Emanuel Lasker's most brilliant early career game

Hi all

I have some very good Emanuel Lasker games to share with you in my next few blogs. Emanuel Lasker was the world chess champion for a staggering 27 years.

Vladimir Kramnik considers Lasker to be the first major link to "Modern Chess".

"In my view, Lasker was a pioneer of modern chess. When you look through Steinitz’s games you understand they were played in the century before last whereas Lasker had a lot of games that modern chess players could have had. Lasker is the first link in the chain of “global” chess where various fighting elements are taken into account" - Vladimir Kramnik

Kasparov considered Lasker to be one of the few players to have avoided "Calcification" of his chess style. Kasparov had in mind it seems that Lasker was able to successfully adapt (and not turn to rigid stone aka "Calficy") to the next generation of players. Indeed Lasker came ahead of both Capablanca and Alekhine in four or five key tournaments after Lasker was not World champion. Lasker could crush the Hypermoderns as well - those guys with their trendy new ideas trying to find useful exceptions to established theory.

The mighty Stockfish chess engine thinks a lot of Lasker's blindfold simul games are under 10 centipawn loss! In general, the accuracy of Lasker's games is astounding. This is evidence that Lasker may indeed be the first major "Play the position" player - with minimal bias of his play. As Bruce Lee has alluded to this theme:

“You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water, my friend.” - Bruce Lee

I personally find Lasker an intriguing mystery who I have just scratched the surface. How is someone who played over 100 years ago able to play so accurately overall and dominate the chess world for so long? Is Lasker some sort of Time Traveller? In my view, Lasker took the Steinitz "elements of chess positions" and forged them into a formidable fighting weapon.

He was a good friend of Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein in the forward of "Life of a chess master" (you can see quite a few free sample pages (96 for me right now) to get a glimpse of Lasker at: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Emanuel_Lasker/GqVGDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=lasker&printsec=frontcover writes of Lasker:

"As for myself, I shall remember with gratitude the pleasing conversations I enjoyed with that incessantly eager, truly independent and yet most modest of men."

Here is one of his early brilliant games against Bauer kicking off with the Bird's opening:

Video annotation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsRnl9AAdLQ

My Lasker playlist has some other great games: https://kingscrusher.tv/lasker

Study Analysis

White's position already looks attacking - and this will be made more effective if black plays passively from here:

A very beautiful attacking position reached

Black here played Nxh5 maybe expecting a routine recapture:

but instead, Lasker perhaps used one of his more famous and very useful quotations:

"When you see a good move, look for a better one."

Bxh7+ !!

Bxg7! !!

Black's king is in severe trouble here:

A classic "rook lift" :

Has black saved the situation?

New downside - material to be won!

Nice rook sac later too:

Final position

Very interesting and useful Lasker Chess Quotations

“When you see a good move, look for a better one.”

“The hardest game to win is a won game.”

“Chess is, above all, a fight.”

"To find the right plan is just as hard as looking for its sound justification.”

“In mathematics, if I find a new approach to a problem, another mathematician might claim that he has a better, more elegant solution. In chess, if anybody claims he is better than I, I can checkmate him.”

“The combination player thinks forward; he starts from the given position, and tries the forceful moves in his mind.”

“Education in Chess has to be an education in independent thinking and judging. Chess must not be memorized...”

“By some ardent enthusiasts, Chess has been elevated into a science or an art. It is neither; but its principal characteristic seems to be – what human nature mostly delights in – a fight.”

“On the chessboard, lies, and hypocrisy do not survive long.”

Every chess player must know the "Steinitz elements of position"

Lasker forged the Steinitz "elements of position" into a formidable fighting weapon.

When we evaluate positions, the first world chess champion Wilhelm Steinitz kind of created the periodic table of chess elements. A chess position could be seen as having short-term and longer-term elements to it. The "Ink wars" had major heated discussions of Steinitz and his opponents on these ideas which essentially started to underline the end of the "Romantic era" of chess.

Shorter-term "elements" could include: Lead in piece development, the initiative generally, Pieces away from opponent's King, Poor King safety generally, etc. To tap into short-term elements generally, you think tactically and how to exploit those factors before they just disappear.

