Customer Reviews

Why Lasker Matters

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Tal, Alekhine and Korchnoi love(d) him. Fischer, Larsen and Kasparov show considerably less regard. Soltis tries to convince us that the "good doctor" matters. To justify his thesis Soltis firmly believes that the best way is not to tell us, but show us. The 100 games are covered in 320 pages--80 more pages than he devoted to "Bobby Fischer Rediscovered." In his usual style Soltis sets the historical stage for each encounter and highlights those themes and critical points which reveal Lasker qua Lasker: His games are replete with calculated risk-taking, material sacrifices for positional gains, middlegame-to-endgame transitional skill, making the best practical moves, targets, subterfuge, insight into opponent's style, and complicating when the situation merits it.

During this exciting expose of a dynamic and resourceful genius, Soltis dispels some popular myths about Lasker the mesmerist, psychologist, sorcerer--early 20th century pseudo-intellectual nonsense which has clouded Lasker's real legacy. Lasker simply appeared to be ahead of his time and modern players will feel right at home studying his games.

This in my estimation is Soltis' best work, a monument to Lasker.

I was in my 20's, and already a budding chess fan, when Fischer won the title. Hundreds of chess books and many years later, I realized that, of all the game's champions, I knew little about Lasker, other than the duration of his reign and his reputation as a "practical" player. (Should there be any other kind?) I am an avid d4 player, so when I realized that a large number of games in this book were not only the Ruy, but the Steinitz Ruy, I wasn't sure of my interest. But these games are pure chess delight.
It must be said that Lasker and his contempories played when opening theory often went 6 moves deep, not 16. They developed many of the concepts that comprise today's basic toolkit. So even the errors are instructive. The games are intense struggles and Lasker was a genius when judging a position's best opportunities(hence his "practicality"),doing so while facing a variety of openings and defenses. He also played prophylactic chess at a very high level. And his endgames are dazzling. Soltis places every game, and many variations, into their historical context, adding drama and flavor to games already rich in ideas. He is unafraid to disagree with many chess authors as to their take on Lasker's games. This book is for all chess lovers.

I totally agree with another reader's review title. To me, Lasker is one of the three strongest chess champions in the history. The other two are Fischer and Kasparov. I do not use the word greatest as I think in each generation each Chess Champion were the greatest in their days, otherwise they would not be Champions. But why I specifically mention these three? I think it lay on the fact that all champions are genius, but one point is the degree of stress they can withstand makes the 3 mentioned above to stand apart from the other champions. I always imagine that if the past champions re-incarnate, study current theories, like Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik etc, they would still lose to Fischer and Kasparov. The fact is not their chess knowledge and play are worse than Fischer or Kasparov, but they cannot withstand the enormous pressure from these two. As Korchnoi once commented about his chance against Fischer, he said that he was not afraid of Fischer, but only in one or two games, concerning a match, he said he has no chance to survive. This apply to Kasparov' opponents as well. Only I think Lasker can stand against Fischer or Kasparov. One point or the points most of us neglect is that Lasker, besides being a chess champion, he was also a mathematician and philosopher as well. He knew pschology no less than Fischer or Kasparov, in withstanding severe pressure, I conjecture he might be even better than the two. Though I am a fervent fan of Fischer and Kasparov, I still have to disdain their commments on Lasker. Fischer said Lasker was just a coffeehouse player and Kasparov said that the quality of match of Lasker's was poor. No!!! One cannot use today's standard to comment on the past. Otherwise I can laugh at Newton's concept of absolute space and time!!! In fact when I played through Lasker's games, I find them as interesting as Fischer's and Kasparov's games. Take just two examples, one can found a game as wild as the one between Lasker and Pillsbury in the third round of St. Petesburg 1895/1896 and as stategic as the one from Lasker's famous win over the almost invincible Capablanca in St. Petersburg in 1914 using a drawish opening and in fact he absolutely needed a win paradoxically!!. Andew Soltis, you have done a very good job!!

There have been several books already written yet Soltis manages to infuse something new and informative.
I find his comments vastly more interesting than Kasparov's in the chapter on Lasker in his series of previous World Champions.

this is an up-to-date look at laskers greatest games. i was hoping for more of a biographical section but you could tell soltis was just wanting to focus on the games. the analysis is just right, no endless variations but enough to make you make.