Meh, I bet all current 2700+ would destroy Lasker. But that's irrelevant because current players have had the knowledge of previous chess players to learn from and build upon. Topics like this are always lame because it's impossible to reach a conclusion.
Emanuel Lasker Elo
Sort:
kindaspongey wrote:
From 1889 to 1904, what world champions, other than Steinitz, did Lasker have to face?
-Siegbert Tarrasch
-Frank James Marshall
-Alexander Ilyin Zhenevsky
Reb wrote:
I wouldnt call 6 title defenses in 27 years defending his title many times . Steinitz defended his title more regularly .
Well, there was a World War during some of those years.
"... 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.' ..." - batgirl
ChessPlayer010609 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
From 1889 to 1904, what world champions, other than Steinitz, did Lasker have to face?
-Siegbert Tarrasch
-Frank James Marshall
-Alexander Ilyin Zhenevsky
World champions?
kindaspongey wrote:
"... 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.' ..." - batgirl
ChessPlayer010609 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
From 1889 to 1904, what world champions, other than Steinitz, did Lasker have to face?
-Siegbert Tarrasch
-Frank James Marshall
-Alexander Ilyin Zhenevsky
World champions?
(nods digitally)
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
Meh, I bet all current 2700+ would destroy Lasker. But that's irrelevant because current players have had the knowledge of previous chess players to learn from and build upon. Topics like this are always lame because it's impossible to reach a conclusion.
also Lasker is above 2800
Feb 22, 2019
0
#28
Ratings are not handed down by God. They specify how well a player scored against the particular pool of players that they faced over-the-board.
So by definition, a rating is specific to a particular pool of players. Even if ratings had existed in Lasker's time, they could not be directly compared to modern-day ratings, because none of the players are the same.
Saying that Lasker "is" above 2800 is meaningless. Lasker is dead, and never faced any Elo-rated player, let alone any modern Elo-rated player. There is no basis for comparison, good or bad.
ChessPlayer010609 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
"... 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.' ..." - batgirl
ChessPlayer010609 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
From 1889 to 1904, what world champions, other than Steinitz, did Lasker have to face?
-Siegbert Tarrasch
-Frank James Marshall
-Alexander Ilyin Zhenevsky
World champions?
(nods digitally)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
blueemu wrote:
Ratings are not handed down by God. They specify how well a player scored against the particular pool of players that they faced over-the-board.
So by definition, a rating is specific to a particular pool of players. Even if ratings had existed in Lasker's time, they could not be directly compared to modern-day ratings, because none of the players are the same.
Saying that Lasker "is" above 2800 is meaningless. Lasker is dead, and never faced any Elo-rated player, let alone any modern Elo-rated player. There is no basis for comparison, good or bad.
i meant was
(k? gud)
toiyabe wrote:
Meh, I bet all current 2700+ would destroy Lasker. But that's irrelevant because current players have had the knowledge of previous chess players to learn from and build upon. Topics like this are always lame because it's impossible to reach a conclusion.
I completely agree. In present world, the Computer and Powerful Chess AI has revolutionised how top level Super GMs approach Chess. Plus with the boon of Internet Blitz and Bullet chess and the speed, accuracy and ferocity of most top level professional players, I don't think Laskar will stand any chance against any of the Super GMs (2700+ Rated) of today.
Who knows? Here is my favourite game of Lasker's anyway. He should probably have lost this game and Napier would have had the win of his short career, but Lasker had a knack of creating complications in dubious positions and emerging the winner.