Richard Reti Number of games in database: 545 Years covered: 1907 to 1929 Overall record: +231 -154 =158 (57.1%)* * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games Based on games in the database; may be incomplete. 2 exhibition games, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.
Richard Réti was born in 1889 in Pezinok (now Slovakia). He was one of the top players in the world during the early 20th century. He worked to found hypermodernism, along with Aron Nimzowitsch and Savielly Tartakower. The Réti Opening (1. Nf3 d5 2. c4), with which he famously defeated the world champion Jose Raul Capablanca in New York in 1924, is now a commonly used opening on the grandmaster circuit. This defeat marked the first time Jose Raul Capablanca had lost since he had acquired the world championship title. Réti also composed numerous endgame studies. Sadly he passed away unexpectedly a week after turning forty from scarlet fever.
Ziggurat: <keypusher> Really? Sure, it's a bit ideological, but so are "My System" and "New Ideas in Chess". Don't you like those either? Personally, I am very fond on "New Ideas in Chess". "Masters of the Chessboard" also contains a lot of interesting stuff, I think.
brankat: It looks I will now actually have to read the book :-)
Of course it is not easy now for me to respond here, without going through R.Reti's volume first, so just a few general remarks.
<keypusher><His basic theme is that it is ideas (..as opposed to, say, skill), that brings success in chess, so every great confrontation in chess history is presented as a struggle between chess ideologies..>
Apparently Reti's intention was to try to understand, and present, the historical development (7-8 prior decades) of chess strategy as an evolution of ideas based on inherent (at the time "discovered") principles of the game. All that as represented by games of the pertinent masters of the era.
The same approach has been used countless times in studying development/evolution of about every other human pursuit.
It is understood that in matches and tournaments players of comparable skills and knowledge will be paired/matched. Often a current from will decide, or preparation etc.
But at every historical crossroads of the game there was more that ultimately sealed the outcomes: The evolution of idea(s). Chesswise and otherwise.
Dr.Lasker wrote convincingly (and eloquently) about the dialectics of the evolution of Chess using matches Anderssen-Morphy and Steinitz-Zukertort as examples.
Steinitz actually conceived most of his principles while marveling at Anderssen's loss to Morphy! Zukertort was never able to understand and explain his failures against Steinitz.
How much more skilled was Steinitz? Or Morphy? Or later Dr.Lasker when facing Steinitz or Tarrasch?
It was not the level of skill/talent that prevailed. The new, and often revolutionary ideas did.
Every concept will eventually outlive its usefulness. It is no different in case of Chess.
Anderssen's "romanticism" could not survive Morphy's iron logic.
Zukertort old Italian plan could not damage Steinitz's solid positional build-up.
Steinitz's caprices and Tarrasch's dogmatism could not resist Lasker's pragmatism.
The same evolutionary dialectics was evident later, too. In 1921, 1927, 1948, 1960, 1972 etc. At every milestone in the development of the game.
It is possible that Reti purposefully "over-emphasized" the concept, just to make the point of explaining the overall logic of the growth of Chess.
<Lasker's success is described as the result of superior psychology rather than superior play -- Reti going so far as to say that Lasker made bad moves on purpose,..>
There were a number of Dr.Lasker's contemporaries who stated more or less the same.
My guess is that they were fascinated with Lasker's ability to win a lot of games against equally skilled and knowledgeable opponents by often choosing "dubious"/"of-beat" ideas. Which reflects Lasker's view/idea of the game. That of a "gigantic struggle of two wills".
Again, it is understood that he (like others) possessed all the necessary skills and available knowledge. So, an additional element was needed.
Of course, Dr.Lasker's "bad moves" were not really bad :-) Capablanca wrote about it.
<How much more skilled was Steinitz? Or Morphy? Or later Dr.Lasker when facing Steinitz or Tarrasch?
