I think no one (including me) wanted to understimate or insult Lasker. I'll say it one more time: he was a brilliant player! One of the greatest.
Kubas1010 used an analogy. An analogy is not the same situation. It contains mutual parts, that's all.
Nobody said Rubinstein had been better than the 2nd WC. He was one of top3 maybe top5 players at that time. If they both had fought in direct match Rubinstein could have been the 3rd one.
I'd say Lasker wouldn't mind being insulted anyway. Fischer gets insulted dozens of times every day on here all to no avail as he doesn't seem to give a damn.
I'd say Lasker wouldn't mind being insulted anyway. Fischer gets insulted dozens of times every day on here all to no avail as he doesn't seem to give a damn.
Definitely hard to "give a damn" when you are dead.
I agree that Lasker was way ahead of his time. His strength is unquestionable. Even in his later years he was holding his own against the best of the best.
I thought about Smyslov for a moment. He was very strong form 40' to 80' (he played candidates-final match against Kasparov in 1984!). I don't know why nobody mentioned him. Maybe, because he was a champion only for a year? Botvinnik was probably first true professional and also deserves attenition in the "race" to be the greatest. But he had sometimes troubles with finding not so difficult tactics.
@ DrSpudnik I don't like evaluating chess players by them political views. This has nothing to do with their value as chessplayer.
There is always the taint of suspicion that surrounds his match with Keres, that "pressure" was put on Keres to not win. So despite his own achievements and skill at the game, Botvinnik will always have an off odor about him.
Well the same can be said for David Bronstein there was "pressure" on him as well
Undoubtedly chess was always more or less associated with politics. Especially as a propaganda of success in Soviet Union.
Undoubtedly chess was always more or less associated with politics. Especially as a propaganda of success in Soviet Union.
What I never understood why there needed to be any kind of pressure. Like I thought David Bronstein was part of the Soviet Union so was a few other players. I don't see why they would be unhappy seeing another fellow Soviet Union player win.
Undoubtedly chess was always more or less associated with politics. Especially as a propaganda of success in Soviet Union.
What I never understood why there needed to be any kind of pressure. Like I thought David Bronstein was part of the Soviet Union so was a few other players. I don't see why they would be unhappy seeing another fellow Soviet Union player win.
While Bronstein was a Soviet player, he was not well-received by the hierarchy. His dad spent 8 years in the Gulag system and looked like hell when he got out. As a closed system of privelege, there is an in-group and an out-group. The Ministry of Sport dished out the goodies to the in-group people. Bronstein has written extensively about this & his crappy treatment. Even official photos were cropped or doctored to eliminate from public view the unfavored.
@ DrSpudnik
It hasn't.
Vol. 2 is about a little bit different issue. Check it out.
Have you used the Photoshop? I am not sure because every part of that picture fits perfectly to each other :P
Imagine the situation that in 2013 Fide stopped to exist and then Anand make a requirment to anyone who want to play a match against him: prize fund must be at least 20 million dollars. Carlsen is winning all tournaments in a year, but don't have so much cash so he can't play a match. That's more or less how it was between Lasker and Rubinstein in 1912.
Lasker can not be judged as being afraid of compention when his contemporaries all did the same thing. It was considered acceptable at that time. They knew of nothing esle.
Your metaphor with Anand is something completely different. It is not considered the same as it was back them. Chess has evolved since than.
Also Akiba Rubinstein never finished above Lasker. Lasker was always ahead of him or tied with him. Check the below links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Lasker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiba_Rubinstein
1909 St. Petersburg. They both tied for 1st place. Every other competition Rubinstein won in 1st was tournments which did not include either Lasker or Capablanca. Which is why he got first.