Well I agree that there's so much to admire in those games, but it's really a matter of where you are in chess. The stronger we get, the more we can appreciate nuanced play and elements in the game. This is usually why one tends to start going over the games of the older Masters and works their way to the more recent decades of documented chess where computer refinements have made chess so much more complicated for an amateur to understand. ( as opposed to needing Rybka's reassurance on each move to even follow the games!).
Strategy in Chess
Sort:
Laskers openings? As I recall, he had like, one opening that had something to do with him. And what Shivsky said, It is where you are in chess. You can watch, enjoy and replay his games, but not much point in study if you are not around that lvl of understanding chess.
Same as I. I play basketball, and not that bad. But I'm a shooter, not 6'7" NBA star. So when I tried to slam dunk, all I got was broken hand and broken wrist.
I think that the collection of games played by Paul Morphy and Dr. Emmanuel Laskar are still worth going through, even in these times of computerized chess with a kind of precision beyond compare. Of course, there were also others like Casablanca, Steintz, Tal, Botvinnik, Karpov, Kasparov, Nigel Adams and V.Anand. But none to match the above two players whose games stand etched in memory.