It was not the level of skill/talent that prevailed. The new, and often revolutionary ideas did.>
I haven't studied Steinitz-Zukertort closely, but I think Z's wonderful games at the London 1883 tournament were at least as modern as Steinitz's. Judge for yourself. Lasker's matches with Steinitz and Tarrasch I have studied closely, particularly the latter. It was skill, not ideas, that made the difference. Specifically, Lasker was a stronger and more accurate calculator than either Steinitz or Tarrasch, and unlike either of them he almost never blundered. I also think he was psychologically much tougher than Tarrasch. I think superior calculating ability was also Morphy's main advantage over Anderssen, though he had others, especially his extraordinary knowledge of "book."
I suspect <nimh>'s rybka project reveals more about why great masters were successful than anything they ever wrote, or that anyone else wrote about them.
<There were a number of Dr.Lasker's contemporaries who stated more or less the same.>
I don't think they went nearly as far as Reti. If they did, then they are wrong too. Hoffer, writing about the Tarrasch match, noted Lasker's "scrupulously correct play." That is much closer to the mark.
<Ziggurat: <keypusher> Really? Sure, it's a bit ideological, but so are "My System" and "New Ideas in Chess". Don't you like those either? Personally, I am very fond on "New Ideas in Chess". "Masters of the Chessboard" also contains a lot of interesting stuff, I think.>
I've never read <New Ideas in Chess.> I do like My System, but despite its ideology, not because of it. Agree that there is lots of interesting stuff in <Masters of the Chessboard>. The presence of interesting matter in a book has never kept me from disliking it, however. :-)
brankat: <keypusher><I also think he (Lasker) was psychologically much tougher than Tarrasch...>
Now You are talking just like Reti himself :-)
<...rybka project reveals more about why great masters were successful than anything they ever wrote, or that anyone else wrote about them.>
This I don't believe will ever be the case!
And just for a moment back to the "ideas/plans/principles vs(?) skills (technical tools)".
Of course, to be strong and successful one must have both. Then they go hand in hand.
I think that many writers/theorists, Reti amongst them, were trying to understand which aspect seemed to be a foundation, and anchor. Where does one start?
It is very similar to a 3 thousand years of debate in Philosophy: which comes first (and is a foundation), an idea or matter. I don't believe the "issue" will ever be resolved. Neither is it necessary.
Reti opted for ideas themselves, and assigned the know-how to apply them (=skills) the supporting role.
Apparently this stems from the conviction that it is much easier to learn and improve the necessary technical skills, than to acquire a vast body of knowledge (ideas), and more importantly Understand them. Preferably, contribute one's own, too.
As far as I know, all, or just about all, of the others felt and stated the same. From Steinitz to Kasparov.
brankat: For the sake of entertainment, a few quotes, loosely related to the above (Steinitz, Tarrasch, Zukertort, Lasker) coming up :-)
"No great player blundered oftener than I had done. I was champion of the world for twenty-eight years because I was twenty years ahead of my time.
I played on certain principles, which neither Zukertort nor anyone else of his time understood. The players of today, such as Lasker, Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Schlechter and others have adopted my principles, and, as is only natural, they have improved upon what I began, and that is the whole secret of the matter."
brankat: "If Zukertort has a plan in mind, he is a match for Steinitz, possibly even his peer. Every move of Zukertort's pointed towards a vigorous cooperation of the pieces united to attack the King. This is the old Italian plan; Zukertort found it ready made, and in the tactics of execution he was a great master. Steinitz, however, discovered sound and successful plans over the board.
Zukertort relied on combinations, and in that field he was a discoverer, a creative genius. For all that, he was unable to make use of his faculty, the positions yielding no response to his passionate search for combinations. Zukertort, the great discoverer, searched in vain, while Steinitz was able to foresee them.
Zukertort could not understand how Steinitz was able to prevent combinations. He tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he never approached its solution by even one step."
brankat: "Dr. Tarrasch is a thinker, fond of deep and complex speculation. He will accept the efficacy and usefulness of a move if at the same time he considers it beautiful and theoretically right.
But I accept that sort of beauty only if and when it happens to be useful.
