Chess Metrics is one site that has attempted to do it. There is at least one other site and I think Ken Regan has done some work in that area.
Emanuel Lasker Elo
Sort:
Do you have any links you could share please? And also do you think Lasker could have beaten Wei Yi in a match?
Dec 4, 2016
0
#4
Google Chess Metrics and it will provide the link. I'm not at all qualified to determine how well players of different eras may have played against each other, though there are some statistical arguments that are often fun to read.
Wow according to them he has a very high 3 year peak rating (2855), that actually makes him better than Carlsen is now. Impressive, I guess at his 3 year peak he would have no problem beating Wei Yi.
It should be remembered that, with the current state of flux capacitor technology, there is no way to test theories about what would happen if a player were transported from the past to the present. One does not get a guarantee of accuracy from the crunching of a lot of numbers.
If one uses a strong engine to analyze Lasker's games he will probably rate far lower than players like Fischer and Capablanca . Also , for 20 of his 27 years as world champion he didnt play a match to defend his title .
Perhaps the best recent place for commentary on Lasker is:
JOHN NUNN’S CHESS COURSE by GM John Nunn
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/john-nunns-chess-course/
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/John_Nunn's_Chess_Course.pdf
Slightly older:
Why Lasker Matters by GM Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093349/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review538.pdf
Emanuel Lasker: 2nd World Chess Champion by Isaak & Vladimir Linder and GM Karsten Müller
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708234044/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review787.pdf
Lasker is indeed an impressive world champion. In a tournament setting where both Capa and Lasker are participants, I can't remember Capa gaining first place over Lasker.
Reb wrote:
Lasker's style of play was ideal for tournaments , moreso than Capa's .
But Lasker is also an impressive match player.
I wouldnt call 6 title defenses in 27 years defending his title many times . Steinitz defended his title more regularly .
Dec 6, 2016
0
#13
Lasker was more interested in protecting and maintaining his title so he could make money from it than meeting the strongest challengers.
If Capa hadn't come up with a pile of gold I'm not sure they would have had their match.
He was being practical.
Karpov played 10 world championship matches , I dont think anyone has him beat . Half of those were against Kasparov .
Nottingham 1936 Capa tied for first ahead of Lasker.
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Wow according to them he has a very high 3 year peak rating (2855), that actually makes him better than Carlsen is now. Impressive, I guess at his 3 year peak he would have no problem beating Wei Yi.
I guess Lasker would have been a favourite against all recent players except for Carlsen. I also guess that all current top ten players are equals with Lasker in chessknowledge but the last little touch, the winningpsycology is probably behind. Because current nonCarlsen top ten usually dont win in the top ten tournaments. Chess isnt only the game, it is winningpsycology too. That said I think all top ten could beat a timetravelling Lasker, and also think Lasker could beat all of them. The winner will be the star of the day. Caruana had a golden week in Sinquefield 2014. That weak he might have been the strongest chessplayer in human history. Other top ten players does have their shiny weeks. Carlsen and Karjakin (sorry wrote Kasparov, and thought of Karjakin, corrected now)
had no peakweek in their championshipmatch. I guess that the winner among the current top ten, and all time top 50 will be the player that has the fantastic peak-weak. I dont know who.
Dec 7, 2016
0
#17
Isaak Linder wrote, concerning attempts to assign cross-generational ratings and/or "best" lists:
"Of course, such manipulations of the ratings statistics of players of different generations and epochs will not stand up under scrutiny. The Moscow grandmaster Nikolai Krogius correctly called this 'a statistical juggling act'"
Linder also informs us that between 1889 to 1940, "Lasker participated in 25 tournaments and an equal number of matched. And behind these numbers lies a great result: in almost 600 games played in these events, Lasker scored almost 74% ! The number of games he lost constituted a mere tenth, while the number of wins is almost twice as large as the number of draws. This amounts to the highest percentage among all the strongest players who lived in the 19th and 20th centuries."
He then proceeds to give results of others' scholarly compilations supporting this.
batgirl wrote:
Isaak Linder wrote, concerning attempts to assign cross-generational ratings and/or "best" lists:
"Of course, such manipulations of the ratings statistics of players of different generations and epochs will not stand up under scrutiny. The Moscow grandmaster Nikolai Krogius correctly called this 'a statistical juggling act'"
Linder also informs us that between 1889 to 1940, "Lasker participated in 25 tournaments and an equal number of matched. And behind these numbers lies a great result: in almost 600 games played in these events, Lasker scored almost 74% ! The number of games he lost constituted a mere tenth, while the number of wins is almost twice as large as the number of draws. This amounts to the highest percentage among all the strongest players who lived in the 19th and 20th centuries."
He then proceeds to give results of others' scholarly compilations supporting this.
Exactly
Lasker is strong GM and we can learn from him, and he's very tactical gifted and great endgame player. One can only benefit from studying his games. Strength and rating would be in 2700 elo level.
I recently researched and saw that Emanuel Lasker (The person in my profile picture) was the world chess championship for the longest time out of anybody. But I find that he didn't have an elo rating like chess players today (Magnus Carlsen's rating is 2840 for example). I didn't really understand one article, but from what I got out of it I think elo was introduced after Lasker. Is there anyway to estimate what his elo is?