Why Lasker Matters by Andrew Soltis

     Years ago the late James R. Schroeder reviewed this book and wrote, "Other than having many great games by the best chess player of all time, this book is worthless."

     Schroeder didn't think much of Soltis as a writer and claimed that not only was the analysis bad, but there were so many factual mistakes that it was wasn't even worth mentioning them. 

     Additionally, Schroeder opined that Soltis understood nothing about how Lasker played chess or why he played and also, Soltis understood nothing about other masters. 

     He also complained that the book didn't include the three most important games Lasker ever played: games 7 and 8 of his 1894 match with Steinitz and Lasker-Marco, Hastings 1895. Fred Reinfeld called game 9 the best of the match.

     By the way, Schroeder insisted that it was WILLIAM Steinitz because when came to the US in 1883 and became a naturalized citizen he changed his name to “William." 

     I cannot attest to all that, but Schroeder's advice was to get this book from the library and not to read anything including the analysis. If you follow that advice and ignore everything including the analysis, why not just play through Lasker's games that are available on the Internet? 

     Before I knew about Schroeder's acerbic review, the other day I visited the library which is just around the corner. As it always does, the sun has been shining everyday, but for the past week or so we haven't seen hide nor hair of it because it's been obscured by thick dark clouds and it's been in the teens which we in this neck of the woods reckon to be cold. Add a foot of snow the last couple of days and when not out snow blowing the driveway and sidewalks, playing over Lasker's games and reading another book I checked out, The Terrible Hours, The Greatest Submarine Rescue in History by Peter Maas has been a good way to kill time. 

Radar image of the snow and a view out my front window

     The Terrible Hours is about how on the eve of World War II the Squalus, the country's newest submarine, sank in the North Atlantic and thirty-three crew members miraculously survived. It's worth reading. 

     In 1894, defending champion Wilhelm (or William according to Mr. Schroeder) Steinitz was challenged by a fresh 25-year old talent from Prussia by the name of Emanuel Lasker. The winner would be the first to win 10 games, draws not counting. The games were to be played in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal.

     The match began with two victories for each player in the first six games. Then Lasker won five consecutive games in Philadelphia. Lasker had recognized Steinitz' weakness...his lack of ability in handling Queenless middlegames. Steinitz won back-to-back victories in Montreal, but the score was still 7 to 4 in Lasker's favor. On the 19th game, Lasker achieved his 10th win, thereby becoming the second World Champion. 

     Siegbert Tarrasch wasn't too impressed with he match and wrote, "In my opinion the match with Steinitz does not have the great importance that they themselves attribute to it. For Steinitz has grown old, and the old Steinitz is no longer the Steinitz of old." 

     Let's take a look at the game that clinched the match for Lasker, the one of which Isador Gunsberg wrote, "This may be pronounced the feeblest game of the match." 

     Leopold Hoffer said of the game, "If any confirmation were required as to Steinitz's present form, this, the last game of the match, would furnish it. Such a tame, insipid game, which might have been given up as a draw after the exchange of Queens, and which is without a redeeming feature throughout, Steinitz loses by a blunder. Lasker did not make a single forcing move, not a combination of any sort, he simply waited till his opponent practically made him a present of the match." 

     Actually, in this last game of the match Lasker successfully employed his match strategy when Steinitz went into a Queenless middlegame right out of the opening.

Emanuel Lasker - Wilhelm Steinitz

Result: 1-0

Site: World Championship Match

Date: 1894.05.26

QGD Semi-Tarrasch Defense

[...] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.♘c3 ♘f6 4.♘f3 ♗e7 5.e3 This rather slow continuation takes a seat behind 5.Bg5 and 5.Bf4. 5...O-O 6.♗d3 c5 7.dxc5 Universally preferred these days is 7.O-O, but Lasker's continuation is quite acceptable and it's part of his strategy for the match. 7...dxc4 Black probably should avoid this and play 7...Bxc5. The reason lies far into the ending...his K is too far from the center. 8.♗xc4 ♕xd1+ 9.♔xd1 Lasker's match strategy has already succeeded! He has enticed Steinitz into a Queenless middlegame! 9...♘c6

