... You are wrong about the contents of chapter two of the Manual of Chess, which deals with a "Brief Account of the Origin of Chess".
Lasker doesn't deal with the opening until Book 2.
I agree that I should have written "Book two of Lasker's Manual was about the opening", instead of "Chapter two of Lasker's Manual was about the opening".
i just checked the "follow" button. very much enjoyed the little i read but will come back later. in the meantime, Thanks and keep it rolling please
My goal is to become FM at the age of 93. I am throwing in a lot of work, but it looks like its too little too late.
I dont think any average people aver have made mastertitle, and if it happens, the work, the early age start and the commitment is better than average.
The effort I am putting in and my talent is way above average. After One year competing as a teenager, and 2,5 as a middleaged man I have now reached 1461 Fide, so its really a long way to go, and I know that age makes it harder to improve when I gets old.
I think DpNorman has a fair chance, but he is not average.
Djonni, I think you can do it. I really do.
In Lasker's Manual of Chess (2008 p. 248), he wrote:
"Let us assume that a master who follows a good method, say, the method of this book, strives to educate a young man ignorant of chess to the level of one who, if conceded any odds, would surely come out the winner. How much time would the teacher need for this achievement? I think that I am correct in making the following calculation:
Rules of Play and Exercises: 5 hrs.
Elementary Endings: 5 hrs.
Some Openings: 10 hrs
Combination: 20 hrs
Position Play: 40 hrs
Play and Analysis: 120 hrs"
Laskers chessmagazine volume 2 is my favorite work of art by Lasker.
SmyslovFan (~21 hours ago): ... Lasker was right about the best way to begin to teach a novice: focus on the most basic endgames and work backwards.
BobbyTalparov (~4 hours ago): ... Book Two of Lasker's Manual introduces several openings to go over the ideas of those openings. ...
kindaspongey (~4 hours ago): With positional play later, he wasn't exactly working backwards, was he?
BobbyTalparov (~4 hours ago): ... He states why he covers openings when he does (basically, to get it out of the way because it is what beginners ask about most often). ...
BobbyTalparov (~3 hours ago): ... He literally spends 2 pages explaining what he is doing, ...
In the latest contribution, I do not see any reference to "why he covers openings when he does" and "because it is what beginners ask about most often". Are those ideas now being discarded by BobbyTalparov?
... My paraphrase of his introduction of Book Two was obviously my own words (I did not attribute them to Lasker). ...
Do you currently claim that Lasker "states why he covers openings when he does (basically, to get it out of the way because it is what beginners ask about most often)"?
... Lasker's Manual covers (in order): The rules of the game, elementary checkmates/endgames (both in the first book), how opening books came about, the purpose of the opening, the main ideas behind several common openings (mostly with text - all of that in book two), tactics (all of book 3), positional play/Steinitz's rules (all of book 4), and then a bunch of famous and instructional games (books 5 and 6) ...
With positional play after openings, he wasn't exactly working backwards, was he?
I don't know who's correct in this Lasker argument—but I do know that all the time spent arguing about it is time that could be spent improving one's chess, instead. ;P
... if you read (I know, you prefer to google instead of understand, but bear with me), you would have seen that the entire purpose of Book Two was to introduce you to opening principles and give examples of how to "get the pieces out".
By means of rules, laws, principles of the above kind, players with natural talent could dispense with compilations and the memorizing of them. But games played by them were again and again analyzed and compiled and memorized, so that at last, no matter how they tried to vary from the "book" they had to play against themselves, and, of course, they could not successfully do that. All of which shows that nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorizing them. And therefore, such a compilation, though a brief one, is correctly included in a manual of chess. (2008, Manual of Chess, 21st Century Edition, page 51)
Edit: It should be noted that his Manual follows exactly his specified plan that he describes on page 248. It should be no surprise that the longest books in the manual are the ones he expected to spend the most time on.
