancing of the
position. No quiet manoeuvring in this game! He takes a lot of risks, but eventually it is his
opponent who loses his way.

Lasker seems to have started his match with Marshall in confident mood. The first game is often
quoted, but I rather like the game that followed it. Lasker immediately takes the game away from
the beaten track and allows his opponent a model position. Lasker refuses to allow any easing of
the tension, keeping the position as comples as possible. Marshall – the famed and feared
attacker – offers up a Pawn, and Lasker simply takes it. His intended defence to the most
dangerous line would lead to a totally unbalanced situation – both materially and positionally.
Instead Marshall plays more quietly, and Lasker wards off the attack in almost dismissive
fashion before converting the extra Pawn.

(Probably March 16th 1907.)
Let’s look at a totally typical Lasker game. An unusual idea in the opening gives his opponent
the Bishop pair and a space advantage – at the cost of a little time. The kind of unbalanced
situation Lasker revelled in, ( A game with Black against Bird, from London 1899, can be
compared with this one, for example.)
He stabilises the position and goes into ‘manoeuvering mode’. When Mieses eventually tries to
fight back, he creates a far from obvious weakness – on f3 – and Lasker shows that he was ready
with a tactical refutation. He really was a very fine and very deep player.

So far I have given a couple of examples of Lasker using active defence to get out of difficulties.
He was also more than capable of defending passive positions. The game against Nimzovich
from St. Petersburg 1914 is a much quoted example. Here he is a Pawn down for less than
nothing, and can seemingly do very little. He manoeuvres with his usual skill, creating small
problems for his opponent. One small slip – a natural move on his opponent’s part – is all he
needs to demonstrate how deeply he has thought it all out.

As I say, manoeuvring was one of Lasker’s greatest strengths. This next example really is
manoeuvring on the grand scale. Lasker gave some explanations of what was going on in his
book on the match. I think that this rather overlooked game is one of his finest achievements.

One of Lasker’s most explored games is his win against Ilyin Zhenevsky from the Moskow 1925
tournament. It has been examined from many different angles, including that of “chess
psychology”. For me it is an example of Lasker doing what he did in an effort to win games –
particularly with Black. Strategic complexity, creating an unusual and unbalanced position where
the players were having to think for themselves, some deep manoeuvring and opportunism.

The next game – from a decade later – has many similarities to the Ilyin Zhenevsky game. This
time, however, Lasker is guilty of one of his typical oversights at the end of a period of
manoeuvring. His opponent fails to take full advantage, but it still looks like Lasker is in serious
difficulties. As so often in such situations he is not only able to defend himself, but to play for
the win and succeed.

Quite a number of Lasker's opponents in that picture!

So, study Lasker’s games for yourself! They are full of content, complexity, ideas and fighting
chess. Hopefully they will captivate you in the same way that they have captivated me over the
years.
Here endeth the article! Yep, it was too long for publication within a large and expensive to produce book. As Bob Dylan said ' You gotta cut something!'
a few links to earlier articles covering some material that i didn't include, and some of the stuff here.
https://www.chess.com/blog/simaginfan/the-lasker-blackburne-match-of-1892  
https://www.chess.com/blog/simaginfan/the-lasker-tarrasch-match-of-1916-a-quick-look  
https://www.chess.com/blog/simaginfan/laskerian-manoeuvrings-a-neglected-game-plus-some-bonus-ones  
https://www.chess.com/blog/simaginfan/lasker-in-moscow-1936-two-games-and-some-pictures  

https://www.chess.com/blog/simaginfan/the-lasker-exchange-chess-relativity-theory  
Well, that should keep you quiet for a couple of days!!
All - polite - feedback welcomed as always. Take care guys.

The Thinker.