what would be the results of Lasker vs Carlsen - Chess Forums - Page 2

Scottrf

Jul 15, 2013

0

#21

dzikus wrote:

By analysing opponent's games he was able to learn his strongest and weakest sides and then make use of this findings during actual game. Lasker avoided positions where the opponent mastered and felt comfortable. Instead, he steered into areas where the opponent disliked and played inferior moves most frequently.

The problem is that Carlsen has no weaknesses and is comfortable in every position.

dzikus

Jul 15, 2013

0

#22

Scottrf napisał:

dzikus wrote:

By analysing opponent's games he was able to learn his strongest and weakest sides and then make use of this findings during actual game. Lasker avoided positions where the opponent mastered and felt comfortable. Instead, he steered into areas where the opponent disliked and played inferior moves most frequently.

The problem is that Carlsen has no weaknesses and is comfortable in every position.

I think he is not as perfect in rook endgames as in the others. His recent losses all resulted from blunders in rook endgames

SebLeb0210

Jul 15, 2013

0

#23

Yeah he isnt that good in rook endgames

fabelhaft

Jul 15, 2013

0

#24

dzikus wrote:

I would expect Lasker to win the match.

I think Lasker is the only player that can compete with Kasparov as the greatest player ever, but it always surprises me when people expect great players from long ago to beat the best players today.

Carlsen's advantages would be many. He has studied the last 100 years of chess theory and the games of the last 100 years, is used to playing games with much shorter time controls, and to play endgames without long adjournments. He is also a chess professional together with the other top players today, that study chess with much more dedication than someone like Lasker, who was a mathematician and philosopher, that could go years between events.

If Lasker really would be expected to beat Carlsen just after looking at his games, that should mean that the difference in chess talent between the best players today and those a century ago would be gigantic. If players today, with all these advantages and with chess as their profession still would play worse chess than the top players of a hundred years ago it would mean that the chess level in practice has fallen quite a lot the last century.

discoweasel

Jul 15, 2013

0

#25

I read the title of this thread fast and thought of LA Lakers v. Carlsen. Now THAT would be interesting!

SebLeb0210

Jul 15, 2013

0

#26

good awnsers :)

dzikus

Jul 15, 2013

0

#27

fabelhaft napisał:

I think Lasker is the only player that can compete with Kasparov as the greatest player ever, but it always surprises me when people expect great players from long ago to beat the best players today.

Carlsen's advantages would be many. He has studied the last 100 years of chess theory and the games of the last 100 years, is used to playing games with much shorter time controls, and to play endgames without long adjournments. He is also a chess professional together with the other top players today, that study chess with much more dedication than someone like Lasker, who was a mathematician and philosopher, that could go years between events.

If Lasker really would be expected to beat Carlsen just after looking at his games, that should mean that the difference in chess talent between the best players today and those a century ago would be gigantic. If players today, with all these advantages and with chess as their profession still would play worse chess than the top players of a hundred years ago it would mean that the chess level in practice has fallen quite a lot the last century.

You are right, Lasker would also have to fill the century gap because chess improved much.

Thus I would like to re-phrase my original post: given a year to prepare by comprehending last 100 years of development (a bit of middlegame, most in endgame - he could roughly ignore the openings as he avoided forced lines with deadly traps) of chess and analysing Carlsen's games to determine his psychological posture - Lasker would win the match.

However, I think Magnus can follow Lasker and become a world champion for a very long time. He is probably the strongest contemporary player

SebLeb0210

Jul 15, 2013

0

#28

the history did improve alot :)

kevsha77

Jul 15, 2013

0

#29

Carlsen would win simply because of all of the advances, but Lasker along with many others of the past definitely made more of a contribution to the sport.And don't forget Kasparov! He has left quite an imprint as well.

skakmadurinn

Jul 15, 2013

0

#30

I think Magnus would manage to win because Lasker died 72 years ago.

Irontiger

Jul 15, 2013

0

#31

Well, there is not much suspense.

You really think the fat smoking grandfather has a chance against the mobster ?

(you're talking about boxing, right ?)

netzach

Jul 15, 2013

0

#32

Worked alright for 'Serge Blanco'.

Smoking aids concentration (for about 10-minutes)

SebLeb0210

Jul 16, 2013

0

#33

netzach wrote:

Worked alright for 'Serge Blanco'.

Smoking aids concentration (for about 10-minutes)

lol

siddharth-m_2014

Mar 15, 2025

0

#34

i think draw because both players are chess legends

siddharth-m_2014

Mar 15, 2025

0

#35

but maybe lasker has the advantage

NM darkunorthodox88

Mar 15, 2025

0

#36

anyone who thinks a world champion from the early 1900s would have ANY chance vs the greatest player to ever live is an imbecile

Lasker was probably the first player from the past to be GM strength today But carlsen eats modern GM's for breakfast and makes it look easy.
best lasker can hope for is an odd draw or two same way sometimes even 2500's can beat a world champion on a really good day.

pcalugaru

Mar 16, 2025

0

#37

dzikus wrote:

If Lasker were given Carlsen's games to analyze before the match I am sure he would be able to prepare psychological motives which would upset Magnus during the game.

