Fischer or Lasker • page 1/6 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

AntonP2016

Fischer or Lasker

Reshevsky - he defeated both Fischer AND Lasker

Botvinnik - he drew both Fischer AND Lasker

Euwe- he lost to both Fischer AND Lasker

Reshevsky - he defeated both Fischer AND Lasker Botvinnik - he drew both Fischer AND Lasker Euwe- he lost to both Fischer AND Lasker

tpr

Fischer did not even consider Lasker among the top 10 chess players of all time.

lizani

@tpr said ^

Fischer did not even consider Lasker among the top 10 chess players of all time.

Neither did Lasker consider Fischer among the top 10 chess players of all time.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/hWy3sFaK) > Fischer did not even consider Lasker among the top 10 chess players of all time. Neither did Lasker consider Fischer among the top 10 chess players of all time.

tpr

'I have known many chess players, but among them there has been only one genius - Capablanca!' - Lasker

DoomedBishop edited

Fischer's contributions to chess cannot be forgotten. I think he was one of the greats in chess. He was arguably the best player America had seen up through his time as champion. I wish he had been a little bit more open-minded. Judit Polgar, during her heyday, was the best woman chess player in the world and was once ranked in the top 10 of all players at the time (including men AND women). If I am not mistaken, she was 8th in the world. Sure, she never played in a world championship. However, how many men have never played in the world championship? I don't believe we should put down women (either individually or as a whole) for not making it into the World Championship Match. Certainly, I will most likely never be even a national master at the rate I am going. Polgar was a GM (not a WGM). I think she deserves respect.

I don't know a lot about Lasker, to be honest. I have heard various stories about him, but I can't confirm them. I need to read a biography about him.

Fischer's contributions to chess cannot be forgotten. I think he was one of the greats in chess. He was arguably the best player America had seen up through his time as champion. I wish he had been a little bit more open-minded. Judit Polgar, during her heyday, was the best woman chess player in the world and was once ranked in the top 10 of all players at the time (including men AND women). If I am not mistaken, she was 8th in the world. Sure, she never played in a world championship. However, how many men have never played in the world championship? I don't believe we should put down women (either individually or as a whole) for not making it into the World Championship Match. Certainly, I will most likely never be even a national master at the rate I am going. Polgar was a GM (not a WGM). I think she deserves respect. I don't know a lot about Lasker, to be honest. I have heard various stories about him, but I can't confirm them. I need to read a biography about him.

LastIterator

@lizani said ^

Reshevsky - he defeated ... Lasker

I could hardly believe it:

https://lichess.org/study/FeKnX2IG/sMQRQc2H

@lizani said [^](/forum/redirect/post/TywhSnER) > Reshevsky - he defeated ... Lasker I could hardly believe it: https://lichess.org/study/FeKnX2IG/sMQRQc2H

TitusPlaysChess123 edited

The first one was Karpov vs. Fischer (which I still think Karpov is better)
The second one was Botvinnik vs. Fischer (which I still think Botvinnik is better)
The third one is Lasker vs. Fischer. And here’s my explanation why Lasker is actually better than Fischer.

Lasker was world champion for 27 years, the longest reign in classical chess. He remained world-class into old age and combined practical strength, psychological insight, and remarkable adaptability.

Fischer’s 1970–72 run may be the greatest single peak in chess history: an overwhelming Candidates performance followed by a huge match victory over Spassky. But his peak really lasted for a few years, compared to Lasker’s 27 years.

So in terms of longevity, Lasker clears.

Lasker’s prime was around the late 1890s and early 1900s, decades before official FIDE ratings began. Because of this, there really isn’t a way to compare each other’s ratings.

Sorry, but Lasker still wins.
3-0. (for me)

P.S: I don’t actually hate Fischer. He contributed so much to the chess world, but I just think that Lasker, Karpov and Botvinnik are all better than Fischer in my opinion.

If Fischer had played like a couple of decades and still stayed as a world-class player and a World Champion, then I would have probably chosen him over those three players.

