Lasker's 27 year reign

  Not saying you don't have a point, Reb, but doesn't his many 1st place tournament results against the best, back up his reign a little bit?

(Lasker won seven of the eight major tournaments in which he competed between 1895 and 1925. These included London 1899 (by a full 4.5 points over Harry Nelson Pillsbury), Paris 1900 (scoring thirteen wins out of fifteen games), and the St. Petersburg event in 1914.) Chessgames,com 

I'm willing to give him a pass during the war years, but Reb makes a good point.

No doubt about having the government support and being a communist. Your other point has some room for debate, however. As I don't want to send an otherwise excellent and civil thread into directions it shouldn't, I refer to the last sentence of the first paragraph of "Early Years" on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik

What other matches should Lasker have played ?  Well, to be honest I think he should have played Tarrasch in the late 1890s and he should have played Rubinstein and should have played another match with Schlecter. I am not trying to say Lasker was not a great player, he was , and he was one of the greats among even the world champions. What I am saying is that too much is made of his 27 year reign when you consider that this reign was artifically "padded/increased" by the fact that he had TWO ten year periods in which he did NOT play. (  defend his title )  

Reb, you didn't address my point that in the modern era, at least into the 1970's if someone had held the championship for 30 years, during 20 of those years there would have been no championship matches as titles were defended  every 3rd year. In terms of total years that's not that different then what you're describing with Lasker.  Especially as you have to take into account WW1 and the fact there was no sanctioning body of any sort to move things along. 

On the other hand Lasker holds the record for victories in championship matches.  According to Soltis (Why Lasker Matters, pg. 208): "Lasker, who won three championship matches over Marshall, Tarrasch and Janowsky during 1907-1910 and drew a fourth with Schlecter."   According to Soltis this bested even Kasparov's record set in 1987 when he defended his 3rd title in 3 years as the last defense was the result of a drawn match and not a victory in that match.

While this is true its a bit deceptive imo. A champion defending his title every 3 years would play 3 WC matches in 9 years, in 20 years he would play 6 WC matches. There was 20 years ( 2 ten year stretches ) in which Laker played zero WC matches. The real longest reigning WC may well be Steinitz but for a technicality. The title of WC didnt exist when he was first considered the best in the world..... 

I really do understand your point about the 10 year stretches, but if you look at the total number of matches he played during his span the average number of years between matches works out to about "normal", so to speak.  It's just that they were bunched up, right?

 Who should Lasker have played, a very good question. Kasparov says Rubinstein would have lost due to his psychological instability. But Pillsbury, between 1895-1902,  would have put up a better fight than either Janowski or Marshall. Maroczy was rock solid but probably would have lost a good match.

Do you think we will ever get the truth in the Lasker- Schlechter match? Lasker, like any champion, wanted to maintain his championship. And, like all champions, he wanted an edge. He proposed to Capa similar conditions that Fischer presented to Spassky. Capa refused and had the proposal printed in the newspaper. Lasker didn't speak to Capa for 10 years.  Capa didn't have to accept such conditions but Schlechter, probably destitute, had to take any bone that was thrown to him. Schlechter may have accepted the proposal to win by a two game margin. Maybe a copy of the contract is gathering dust in someone's attic along with Morphy's watch.

Attempting to understand why Fischer did or thought anything, away from the chessboard, is generally a pointless endeavour.

Yes, I guess referring to a perceived shortage of optimal moves, and played for psychological effect.

Brady says in his Profile of a Prodigy that R. Byrne argued for Lasker's case and Fischer later admitted to his greatness.

FIDE probably would have been pretty upset if he refused to play the number one player as well: Pillsbury in 1903-4, Maroczy 1904-7, Rubinstein 1908 and 1912-4 and Capablanca on and off from 1914 according to Sonas' Chessmetrics.

Fezzik wrote---

"Ozzie, Bronstein's accounts of the match are not reliable. I love his writing, but he made many totally unsubstantiated claims in his last interviews. The comments about other conspiracies in The Sorceror's Apprentice have been denied or proven wrong by others including Smyslov and Taimanov."

Fezzik, why would you say Bronstein's accounts are not reliable?  Or that The comments about other conspiracies in The Sorceror's Apprentice have been denied or proven wrong by others including Smyslov and Taimanov." Why would you believe Smyslov over Bronstein?

Have you ever seen the tv show cops where the cops are chasing thugs down the street and you can see the thug trying to get rid of the drugs. The drug dealer says "Hey, those are not my drugs!"

Every guy in prison thinks he is innocent and I cant imagine a Russian grandmaster saying ---Yeah, I won the big tournament by duplicity. Yes I'm guilty---let the people drag my reputation through the mud.

Of course they are going to deny it until it is no longer possible to deny it. Look at Bronstein's last book "Secret Notes" ---When he finished the book, he died. He knew he would die. It was a deathbed confession.

I would sooner believe Bronstein than Smyslov who was dyed in the wool Soviet. Do you really think Smyslov is going to say---of course the 1953 Zurich tournament was corrupt. There were pople throwing games all over the place, pre-arrainged games. Bronstein says the tournament book was like a dagger in his heart all these years. He was thouroughly ashamed of his actions during the tournament and for writing the book.