Lasker played against different generations of great players, starting from late romantics, then classics, hypermodernists and scientists. He was able to beat them all!

By analysing opponent's games he was able to learn his strongest and weakest sides and then make use of this findings during actual game. Lasker avoided positions where the opponent mastered and felt comfortable. Instead, he steered into areas where the opponent disliked and played inferior moves most frequently.

As for the openings, Magnus uses a very similar approach as Lasker did. He avoids main lines and chooses less known, older lines. He does not try to obtain better position since the very first moves. Instead, he just wants to get a playable position and waits until the opponent plays a weaker move.

This is how Lasker crushed everyone. He played simple openings and did not change his repertoire much during the long decades. Look how he outplayed hypermodern Reti using his favourite London setup at the famous NY super tournament.

Therefore, I would expect Lasker to win the match. Not only was he much more experienced than Magnus is now, he was one of the greatest chess scientists who developed new ideas and improved the game immensely.

I'll tell you more: after the match everyone would learn how to beat Magnus but none of the current top players could make use of this method as effectively as Lasker!

SPOT ON!

Could not have written it better myself.

People are clueless are how FIDE has instituted ELO creep to sell the NEXT generation as the latest and greatest. FIDE has been doing it for decades. Carlsen is a fantastic player, and probably the best tournament player to come along in 15 years. People see that ELO he achieve and think he's gone where no one else has. NO,,,,,

Tournament play and Match play are totally two different types of Chess. You are right... Lasker would figure Carlsen out (He did with Wilhelm Steinitz) and the rest of the field would then employee what Lasker would have found.

IMO... this is exactly why Carlsen has chucked the Classical WC Title... If he looses in a match, regardless of his rating... He is no longer seen as the GOAT.. top billing for appearance fees etc, would go to the person who beat him. In essence, he trying to prolong the public's view of him.

Emanuel Lasker WC between the years 1894-1921 (27 yrs)
6 title defense 1894, 1896, 1907, 1908, 1910*, 1910

Magnus Carlsen WC between the years 2013-2023 (WC 10yrs )
5 title defense 2013, 2014, 2016**, 2018**, 2021

NM darkunorthodox88

Mar 16, 2025

0

#38

pcalugaru wrote:

dzikus wrote:

If Lasker were given Carlsen's games to analyze before the match I am sure he would be able to prepare psychological motives which would upset Magnus during the game.

Lasker played against different generations of great players, starting from late romantics, then classics, hypermodernists and scientists. He was able to beat them all!

By analysing opponent's games he was able to learn his strongest and weakest sides and then make use of this findings during actual game. Lasker avoided positions where the opponent mastered and felt comfortable. Instead, he steered into areas where the opponent disliked and played inferior moves most frequently.

As for the openings, Magnus uses a very similar approach as Lasker did. He avoids main lines and chooses less known, older lines. He does not try to obtain better position since the very first moves. Instead, he just wants to get a playable position and waits until the opponent plays a weaker move.

This is how Lasker crushed everyone. He played simple openings and did not change his repertoire much during the long decades. Look how he outplayed hypermodern Reti using his favourite London setup at the famous NY super tournament.

Therefore, I would expect Lasker to win the match. Not only was he much more experienced than Magnus is now, he was one of the greatest chess scientists who developed new ideas and improved the game immensely.

I'll tell you more: after the match everyone would learn how to beat Magnus but none of the current top players could make use of this method as effectively as Lasker!

SPOT ON!

Could not have written it better myself.

People are clueless are how FIDE has instituted ELO creep to sell the NEXT generation as the latest and greatest. FIDE has been doing it for decades. Carlsen is a fantastic player, and probably the best tournament player to come along in 15 years. People see that ELO he achieve and think he's gone where no one else has. NO,,,,,

Tournament play and Match play are totally two different types of Chess. You are right... Lasker would figure Carlsen out (He did with Wilhelm Steinitz) and the rest of the field would then employee what Lasker would have found.

IMO... this is exactly why Carlsen has chucked the Classical WC Title... If he looses in a match, regardless of his rating... He is no longer seen as the GOAT.. top billing for appearance fees etc, would go to the person who beat him. In essence, he trying to prolong the public's view of him.

Emanuel Lasker WC between the years 1894-1921 (27 yrs)
6 title defense 1894, 1896, 1907, 1908, 1910*, 1910

Magnus Carlsen WC between the years 2013-2023 (WC 10yrs )
5 title defense 2013, 2014, 2016**, 2018**, 2021

BRO, lasker became WC by beating someone that may not be GM strength today. measure the move precision of the people lasker played prior to CAPA and they would score poorly compared to strong IM's today. This idea that lasker will get behind Carlsen's psychology by studying a few games is just ludicrous. Carlsens opposition the last 2 decades have all been professional players who study each other for a living and none have "cracked" some code.
people just dont seem to appreciate just how much chess precision has increased by leaps and bounds in the 120 years.

johncsch

Mar 27, 2025

0

#39

Tie

johncsch

Apr 12, 2025

0

#40

Actually maybe Magnus