Jump to content

Talk:Emanuel Lasker/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am in the process of reviewing this article and I will post my first comments here in no time, based on this version of the article. SyG (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my first comments, based on an "eye-on-the-fly" (?) review. I still have to check the references and various format things. I place the article on hold for now. SyG (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General remarks

[edit]
Issues resolved
  • Done There are discrepancies in the use of upper or lower case for the first letters of the words "World Champion" and "World Championship". Sometimes it is written "world championship" and sometimes "World Championship". The article needs to be consistent with himself. I would suggest to always use upper cases because this is what is used in the excellent article Alexander Alekhine, that is GA already. SyG (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. No offence meant, but I'm glad someone else is reviewing Wilhelm Steinitz, as we'd have a terrible time deciding when to switch from lower to upper case :-) Philcha (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While mentioning that, kuddos for getting Wilhelm Steinitz to GA-class ! SyG (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the treatment of the World Championship matches too brief, as most of the text concentrates on the context of these matches (before the match, after the match, controversies, ...) but says too little on the development of the matches themselves. SyG (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article says Lasker-Steinitz 1984 was level at 3-3 then Steinitz lost the next 5. I've seen nothing that suggests Steinitz tired after a mere 6 games, please let me know you've seen a good explanation for the collapse. Chess Successby Neil McDonald quotes Kramnik as saying it was a gross mismatch but, as McDonald points out, Steintz was doing better at 3-3 than Kasparov did against Kramnink in 2000, although McDonald syas soon after, "In certain pawn structures Steinitz had no idea what he was meant to do (followed by example from game 15, when the match was almost over). I've been through 10 pages of Google Web and Books results, and that's it.
  • It also says Lasker beat Steinitz by ten wins, five draws, two losses in 1896-1897 - I think that's enough.
  • It gives the scores of his equally crushing wins against Marshall, Tarrasch and Janowski - little comment required, Lasker was just a whole lot stronger. Re the Lasker-Marshall match, Tim Harding in Chess in the Year 1907 comments that Marshall was out-gunned, but missed a few opportunities. Re the Lasker-Tarrasch match, Harding in Chess in the Year 1908 many commments on how the match came too late for Tarrasch, but says "What is perhaps significant is that it showed Lasker that a policy of seeking complications was preferable, if he got into positional difficulties, than submitting himself to a positional struggle" - a feature of Lasker's play noted in section "Chess strength and style". The 1910 Lasker-Janowski match was a joke - apart from the one-sided score, see Chessmetrics Player Profile: Dawid Janowsky, which ranks Janowski number one in 1904 but 12-14 and falling in 1910. IIRC Janowski had a wealthy friend who supported him beyond all facts and reason, until Janowski insulted him. --00:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There's plenty about Lasker-Schlechter 1910, a match that needs a good explanation - if one existed.
  • Article says of Lasker-Capablanca 1921, "Lasker resigned it after fourteen games, when he was trailing by four games and had won none." I've seen anecdotes indicating that Lasker did not prepare at all for this match, but was not sure about their reliability. In any case Lasker had already resigned the title to Capa, so I think readers may conclude that Lasker's heart was not really in it. Again, if you known of some WP:RS analysis that goes further than "Lasker did not win a game", please let me know. Just to make matters worse, Lasker's and Capa's accounts of the match disagreed hugely, especially Capa's final comment "As to his illness, not being an M.D., I cannot say; all I know is that two or three days after the match was over, Dr Lasker sailed for Europe looking very well and cheerful, far, very far, from the sick man one would imagine after reading his book." The nearest I can find to a decent analysis is Kramnik's comment "In 1921 Capablanca defeated Lasker. By the way, Lasker was not playing badly in that match; he retained great practical strength. In my opinion, this was the first match for the World Championship title where both opponents were very strong. Capablanca was younger, more active and a bit stronger. In the last game Lasker made a terrible blunder. However, the previous games saw an even and fascinating fight."
I'm not sure what else there is to say. For comparison, Alexander Alekhine is pretty brief about the 2 Alekhine-Bogoljubow matches, comments on th length of Alekine-Capablanca 1927 and goes into the fortunes and factors of the 2 Alekhine-Euwe matches because both had major swings and there's been a lot of discussion of the reasons.
Taylor Kingston] comments on Lasker's habit of running up streaks, but adds nothing else that's not already covered. --Philcha (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how much longer have you made it? :-)
Seriously, Laker is one of the players who simply did a lot more than most, like Staunton, Euwe & Botvinnik - and unlike e.g. Anderssen, who could be summed up as "published a few books of problems, won a lot of tournaments". Philcha (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to readability tests, the average reader shall be about 16-19 years old, which I think is higher than the targeted audience of Wikipedia. I do not think it is a problem for GA-class, but for higher grade it may be necessary to simplify the sentences; SyG (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

