I have read this book and I was entertained and informed. Another good Soltis book.
Capa praised Lasker above all his contemporaries. I forget where I read this but he admiringly acknowledged his loss to Lasker in one of those later Moscow tournaments (as I recall--I can always database it if needed), that lasker beat him fairly and fully.
Capa was gracious (love that) and Lasker was great!
That reminds me of a good bit of trivia. Most people at the time acknowledged Capablanca as the greatest endgame player ever. Who did Capa himself feel earned that title?
A: Lasker.
That's interesting.
I'd like to collate a bunch of Greatest Endgame Players lists. I've seen a few over the years but they seemed to vary a lot. Some included Benko and Fischer while others don't mention them. I've read criticisms of Capa's endgame technique but his rep probably survives. Botvinnik and Smyslov were accorded lots of respect. Averbakh? For the old timers Maroczy was an ace and usually accorded the best at Queen endgames. Rubinstein of course.
Well that could be a good if subjective project.
I wonder if the era of great endgame players is over with the shorter time controls in the modern game? In his book on the chess scene of the 30s and 40s, Denker said that masters then could routinely create endgame masterpieces otb, and much less so in modern times.
Here's one list I dug up:
GM Pal Benko, a recognized authority on the endgame, compiled a list
of "The Nine Greatest Endgame Players" for Andy Soltis' "Book of Chess
Lists" (1984, 2002). Though the names are given numbered rankings,
they are not in any particular order, says Soltis:
1. Rubinstein
2-3. Smyslov
2-3. Botvinnik
4. Maroczy
5. Reshevsky
6. Lasker
7. Reti
8-9. Fine
8-9. Averbakh
To which Soltis would add a tenth name, Benko himself.
Fischer himself was considered a great endgame player, especially bishop endings and bishop and rook endings...
I've just finished re-reading Andrew Soltis' book "Why Lasker Matters" for about the 5th time since getting it about a year ago. I think it's a must read for anyone wants to understand history of Modern Chess. In reality it all started with him. Lasker maintained his championship for longer than any other champion, bar none. I wonder if anyone else has read this book and what you thought about the basic thesis of the book (targets).
Isnt Steinitz considered as the "father of modern chess " ?
I've just finished re-reading Andrew Soltis' book "Why Lasker Matters" for about the 5th time since getting it about a year ago. I think it's a must read for anyone wants to understand history of Modern Chess. In reality it all started with him. Lasker maintained his championship for longer than any other champion, bar none. I wonder if anyone else has read this book and what you thought about the basic thesis of the book (targets).
Isnt Steinitz considered as the "father of modern chess " ?
I'm not sure about "father of modern chess" title. I do know that he is considered the first to play "scientifically". He generated an enduring set of priciples, such as "control of the center", "exploiting weakness", etc...But we also know that Lasker completely trounced him in their two matches and that Lasker was able to "refute" the "princpled" or "rule based" method of play with his approach that Soltis describes as "target" oriented. If you're really curious about this you definitely should read soltis' book: "Why Lasker Matters". You can get it used for like 3 bucks if you look around on line.
Here's one list I dug up:
GM Pal Benko, a recognized authority on the endgame, compiled a list
of "The Nine Greatest Endgame Players" for Andy Soltis' "Book of Chess
Lists" (1984, 2002). Though the names are given numbered rankings,
they are not in any particular order, says Soltis:
1. Rubinstein
2-3. Smyslov
2-3. Botvinnik
4. Maroczy
5. Reshevsky
6. Lasker
7. Reti
8-9. Fine
8-9. Averbakh
To which Soltis would add a tenth name, Benko himself.
Er...no Capablanca? (you sure about this list?)
I'm sure this was what Benko said.
It does fly a bit against the conventional knowledge, doesn't it? I was reading a Reshevsky interview and he said Capa's endgame was far above that of others (Capa's peers).
On the other hand Fischer said Capablanca's mastery was in the middlegame, not the endgame.
But we also know that Lasker completely trounced him in their two matches
Well, the best reason for that was the 30+ year age difference between them.
It took a little while for Lasker to be appreciated as the special player he was. When Steinitz was defeated the sentiment you echo was the common one, namely that age rather than a chess superiority was responsible for the loss. Tarrasch probably could have taken Steintz on as well.
When Petrosian beat a 50 year-old Botvinnik, the same thing was said. Botvinnik tired later in the sessions, made mistakes, etc..
On the other hand Fischer said Capablanca's mastery was in the middlegame, not the endgame.
Most likely he was superior at both?
lasker was a legend..
I've just finished re-reading Andrew Soltis' book "Why Lasker Matters" for about the 5th time since getting it about a year ago. I think it's a must read for anyone wants to understand history of Modern Chess. In reality it all started with him. Lasker maintained his championship for longer than any other champion, bar none. I wonder if anyone else has read this book and what you thought about the basic thesis of the book (targets).
Isnt Steinitz considered as the "father of modern chess " ?
I'm not sure about "father of modern chess" title. I do know that he is considered the first to play "scientifically". He generated an enduring set of priciples, such as "control of the center", "exploiting weakness", etc...But we also know that Lasker completely trounced him in their two matches and that Lasker was able to "refute" the "princpled" or "rule based" method of play with his approach that Soltis describes as "target" oriented. If you're really curious about this you definitely should read soltis' book: "Why Lasker Matters". You can get it used for like 3 bucks if you look around on line.
Steinitz is the father of positional chess. And it's a title Lasker would happily give Steinitz... Soltis' point is sort of bizarre there about Lasker refuting Steinitz. (did soltis really say that?) Lasker himself said, (I don't have the exact quote handy) that his own chess career was devoted to proving the correctness of Steinitz' theories! I admire Dr. Lasker very much -- but you've got to give Steinitz his due. The first world champion was a dominating player who revolutionized chess! His match record against Lasker doesn't prove anything except that the young chess genius was taking the torch from the old chess genius... much in the way that Capa would eventually dethrone Lasker (although Lasker's comeback decades after he was written off as over the hill remains miraculous.)
I think most folks who claim to know such things say that Lasker at his best was stronger than Steinitz at his best (and both were appallingly strong!) But who was the more influential deeper and more original theorist... unquestionably Steinitz.
I've just finished re-reading Andrew Soltis' book "Why Lasker Matters" for about the 5th time since getting it about a year ago. I think it's a must read for anyone wants to understand history of Modern Chess. In reality it all started with him. Lasker maintained his championship for longer than any other champion, bar none. I wonder if anyone else has read this book and what you thought about the basic thesis of the book (targets).