Do you believe Fischer when he said the Russians are cheating at Curacao 62' or do you believe the Russians who denied it unequivocally

Reb, It's really a silly point because there was no FIDE or any sort of governing power, obviously.  Usually I agree with you because you make sense, but not here.  I'm guessing that Lasker would have played if he was mandated to play, but more importantly a governing body would have had to make sure that there was some sort of adequate PURSE to be played for.  This was what kept lasker away from more matches.  He was always a "money" player and this is really what is meant by a "coffee house player".  His opponents couldn't get the money together to make the challenges so he found other ways, numerous other ways, to make money. 

My point is that its easy to keep the title 27 years when you dont defend it for 20 of those 27 years.... I understand your point but it still makes his 27 year reign very artificial imo. 

Yeah, that all happened around 1999-2000. Kasparov broke from FIDE in 1993, so he could do whatever he wanted, and he pretty much copied Lasker's much disputed style of picking his opponents and defending his title when it suited him.

That's why there was so much debate at the time about which world championship was the "real" one - FIDE or "Classical" (determined by beating the previous champ, which was Kasparov). Both did a surprisingly good job of spitting on their own credibility at that time - Kasparov by dodging Shirov, and FIDE by having knockout tournaments where players who weren't even in the top 25 in the world were able to successfully win the title (Kasimdzhanov).

 I dont think there was much doubt in the publics mind about who was the real champ especially in 1996 when FIDE crowned their new world champ---KARPOV. I'll bet Kasparov was laughing in his beer over that one. I know I was!

Well, that's a subject for another thread, but there was definitely a debate at the time about which world championship was "real". The FIDE system still had its supporters, even if Kasparov had the majority of public support early on. Dodging Shirov, and going 5 years without defending his title, definitely hurt Kasparov's credibility. But again, as I mentioned, the FIDE knockout tournaments hurt FIDE's credibility. The whole situation was just a mess, and it's a good thing that they were able to reunite into a single system. Now, if only FIDE could just get their acts together on making a system that really works.

It's not the opposite - as Kasparov explained it, he didn't think that sufficient funding could be provided for a match with Shirov. That's exactly what Lasker did as well: no prize fund, no match.

Also, while today we know that Kasparov ended up losing to Kramnik whom he himself chose as the challenger, I doubt that this was the result he had expected beforehand. Alekhine also selected Euwe as the challenger and ended up losing to him.

After a cursory reading, I'm trying to understand all this talk of Lasker beating an aging Tarrasch.  Tarrasch was born in 1862.  Lasker was born in 1868. While I understand in competition age can make an important difference, if I hadn't a clue to their relative ages, the impression given was that Lasker who was 40 in 1908, beat some ancient opponent.  But Tarrasch was 46 at the time and between 1900 and 1905 was at his peak performnace. It was a fair fight. Tarrasch just wasn't in Lasker's league.

Curiously, after the Lasker-Marshall match, Dr. Tarrasch wrote: "After my newest and greatest achievement, I have no reason to consider that anybody stands above me in the chess world. It was certainly more difficult to beat the youthful Marshall than old Steinitz. I am willing, under reasonable conditions, to play a match with Lasker; but I shall not challenge him. This is the duty of the one who has the inferior record. My successes during twenty years are at least equal to his (Lasker's); my challenge two years ago was a faux pas. If the chess world is desirous of seeing such a match, the chess world—i.e., representatives of Germany and America— must bring it about. They know what we can do, and it is in their hands to arrange the match Lasker-Tarrasch."

This picture ends J. G. Cunningham's 1894 book on his match with Lasker:

In The World's Great Chess Games, Rueben Fine wrote:
"What he [Lasker] did in chess is truly staggering.  His exploits may be summed up in one sentence: For thirty years Lasker was the superman of the chess world.  Marco exultantly spoke of him as 'Lasker, the Unique' ; Tartakower wonderingly called him, 'a piece of history.'
His record is easy to recapitulate, for he played relatively little.  But when he did play, he was phenomenal.
. . . From that time [when he beat Steinitz in 1894] until his loss to Capablanca in 1921, Lasker scored a series of incredible victories.  Any ordinary mortal would be happy to place third at Hastings, 1895, tie for second at Cambridge Springs, 1904, tie for first at St. Petersburg, 1909, draw a match against Schlechter, 1910 - but for Lasker, these were the most serious "setbacks" of his career.  On all other occasions, in all other tournaments and matches, he was first . . . more than first, one would have to say in some cases.  At London in 1899 he outstripped the field by 4.5 points; at St. Petersburg in 1914, he scored 7 points out of 8 against Capablance, Alekhine, Marshall and Tarrasch.
. . .
Of all the unplayed matches in chess history, none are more regrettable than Rubinstein-Lasker and Pillsbury-Lasker.  Pillsbury and Lasker met a number of times in tournaments and prouced immortal chess on almost every occasion.

. ..
The second period of Tarrasch's life, from 1894 to 1908, was dominated by his rivalry with Lasker . . .when the match finally came in 1908, Tarrasch did not have a chance.  Some great masters have discovered to their sorrow that there is one who is greater and have twisted it into tragedy.

Well Reb, you and I have talked about this a few times here in this forum and I think we pretty well understand each other's positions.  I think in the end the real test is this: "Did the players in Lasker's own life time consider him to be the legitimate champion?".  While there were strong players, tarrasch et.al who had their collectives axes to grind on this issue he was, in fact, even by them, considered to be the legit champion until Capa took him down.    That Lasker continued to have strong tournament results up until his death speak for itself, does it not?

So, I'm wondering why you're grinding on this question as much as you are?  Do you have problem with Lasker as a player or as a competitor or both?  Perhaps it is something else?