[edit]
Issues resolved
Done. --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done "[He] finished second in an international tournament at Amsterdam, ahead of some well-known masters including Isidore Gunsberg, who finished third (just half a point out of first place) in the New York 1889 tournament and unsuccessfully challenged for Wilhelm Steinitz' World Chess Championship title, also in 1889."
    While I understand the desire of giving some elements of context on the strength of opponents, here we get to a point where the main information represents 8 words, while the elements of context are up to 37 words. This seems out of balance; if the reader wants to know how strong Gunsberg was, he can always follow the link. I would suggest the following:
    "[He] finished second in an international tournament at Amsterdam, ahead of some well-known masters like Isidore Gunsberg."
    Please note that I would have the same remark for other parts of the text. SyG (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that for a few years Gunsberg was one of the top five but these days no-one mentions him. How about using Chessmetrics Player Profile: Isidor Gunsberg and saying "... Gunsberg, whom Chessmetrics ranks as number two in the world from September 1888 to September 1889" - and leaving the other refs in too, possibly with all the cites rolled up into 1 footnote? --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have tried to do that by pointing out that he was number two in the world at that date. See if you like it. SyG (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thanks! --Philcha (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At New York 1893 he won all of his thirteen games, one of the few times in chess history that a player has achieved a perfect score in a significant tournament".
    Maybe it is so exceptional that we could give as a footnote the list of other times when it happened ? SyG (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
"perfect score" wikilinks to List_of_world_records_in_chess#Perfect_tournament_and_match_scores, which I think is a little tooo long for a footnote. --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, now I realise there are more than I thought, my mistake. I will strike that remark out. SyG (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the existing tag was valid provided before Oct 2008. But I've changed it to "PD-old" in case they change the rules again! --Philcha (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. SyG (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess 1894–1918

[edit]
Issues resolved
  • Done The first and the second paragraph deal with the two matches against Steinitz, but most of the text talks about the negociations and criticisms of the match. Very few is said about the matches themselves. The only sentences focused on the match are the following:
"The match was played in 1894, at venues in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal. Lasker won convincingly (ten wins, four draws, five losses); the scores were even after six games but Steinitz lost the next five in a row. [...] [Lasker] confirmed his title by beating Steinitz even more convincingly in their re-match in 1896–1897 (ten wins, five draws, two losses)."
This seems like a very fast way of treating a World Championship. I would expect at least one paragraph talking about each match, maybe not presenting each game in detail but at least a few more hints about what happened. SyG (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. There really seems to be little commentary about either match, and the 1896-1897 match was very one-sided. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a few lines on the first match against Steinitz. I will expand the second match a bit latter. SyG (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, none of the sources I've seen said Steinitz took a time-out and came back stronger, they just say it was an easy win for Lasker. My respect for Steinitz (pretty high already) has gone up a notch. --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW can you insert a page range or chapter / section heading in the ref to Guide des Échecs - then I'll copy the material into Wilhelm Steinitz. --Philcha (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the page number. Here is the exact text of Giffard:

Jeune homme courtois, bien élevé, [Lasker] n'eut aucune parole désobligeante envers son vieil adversaire. Sa modestie contrastait avec les déclarations d'avant match de Steinitz, pour qui la victoire ne faisait aucun doute.

Après que Lasker eut gagné la première partie, Steinitz déclara qu'il avait une position gagnante, fit une étourderie, puis, de déception, gâcha le reste de la partie. Le match dura un peu plus de deux mois, partagé entre New York, Philadelphie et Montréal. Mené de 5 points avant les 8 premières parties, Steinitz tint pour responsable ses nombreuses insomnies, demanda un repos d'une semaine, suivi un traitement à base de massages, et reprit effectivement le match dans de meilleures dispositions puisqu'il grignota 2 points de l'avance de Lasker. Ce ne fut pas suffisant.

Steinitz ne put admettre avoir perdu contre plus fort, et il réclama un match revanche pour le mois de décembre suivant. Lasker n'était pas pressé, Steinitz dut attendre deux ans.

And here is a tentative translation:

A courteous young man, with good manners, [Lasker] did not have any offending word for his old opponent. His modesty contrasted with Steinitz's public statements before the match, for whom victory was out of doubt.