9...♗xc5 10.♔e2 a6 11.♗d3 ♗e7 12.♖d1 b5 13.a3 ♗b7 14.b4 ♘bd7 15.♗d2 ♖ac8 16.♖dc1 Bogdanovich,S (2567)-Korobov,A (2715)/ Kiev 2013. For reasons that are beyond my comprehension engines give black a slight advantage here. In the game cited black did go on to win, but that may well have been due to the rating difference. It's probably too early in the game for a Shootout to have much menaing, but I did one and white lost +0 -2 =3.

10.a3 ♗xc5 11.b4 ♖d8+ In an earlier game Steinitz tried 11...Bb6, but he lost that game, too.

11...♗b6 12.♔e2 ♗d7 13.♗b3 ♖ac8 14.♗b2 a5 15.b5 ♘e7 16.♘e5 Lasker-Steinitz, Match 1894

12.♔e2 ♗f8 13.♗b2 ♗d7 Steinitz is not developing his pieces harmoniously. The other option is to fianchetto this B which seems like it would be a better idea because at least it would have had more scope. Fred Reinfeld commented that Lasker's exploitation of his slight advantage (a non-existent advantage to many players, and I might add, engines) is nothing short of miraculous! 14.♖hd1 ♖ac8 15.♗b3 ♘e7 Black's pieces are cramped, but his position has no real weaknesses. 16.♘d4 ♘g6 17.♖d2 e5 This "freeing" move does not turn out well. Black's best option seems to be just hunker down and defend. 18.♘f3 ♗g4 19.♖xd8 ♖xd8 20.h3 ♗xf3+ Another questionable move in that he yields the two Bs. Better was 20...Bf5 21.gxf3 ♗e7 22.♖c1 ♔f8 It's imperative that black's K approach the center. 23.♘a4 b6 24.♘c3 ♗d6 25.♖d1 ♘e8 26.♘b5 ♖d7 Tying his R down to the defense of the a-Pawn turns out to be another tiny error. Better was ...a6 and then ...Rc8. 27.♗c2 ♔e7 He still should have played 27...a6. This move bringing his K closer to the center is tactically faulty. After this the game and the match are practically over. 28.♗f5 a6 It's either this of lose the a-Pawn. Neither choice is very good. 29.♗xd7 ♔xd7 30.♘c3 f5 Getting out of the pin with 30...Kc6 wouldn't improve his position in any substantial way. 31.b5 axb5 32.♘xb5 Even though Lasker has a theoretical win the position does not play itself and he can't afford to sit back and cruise to victory. He first targets black's e-Pawn. 32...♔e6 33.♗c3 ♘e7 34.♘xd6 Eliminating one of the e-Pawn's defenders. 34...♘xd6 35.♗b4 ♘d5 36.♖c1 ♘f7 37.♗d2 ♘d6 38.♔d3 ♔d7 39.e4 ♘f6 40.♗e3 fxe4+ 41.fxe4 b5 42.f3 ♘c4 43.♖c3 ♘e8

43...♘xe3 44.♔xe3 ♔d6 45.♖c8 followed by an attack on the K-side Ps would be decisive.

44.♗c1 ♘cd6 45.♖c5 ♘c7 46.♖xe5 Mission accomplished. Now comes the next phase...attack the K-side Ps. 46...♘e6 47.♖h5 h6 48.♖e5 g5 This meets with immediate refutation, but there wasn't much else he could have tried. (48...♘f8 49.♗e3 ♘g6 50.♖c5 ♔e6 51.f4 and here too black is lost.) 49.h4 gxh4 50.♖h5 ♔c6 51.♖xh6 ♘c5+ 52.♔c2 A complete and miserable defeat for Steinitz. Clearly Lasker was the better player.

Powered by Aquarium