Latest World Chess Federation November 2 Las Vegas Press Confernce
world chess federation
Spanish language newspapers regarding the upcoming WCF World Chess
Championship Qualifying Tournament. A challenge to all wordwide FIDE
Grandmasters and International Masters was issued as a number of Las
Vegas masters have lined up seeking to show the world that Lasker was
right that FIDE Grandmasters "are not so strong as they think they
are."
parrt...@cs.com
WCF wrote: <A challenge to all wordwide FIDE Grandmasters and
International Masters was issued as a number of Las Vegas masters have
lined up seeking to show the world that Lasker was right that FIDE
Grandmasters "are not so strong as they think they are.>
The correct quote from 1936 (before FIDE issued the grandmaster title)
is cited In chapter 9 (Fischer at 24) of THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS
where GM Evans discusses the striking omission of Emanuel Lasker from
Fischer's 10-best list:
CAPABLANCA ON LASKER
Confirmation of Edward Lasker’s view of Emanuel (as opposed to
Bobby’s) may be found in a recently published book LAST LECTURES by
Bobby’s acknowledged hero, Capablanca:
"No other great master has been so misunderstood. It was often said of
Lasker that he had rather a dry style, that he could not play
brilliantly and that his victories were chiefly the result of his
uncanny endgame skill and of his opponent’s mistakes. That he was a
great endgame player is unquestionable; in fact, he was the greatest I
have ever known. But he was also the most profound and imaginative
player I have every known.
Even toward the end, during the great Nottingham Tournament (1936)
when he was 68, his quick sight of the board was still notable. In
this connection I am reminded of the following incident: I had just
won a very important game and was on my way back to the hotel. During
the course of the game my opponent built up a magnificent position. At
a certain point he saw an opportunity to win the Exchange, and did so.
Yet he lost the game! Some of the world’s greatest masters, who were
present, began to study the game. All of them began their
investigations from the point where my opponent had won the Exchange,
for they assumed that this had been the proper course, and that his
error must have occurred later on.
They spent a good deal of time on the game, and meanwhile Lasker came
in. They told him how the game had ended and played it over for him;
but when they came to the point where my opponent had won the
Exchange, he interrupted them and said, ‘Oh no, that move can’t be
right!’ The aged master had realized at once what the others had
failed to perceive: that the win of the Exchange was an error which
lost not only the advantage, but the game itself. Lasker saw that it
was not my opponent who had made a combination but I! Several hours
later he met me in the hotel and said, ‘You must have been relieved
when your opponent swallowed the bait,’ Then he added, ‘THESE PLAYERS
ARE NOT SO STRONG AS MOST PEOPLE THINK.'"
And so Lasker had been the only one who had correctly appraised the
position and had been fully aware of the possibilities it contained.
GROWING PAINS
Of course, no one—not even a champion performer—is expected to be an
insightful critic. It is said that Bill Tilden, the tennis great,
could never pick a winner in any match. Bobby’s judgment, or lack of
it, may not affect the quality of his play. But his performances away
from the board are, for the most part, interesting because of what
they tell us about him as a human being; they shed little light on
Bobby the chess master.
Still, the master lives in the man—not the other way around.
Ironically, it was Emanuel Lasker who emphasized that chess involves a
struggle of the total human personality in which the rounded man and
not necessarily the better player is eventually bound to triumph.
Perhaps in a few years we may feel, looking back, that many of his
statements and much of his behavior simply reflected growing pains.