The first one was Karpov vs. Fischer (which I still think Karpov is better) The second one was Botvinnik vs. Fischer (which I still think Botvinnik is better) The third one is Lasker vs. Fischer. And here’s my explanation why Lasker is actually better than Fischer. Lasker was world champion for 27 years, the longest reign in classical chess. He remained world-class into old age and combined practical strength, psychological insight, and remarkable adaptability. Fischer’s 1970–72 run may be the greatest single peak in chess history: an overwhelming Candidates performance followed by a huge match victory over Spassky. But his peak really lasted for a few years, compared to Lasker’s 27 years. So in terms of longevity, Lasker clears. Lasker’s prime was around the late 1890s and early 1900s, decades before official FIDE ratings began. Because of this, there really isn’t a way to compare each other’s ratings. Sorry, but Lasker still wins. 3-0. (for me) P.S: I don’t actually hate Fischer. He contributed so much to the chess world, but I just think that Lasker, Karpov and Botvinnik are all better than Fischer in my opinion. If Fischer had played like a couple of decades and still stayed as a world-class player and a World Champion, then I would have probably chosen him over those three players.

TitusPlaysChess123

@lizani said ^

Reshevsky - he defeated both Fischer AND Lasker

Botvinnik - he drew both Fischer AND Lasker

Euwe- he lost to both Fischer AND Lasker

Maybe we should talk more about Reshevsky vs. Fischer! :)

@lizani said [^](/forum/redirect/post/TywhSnER) > Reshevsky - he defeated both Fischer AND Lasker > > Botvinnik - he drew both Fischer AND Lasker > > Euwe- he lost to both Fischer AND Lasker Maybe we should talk more about Reshevsky vs. Fischer! :)

tpr

"The first one was Karpov vs. Fischer (which I still think Karpov is better)"

No way, Karpov was not in the same league.

"The second one was Botvinnik vs. Fischer (which I still think Botvinnik is better)

No way Fischer was better from 1969.

"Lasker was world champion for 27 years, the longest reign in classical chess."

Lasker defeated Steinitz in 1894 and 1896 then Marshall in 1907, Tarrasch in 1908 but then only drew with Schlechter in 1910, won against Janowski in 1910. Then came the First World War. Then Lasker lost to Capablanca in 1921.
So he effectively only was World Champion for 16 years.

"He remained world-class into old age"

Yes, winning New York 1924 was a huge accomplishment.

"Fischer’s 1970–72 run may be the greatest single peak in chess history: an overwhelming Candidates performance followed by a huge match victory over Spassky."

Yes indeed. Fischer was much ahead of Petrosian, Spassky, Korchnoi, and Karpov.
Fischer also was still good in 1992 after 20 years of inactivity, beating Spassky who had stayed active the whole time.

"there really isn’t a way to compare each other’s ratings."

Chessmetrics has calculated elo retroactively for the period before elo was introduced.
Fischer is clearly ahead of Lasker.

"The first one was Karpov vs. Fischer (which I still think Karpov is better)" * No way, Karpov was not in the same league. "The second one was Botvinnik vs. Fischer (which I still think Botvinnik is better) * No way Fischer was better from 1969. "Lasker was world champion for 27 years, the longest reign in classical chess." * Lasker defeated Steinitz in 1894 and 1896 then Marshall in 1907, Tarrasch in 1908 but then only drew with Schlechter in 1910, won against Janowski in 1910. Then came the First World War. Then Lasker lost to Capablanca in 1921. So he effectively only was World Champion for 16 years. "He remained world-class into old age" * Yes, winning New York 1924 was a huge accomplishment. "Fischer’s 1970–72 run may be the greatest single peak in chess history: an overwhelming Candidates performance followed by a huge match victory over Spassky." * Yes indeed. Fischer was much ahead of Petrosian, Spassky, Korchnoi, and Karpov. Fischer also was still good in 1992 after 20 years of inactivity, beating Spassky who had stayed active the whole time. "there really isn’t a way to compare each other’s ratings." * Chessmetrics has calculated elo retroactively for the period before elo was introduced. Fischer is clearly ahead of Lasker.