He admires an idea for its depth, I admire it for its efficacy. My opponent believes in beauty, I believe in strength. I think that by being strong, a move is beautiful too."
brankat: A few relating to Dr.Lasker's fabled "extra-quality" :-)
"Steinitz always looked for the objectively right move. Tarrasch always claimed to have found the objectively right move.
Lasker did nothing of the kind. He never bothered about what might or might not be the objectively right move; all he cared for was to find whatever move was likely to be most embarrassing for the specific person sitting on the other side of the board."
– Jacques Hannak
"Although he had a great grasp and appreciation of Steinitz' theories, Lasker always played the man as well as the board."
– Dave Regis
"Lasker won so many games from bad positions that he was accused by at least one opponent of witchcraft, by another of hypnotism and by many more as being grossly over-endowed with good luck.
In fact, he often deliberately courted difficult positions because he understood the mental stress that can be built up in the mind of an attacker when he meets with a resolute defense. By building up an opponent's hopes and then placing a trail of difficulties in his path, Lasker would induce feelings of doubt, confusion and finally panic."
Bill Hartston
"I keep on fighting as long as my opponent can make a mistake."
– Emanuel Lasker
"Lasker understood better than anyone that the true nature of the struggle in chess was not an objective search for the truth, but a psychological battle against both oneself and the opponent, in conditions of extreme uncertainty."
– Max Euwe
"In life, as in chess, Lasker was a fighter."
– Fred Reinfeld
"It is remarkable, and deserves special mention that the great masters, such as Pillsbury, Maroczy and Janowsky play against Lasker as though hypnotized."
– Georg Marco
"Often his opponents (and annotators too) would still be wondering long afterwards where the game h
Richard Reti
Number of games in database: 545
Years covered: 1907 to 1929
Overall record: +231 -154 =158 (57.1%)*
* Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
2 exhibition games, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.
A15 A13 A12 A10 A14
Ruy Lopez (31)
C86 C88 C68 C77 C80
Orthodox Defense (24)
D64 D63 D60 D55 D51
French Defense (19)
C12 C13 C10 C01 C11
French (15)
C12 C13 C10 C11 C00
King's Gambit Declined (14)
C31 C30 C32
C77 C66 C68 C63 C67
Queen's Pawn Game (29)
A46 A50 D00 A40 D02
French Defense (20)
C12 C01 C11 C14 C00
Alekhine's Defense (15)
B02 B05 B03
French (14)
C12 C11 C00 C13 C10
Caro-Kann (13)
B10 B13 B15 B18 B12
NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
Reti vs Tartakower, 1910 1-0
Reti vs Bogoljubov, 1924 1-0
Reti vs Capablanca, 1924 1-0
Euwe vs Reti, 1920 0-1
Reti vs Rubinstein, 1923 1-0
Alekhine vs Reti, 1922 1/2-1/2
Reti vs Euwe, 1920 1-0
Reti vs Znosko-Borovsky, 1922 1-0
Reti vs A Dunkelblum, 1914 1-0
Reti vs P Romanovsky, 1925 1-0
GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
Richard Réti's Best Games by Golombek by suenteus po 147
Reti's Best Games of Chess by matey
New York 1924 by Benzol
Richard Reti @ the 1924 New York International by ruylopez900
june.lorena's favorite games by june.lorena
London 1922 by Benzol
Marienbad 1925 by suenteus po 147
Vienna 1922 by Archives
Mährisch-Ostrau 1923 by suenteus po 147
Teplitz-Schönau 1922 by suenteus po 147
Reti wins with the Reti/English Reti Lines by EnglishOpeningc4
Reti at Baden, 1914 by Poohavez
Bad Kissingen 1928 by Resignation Trap
London 1927 by suenteus po 147
GAMES ANNOTATED BY RETI: [what is this?]
Alekhine vs Fahrni, 1914
Breyer vs J Esser, 1917
Breyer vs K Havasi, 1918
Search Sacrifice Explorer for Richard Reti
Search Google® for Richard Reti
(born May-28-1889, died Jun-06-1929) Slovakia (citizen of Czech Republic)
[what is this?]