Longer-term "elements" could include advantages in pawn structure, strong and weak squares, a lack of piece harmony, etc. Given that pawns are the slowest moving aspect of a chess position, it is often pawn structure aspects of a position that can be relied on for longer-term ideas in a position.

With these element considerations and especially the longer-term elements, advantages could then be systematically accumulated - eliminating many dangers and risks. The beginning of the end of the Romantic era of chess was nigh - and Steinitz who once himself was a Romantic-era player, turned dramatically into a more positional player mid-way through his career making use of the element theory and the "accumulation of advantages". The pawn structure was starting to be seen as a virtual storage device for the accumulation of long-term advantages in particular.

How did Lasker turn the "Steinitz Elements" into fighting weapons?

From my detailed analysis of Lasker's games in his first key 10 year period, I would say three key aspects here, which I will try and give concrete examples for in future blogs on Lasker:

1. ELEMENT CONTEXT - Lasker put the elements in the context of the wider fighting situation - who am I playing? What are their weaknesses and strengths? What about the tournament situation? How can I tint my openings and strategy slightly to align with these variables? Against Steinitz, Lasker found aiming for long grinding games with the Queen's exchanged off early useful - a bit like the more recent Kasparov vs Kramnik match. Against Marshall, Lasker avoided the brunt of Marshall's King attacking skills. And the list goes on and on, making Lasker a very dangerous match opponent.
2. ELEMENT RESOLUTION - Lasker increased the sheer resolution of the "Steinitz" elements - not just the "Bishop pair" but it seems "Bishop without counterpart", "Closed in bishop", etc etc. He broke the elements down and made them interchangeable. Having a more detailed view of elements means that the "advantage" can then consist of a number of smaller more subtle elements. And also the tradeoffs between elements can be made more smoothly with greater reassurance of what exactly is being traded off for what.
3. ELEMENT EXPLOITABILITY - With Lasker having greater "interchangeability" of elements, he was able to translate advantages quite often breaking down opponent's positions by finding the truly "exploitable" weaknesses. For example, translating Capablanca's doubled pawns in an iconic game into a backward d pawn and bad light square bishop. Then being able to get an octopus knight on e6 (will save for a future blog!). But the point is, the doubled pawns of Capablanca might as well have been "locked in a cupboard" if the translation of advantages was not made by Lasker.

BONUS TIP: When is it most important to evaluate positions?

After the opening phase, it is good to have an idea of the differences in elements between you and the opponent i.e. the "Imbalances" as IM Jeremy Silman calls them. That gives great ideas of what to work with. Especially the more extreme "imbalances". E.g. you have a queenside pawn majority - so maybe heading for an endgame could be a good idea.

Magnus Carlsen's tip is especially focusing a detailed "Evaluation" at the end-position of your calculations which themselves made use of Evaluation. But especially at the end of calculations. So basically you can choose the Newtonian view of the Elements (Steinitz) and just use them in a large theoretical sense without the context of the opponent.

Or you can take the Einstein perspective (Lasker) on the elements, and make sure the resulting positions of your calculations might be slightly well-fitting for the context - e.g. annoying for a particular opponent or time control. Maybe it creates a level of complexity the particular opponent with the particular time left can't easily handle. The Einstein perspective would also dig down more into the resolution of those elements and how they can be interchanged for maximum "exploitability" of concrete downsides in the opponent's position.

Use either chess "scientist" - Steinitz or Lasker - but for me, the Lasker view personally feels more likely to actually win games in practice - "chess as a fight!". And the art of war indicates:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Key takeaway points

• Yes, I have a new course on Emanuel Lasker called the "Foundations of Modern Chess Strategy" which looks at key Lasker games from 1889-1899 - so many masterpieces in this period. Check out my courses page at https://kingscrusher.tv
• The Bird's opening can be pretty dangerous
• Having the bishop on b2 can create great attacking opportunities
• Think "out of the box" - sometimes there are major opportunities hidden in what seems to be obvious recapture moves - such as the first bishop sacrifice here instead of the recapture Qxh5
• Lasker was really strong even in this early point of his career