I am glad Emanuel Lasker does not have any doppelganger, he is unique, has no followers, was no teacher either.
Chess "doppelgangers": Carslen = Capablanca, but what about the rest?
Sort:
RomyGer wrote:
I am glad Emanuel Lasker does not have any doppelganger, he is unique, has no followers, was no teacher either.
Lasker and korchnoi
Mar 3, 2013
0
#64
RomyGer wrote:
I am glad Emanuel Lasker does not have any doppelganger, he is unique, has no followers, was no teacher either.
No kidding? Then why exactly did he write Common Sense In Chess and Laskers Manual of Chess?
GargleBlaster wrote:
Oh, and Reinfeld and Schiller seem, on a certain level, somewhat similar as well.
lol 
NimzoRoy wrote:
RomyGer wrote:
I am glad Emanuel Lasker does not have any doppelganger, he is unique, has no followers, was no teacher either.
No kidding? Then why exactly did he write Common Sense In Chess and Laskers Manual of Chess?
Maybe he meant led no school of chess. At least, that's what I took his meaning for, and I believe I've read that sentiment about him before. Reti?
Mainline_Novelty wrote:
GargleBlaster wrote:
Oh, and Reinfeld and Schiller seem, on a certain level, somewhat similar as well.
lol
maybe im confusing him with bent larsens move book, because i did both at the same time but i think reinfelds tactics were not so bad.
Mar 3, 2013
0
#68
Estragon wrote:
William Ewart Napier, the master who was Pillsbury's close friend and second, and who himself played a fantastic Sicilian against Lasker (he lost) which some consider one of the best games of all time, wrote that "Lasker headed no movement and founded no school. His style was simply the style of the strongest player."
Thanks!
Sounds like Carlsen to me.
Since my post nr 67 about Emanuel Lasker, NimzoRoy's logical and relevant question has been answered by Goldendog and Estragon, thanks !, ( and in better words than I can choose, English is not my native tongue ). Moreover I wrote : "I am glad Emanuel Lasker does not have any doppelganger " --- and I meant to say also that I mostly admire his personality, more even than his play. The comparison that Carlsen might not form a school, as Unique suggests, seems good, as also Kasparov already said something similar, see a forum question by George1st, some time ago.
Mar 4, 2013
0
#72
I think Lasker has, in some ways, actually taught all well-rounded modern masters, but few if any of his "great successors" really seem like him in terms of personality so, yep, no doppelganger for him. Same with Bronstein, really.
GargleBlaster wrote:
I think Lasker has, in some ways, actually taught all well-rounded modern masters, but few if any of his "great successors" really seem like him in terms of personality so, yep, no doppelganger for him. Same with Bronstein, really.
nah i believe their are a lot chessplayers like bronsteins drowning in their selfpitty saying : i could and i was so close...
And his book on the Zurich 1953 Candidates' Tournament is one of the classics of chess literature, one of the great tournament books of all time - not to mention putting the reader in the laboratory as the theory of the Classical King's Indian Defense was being forged.
Before you set out to disparage Bronstein, you might think to record some meager achievement of your own, at least!
well you have a good point, but the "i could have won and Keen is such a mean man saying Botvinnik was better" i dont know...
That being said he had some pretty crazy ideas and was a very imaginativ chess player.
Well gosh darnit someone already made an ivanov joke
Mar 8, 2013
0
#76
The Reincarnation I've always believed: Max Euwe = James "Buster" Douglas
Both had Championships almost fall into their laps. And lost them again faster than most people eat lunch.
Hi
Justskimmed through this. Any suggestions on who resemble Bent Larsen? I'm thinking maybe Morozevich. Both deeply original players who at their best can win over anyone.
i dont think Bent Larsen at his best could win against Fischer
In match play Larsen got beaten badly by Fischer but in tournament games he won a few times. So what i intented to say was that Larsen at his best could win games in tournament play against anyone and for some years i belive he was among the most winning tournament players and even the mighty russian top players who dominated before Fischer came along often had problems against Larsen. Thats why i suggest Moro as his modern "doppelganger" - both never got the last step to become WC but both were/are fantastic and inspirering players.
Mar 10, 2013
0
#80
Larsen was known for his fighting qualities and ablility to cause practical problems for his opponents, Moro is I think more known for his mercurial brilliance and sometimes paradoxical creativity. If there's a doppelganger for Larsen these days I'd perhaps think someone like Mamedyarov.
Btw, another pair I forgot might be Howard Staunton and Raymond Keene - both reasonably strong English players who retired from chess relatively early on to engage in occasionally controversial punditry and politics (as well as help organize several fairly important chess events).
Oh, and Reinfeld and Schiller seem, on a certain level, somewhat similar as well.
only that reinfeld get better reviews. Even so i like the chess mentor lessons a lot, but maybe thats a different eric i dont know.