Of course it is not easy now for me to respond here, without going through R.Reti's volume first, so just a few general remarks.
<keypusher> <His basic theme is that it is ideas (..as opposed to, say, skill), that brings success in chess, so every great confrontation in chess history is presented as a struggle between chess ideologies..>
Apparently Reti's intention was to try to understand, and present, the historical development (7-8 prior decades) of chess strategy as an evolution of ideas based on inherent (at the time "discovered") principles of the game. All that as represented by games of the pertinent masters of the era.
The same approach has been used countless times in studying development/evolution of about every other human pursuit.
It is understood that in matches and tournaments players of comparable skills and knowledge will be paired/matched. Often a current from will decide, or preparation etc.
But at every historical crossroads of the game there was more that ultimately sealed the outcomes: The evolution of idea(s). Chesswise and otherwise.
Dr.Lasker wrote convincingly (and eloquently) about the dialectics of the evolution of Chess using matches Anderssen-Morphy and Steinitz-Zukertort as examples.
Steinitz actually conceived most of his principles while marveling at Anderssen's loss to Morphy! Zukertort was never able to understand and explain his failures against Steinitz.
How much more skilled was Steinitz? Or Morphy? Or later Dr.Lasker when facing Steinitz or Tarrasch?
It was not the level of skill/talent that prevailed. The new, and often revolutionary ideas did.
Every concept will eventually outlive its usefulness. It is no different in case of Chess.
Anderssen's "romanticism" could not survive Morphy's iron logic.
Zukertort old Italian plan could not damage Steinitz's solid positional build-up.
Steinitz's caprices and Tarrasch's dogmatism could not resist Lasker's pragmatism.
The same evolutionary dialectics was evident later, too. In 1921, 1927, 1948, 1960, 1972 etc. At every milestone in the development of the game.
It is possible that Reti purposefully "over-emphasized" the concept, just to make the point of explaining the overall logic of the growth of Chess.
<Lasker's success is described as the result of superior psychology rather than superior play -- Reti going so far as to say that Lasker made bad moves on purpose,..>
There were a number of Dr.Lasker's contemporaries who stated more or less the same.
My guess is that they were fascinated with Lasker's ability to win a lot of games against equally skilled and knowledgeable opponents by often choosing "dubious"/"of-beat" ideas. Which reflects Lasker's view/idea of the game. That of a "gigantic struggle of two wills".
Again, it is understood that he (like others) possessed all the necessary skills and available knowledge. So, an additional element was needed.
Of course, Dr.Lasker's "bad moves" were not really bad :-) Capablanca wrote about it.
More after I read the book :-)
<How much more skilled was Steinitz? Or Morphy? Or later Dr.Lasker when facing Steinitz or Tarrasch?
It was not the level of skill/talent that prevailed. The new, and often revolutionary ideas did.>
I haven't studied Steinitz-Zukertort closely, but I think Z's wonderful games at the London 1883 tournament were at least as modern as Steinitz's. Judge for yourself. Lasker's matches with Steinitz and Tarrasch I have studied closely, particularly the latter. It was skill, not ideas, that made the difference. Specifically, Lasker was a stronger and more accurate calculator than either Steinitz or Tarrasch, and unlike either of them he almost never blundered. I also think he was psychologically much tougher than Tarrasch. I think superior calculating ability was also Morphy's main advantage over Anderssen, though he had others, especially his extraordinary knowledge of "book."
I suspect <nimh>'s rybka project reveals more about why great masters were successful than anything they ever wrote, or that anyone else wrote about them.
<There were a number of Dr.Lasker's contemporaries who stated more or less the same.>
I don't think they went nearly as far as Reti. If they did, then they are wrong too. Hoffer, writing about the Tarrasch match, noted Lasker's "scrupulously correct play." That is much closer to the mark.