I don't see anything in there to indicate that Lasker "states why he covers openings when he does (basically, to get it out of the way because it is what beginners ask about most often)."
...
I don't see anything in there to indicate that Lasker "states why he covers openings when he does (basically, to get it out of the way because it is what beginners ask about most often)."
Instead of googling and running your scripts to provide a bunch of out of context quotes, I suggest you buy a copy of the book yourself and actually read it. ...
As far as I can tell, you have nothing specific that you wish to identify as backing up the claim that Lasker "states why he covers openings when he does (basically, to get it out of the way because it is what beginners ask about most often)." In view of that, it does not seem worthwhile to me to go through the Manual looking for such a thing.
... book 3 is tactics (what Lasker calls "combinations"). Positional play does not come until book 4.
With positional play after openings, he wasn't exactly working backwards, was he?
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104828/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/~review658.pdf
As far as I can tell, you have nothing specific that you wish to identify as backing up the claim that Lasker "states why he covers openings when he does (basically, to get it out of the way because it is what beginners ask about most often)." In view of that, it does not seem worthwhile to me to go through the Manual looking for such a thing.
Thank you for admitting that you have not read it. It saves a lot of time The 2-page introduction to book two is incredibly taxing to the reader. ...
I see no reason to bother in the absence of a BobbyTalparov claim that the pages contain a record that Lasker "states why he covers openings when he does (basically, to get it out of the way because it is what beginners ask about most often)."
...
With positional play after openings, he wasn't exactly working backwards, was he?
Ignoring the fact that we have already established that you are commenting on a book you have never read, you have a great ability of search, but you continue to demonstrate you have absolutely no ability to understand. You might claim that Lasker takes a "book-end" approach, rather than the pure Soviet-style end to beginning approach (there is somewhat of an argument there). However, Lasker's entire purpose in book two is to introduce opening principles. He uses a laundry list of common openings to demonstrate these principles. That has nothing to do with "working backwards". He works backwards by introducing basic endgames and checkmates in book one. He then moves on to how to get your pieces active (briefly) before jumping into the meat of his method for improvement: tactics ...
At that point, working backwards does not seem like an appropriate description to me.
... when are you going to actually start reading some of the books you quote?
It seems to me that it is sufficient to look at a site like
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104828/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/~review658.pdf
in order to be able to make a comment like:
"With positional play after openings, he wasn't exactly working backwards, was he?"
Kindaspongey, do you actually have a point to make, or are you just interested in contradicting others?
Both Lasker and Capa stressed the importance of the endgame in learning how to master the game. Lasker taught the basic mates first. In How to Play Chess, he shows how to teach the novice the game. He starts with how the pieces move, a bit of history, some basic mates, and the endgame. In his Manual, he shows the endgame before his second book, on the opening.
Capablanca also argued that teaching the endgame first is ideal.
Are you just interested in disagreeing with people, or actually helping aspiring masters to improve?
Kindaspongey, do you actually have a point to make, ...
"... Lasker was right about the best way to begin to teach a novice: focus on the most basic endgames and work backwards." - SmyslovFan (~1 day ago)
After that, it seems to me to be reasonable to make the comment:
With positional play after the openings in book 2, Lasker wasn't exactly working backwards, was he?
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104828/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review658.pdf
... or are you just interested in contradicting others? ...
I have no interest in contradicting others. From time to time, I have an interest in making reasonable comments.
Kindaspongey, I know it's hard to admit when you are wrong. The first book in Manual of Chess covers the basics. After he shows how the pieces move, he starts discussing the basic mates and endgame principles. That's all in book 1 (not chapter one).
Lasker does cover the openings in book 2. ...
"... Lasker was right about the best way to begin to teach a novice: focus on the most basic endgames and work backwards." - SmyslovFan (~19 hours ago)
With positional play after the openings in book 2, Lasker wasn't exactly working backwards, was he?
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104828/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review658.pdf