<Ziggurat: <keypusher> Really? Sure, it's a bit ideological, but so are "My System" and "New Ideas in Chess". Don't you like those either? Personally, I am very fond on "New Ideas in Chess". "Masters of the Chessboard" also contains a lot of interesting stuff, I think.>
I've never read <New Ideas in Chess.> I do like My System, but despite its ideology, not because of it. Agree that there is lots of interesting stuff in <Masters of the Chessboard>. The presence of interesting matter in a book has never kept me from disliking it, however. :-)
Now You are talking just like Reti himself :-)
<...rybka project reveals more about why great masters were successful than anything they ever wrote, or that anyone else wrote about them.>
This I don't believe will ever be the case!
And just for a moment back to the "ideas/plans/principles vs(?) skills (technical tools)".
Of course, to be strong and successful one must have both. Then they go hand in hand.
I think that many writers/theorists, Reti amongst them, were trying to understand which aspect seemed to be a foundation, and anchor. Where does one start?
It is very similar to a 3 thousand years of debate in Philosophy: which comes first (and is a foundation), an idea or matter. I don't believe the "issue" will ever be resolved. Neither is it necessary.
Reti opted for ideas themselves, and assigned the know-how to apply them (=skills) the supporting role.
Apparently this stems from the conviction that it is much easier to learn and improve the necessary technical skills, than to acquire a vast body of knowledge (ideas), and more importantly Understand them. Preferably, contribute one's own, too.
As far as I know, all, or just about all, of the others felt and stated the same. From Steinitz to Kasparov.
"No great player blundered oftener than I had done. I was champion of the world for twenty-eight years because I was twenty years ahead of my time.
I played on certain principles, which neither Zukertort nor anyone else of his time understood. The players of today, such as Lasker, Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Schlechter and others have adopted my principles, and, as is only natural, they have improved upon what I began, and that is the whole secret of the matter."
– Wilhelm Steinitz
Zukertort relied on combinations, and in that field he was a discoverer, a creative genius. For all that, he was unable to make use of his faculty, the positions yielding no response to his passionate search for combinations. Zukertort, the great discoverer, searched in vain, while Steinitz was able to foresee them.
Zukertort could not understand how Steinitz was able to prevent combinations. He tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he never approached its solution by even one step."
– Emanuel Lasker
But I accept that sort of beauty only if and when it happens to be useful.
He admires an idea for its depth, I admire it for its efficacy. My opponent believes in beauty, I believe in strength. I think that by being strong, a move is beautiful too."
– Emanuel Lasker
"Steinitz always looked for the objectively right move. Tarrasch always claimed to have found the objectively right move.
Lasker did nothing of the kind. He never bothered about what might or might not be the objectively right move; all he cared for was to find whatever move was likely to be most embarrassing for the specific person sitting on the other side of the board."
– Jacques Hannak
"Although he had a great grasp and appreciation of Steinitz' theories, Lasker always played the man as well as the board."
– Dave Regis
"Lasker won so many games from bad positions that he was accused by at least one opponent of witchcraft, by another of hypnotism and by many more as being grossly over-endowed with good luck.
In fact, he often deliberately courted difficult positions because he understood the mental stress that can be built up in the mind of an attacker when he meets with a resolute defense. By building up an opponent's hopes and then placing a trail of difficulties in his path, Lasker would induce feelings of doubt, confusion and finally panic."
Bill Hartston
"I keep on fighting as long as my opponent can make a mistake."
– Emanuel Lasker
"Lasker understood better than anyone that the true nature of the struggle in chess was not an objective search for the truth, but a psychological battle against both oneself and the opponent, in conditions of extreme uncertainty."
– Max Euwe
"In life, as in chess, Lasker was a fighter."
– Fred Reinfeld
"It is remarkable, and deserves special mention that the great masters, such as Pillsbury, Maroczy and Janowsky play against Lasker as though hypnotized."
– Georg Marco
"Often his opponents (and annotators too) would still be wondering long afterwards where the game h
Log In
or
Join
RICHARD RETI CHESS GROUP
About Club
Members