After Lasker won the first game, Steinitz declared he had a winning position, made a blunder, then spoiled the rest of the game in frustration. The match lasted slightly more than two months, split between New York, Philadelphia and Montréal. Five points down before the eight last games, Steinitz accused his numerous insomniae, asked for a one-week rest, followed a treatment based on massages, and indeed resumed the match in much better shape as he nibbled two points from Lasker's lead. It was eventually not enough.

Steinitz could not admit having lost against stronger opposition, and he asked for a revenge match for next December. Lasker was not in a hurry, Steinitz was to wait two years.

SyG (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you mention, I have found little to say on the second match against Steinitz, so if you agree this one is done. SyG (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. BTW I've finally pasted your additional material about the 1894 match into Wilhelm Steinitz - many thanks! --Philcha (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done It seems the paragraph starting with "Emanuel Lasker answered these criticisms by..." deals with achievements in tournaments whereas the next one, starting with "Lasker's match record was..." deals with achievements in matches. But then the match against Schlechter should be in this second paragraph, not in the first one. SyG (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine in World's Great Chess Games lists as Laskers most serious "failures" in this period the tournaments where he failed to fininsh 1st and the Schlechter match. I intended this sentence as a "lead" for this para (mainly tournaments), and the next 2 (most of his matches, and the Schlechter mystery). --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As we are dealing extensively with Schlechter's match in a following paragraph, I would suggest to wipe it out from the first paragraph (the one starting with "Emanuel Lasker answered these criticisms..."), so that this paragraph only contains tournaments. SyG (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --Philcha (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done "Lasker's match record was as impressive..." as what ? as his match record before 1894 ? or as his tournament record ? (or probably my rusty English is fooling me ?) SyG (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the natural comparison is with the string of tournament wins. However I know from experience that your English is a lot better than that of the typical 12-year-old that is my target reader. How about getting a second opinion from a native speaker? --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that may be slightly confusing is that the former paragraph also includes a match, the one against Schlechter. Hence that would get against the implicit interpretation "...as the string of tournament wins". But if you reckon that is clear enough, good for me. SyG (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will trust you on that one and strike it out. SyG (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done "It is generally regarded as a World Championship match, but one post-match press report cast doubt on this."
    If most sources regard it as a World Championship and only one post-match press report does not, this last one is probably not significant. We could discard it, or put it in footnotes. SyG (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The course of the match mystified everyone at the time and since, so there have been some pretty wild guesses then and since. Even the usually reliable The Encyclopaedia of Chess by Anne Sunnucks tries this explanation: "In 1910 Lasker could only draw a so-called championship match of 10 games with Schlechter" (from Google Books' extract in the search "lasker schlecter 1910"). Perhaps I've got the sentence the wrong way round, and it would be better to say, "One post-match press report said it was not a World Championship match, but it is generally agreed that it was." --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now me is confused. The example you cite with Anne Sunnucks seems to show that "it is generally doubted that this match was a real World Championship", and not that "it is generally regarded as a World Championship match". It seems there is more than just one single post-match press report that casts doubt on this ? SyG (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that no-one can understand why Schlechter turned down an easy draw (with a superior position) in game 10. Pachman (Decisive Games in Chess History) calls it "an inexplicable psychological mystery". Fine, a psychoanalyst, is very brief about this match in both the "Emanuel Lasker" and "Carl Schlechter" sections of World's Great Chess Games, saying as little as possible - very uncommon for him! Wild speculations started right after the end of the match (not a championship match, 2-game lead clause, not in the player's interests for Schlechter to win) and continues to Keene's "Schlechter was too honorable". You're not alone in your confusion! --Philcha (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then, how about "It is generally regarded as a World Championship match, but some sources put this in doubt in view of the strange outcome of the match.", and then we put in the footnotes your quote of Sunnuck ? SyG (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done I would suggest to rename this section from "Chess 1894–1918" to "Chess competitions 1894–1918", as chess is also talked about in the latter section "Other activities 1894-1918". SyG (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thanks, done. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done "Lasker was shocked by the poverty..." This paragraph comes like a fly in the oilment. I would suggest to add a new section "Criticism and controversies", or maybe "Personality" to place a description of Lasker-the-real-man. SyG (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I omitted a "Personality" section because there seems to be a lack of genuinely reliable sources - Taylor Kingston and Johannes Fischer both consider established commentaries such as Fine's and Hannak's to be too reverential. Lasker's desire to extract the maximum financial gain from being World Champion showed up in delaying the challenges of Marshall (1904; played 1907), Rubinstein (1912; not played) and Capa (1911; played in 1921 after a few more controversies). The best alternative place might be section "Influence on chess". --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS while looking for an answer to another of your queries, I found 4170. Lasker and money - Lasker was well-off mid-1890s to 1933 - ? despite losses on German War Bonds in 1914-1918?. --Philcha (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After thoughts, a "Personality" section is probably not worth it, so I would agree with your proposal to place everything about the money in the section "Influence on chess". SyG (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done In the section "Other activities 1894–1918", the link of the first reference, titled "Chess World's Doings; Lasker to Test Rice Gambit", does not work on my computer. SyG (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I re-tested this evening and now it works. SyG (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above and the scores - Lasker hardly paused to take his coat off. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the match against Marshall as long as one full sentence. I intend to expand the other matches latter. SyG (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"as long as one full sentence" - ROFL --Philcha (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have eventually found a bit of time to write on the match against Tarrasch, with a new bold full set of writing skills: diagrams, quotes, several sentences and even a few references ! SyG (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←And you didn't crash the whole of Wikipedia into italics :-)
More seriously, I think there are some difficulties here:
  • "was so dogmatic a player that he was nicknamed the praeceptor germaniae" makes "praeceptor germaniae" sound satirical. Fine in World's Greaat Chess Games (admittedly a source I trust less and less on chess history) uses "praeceptor germaniae" as a tribute to the influience of T's writings and suggests he became "praeceptor mundi" (chapter on Tarrasch). The king and I (obit of Unzicker, by Short) also uses the term as a compliment. Nimzovitch et l'hypermodernisme is in Frech, so you're better qualified to judge whether this uses "praeceptor germaniae" as a compliment, sarcasm or neutral (and whether you consider this a reliable source). The following say that T. proclaimed himself "praeceptor germaniae": Thought and Choice in Chess (de Groot; p 32; de Groot is / was a psychologist with no track record in chess history; the snippet at Google Books (search result for "The King: Chess Pieces" by Donner et al); etc. Discussion about the origin and use of "praeceptor germaniae" would probably be useful in Siegbert Tarrasch, but I suggest Emanuel Lasker should steer clear of this mess.
You are right, I certainly did not want to use "praeceptor germaniae" in a satirical sense, even if his principles eventually restricted Tarrasch's natural talents. I have changed the sentence accordingly. SyG (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen another version of "For you, Dr Lasker, I will have only one word to say: checkmate" e.g. "I will have only three words: check and mate" - Mark Weeks, The Atlantic Times. Whichever version the article uses, I think the ref should note the other version, with citations.
I will keep your version, as my reference is in French and I had to translate it, so better to stick to the common English story. SyG (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no doubt that Tarrasch hated Lasker, but the implication that Lasker actually hated Tarrasch is at odds with the usual view of Lasker as a guy who kept his cool. Can you produce anything to support that? Chess in the Year 1908 (Tim Harding, who AFAIK has never given reason to doubt his relaibility) says, "Tarrasch refused attempts at reconciliation," but also "what we really need are thoroughly researched modern biographies of the two grandmasters, which do not exist in English."
Here is what my source (Giffard) says in French:

Lasker and Tarrasch se détestaient cordialement, et ne le cachaient pas dans leurs écrits. Tarrasch considérait Lasker comme un joueur de café, ne remportant ses victoires que grâce à des pièges peu glorieux. Lasker s'en prenait à l'orgueil démesuré du praeceptor germaniae qui brillait plus dans les salons que sur l'échiquier.

And here is a possible translation, where I have changed the verb "to hate" by "to dislike", maybe more appropriate here:

Lasker and Tarras intensely disliked each other, and did not hide it in their writings. Tarrasch considered Lasker as a coffeehouse player, winning games only thanks to unglorious traps. Lasker mocked the arrogance of the praeceptor germaniae who shone more in salons than in front of the chessboard.

SyG (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "... of the praeceptor germaniae who in his opinion shone more in salons ..." (i.e. it's Lasker's opinion, not Giffard's), then I like that better than the current text. It's concise and has real bite (not to mention snarl, miaow, etc.) --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented your suggested change. SyG (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re game 2 of the 1908 match, after playing through at chessgames.com it I think it look like a good example of how much better Lasker understood dynamics (see Kramnik on Lasker's superior grasp of dynamics) - Tarrasch's combination at move 15 looks clever and leaves Lasker with a quite ugly position, but it turns out by move 23 that Lasker can build up a K-side attack much faster, and by move 36 Tarrach is trussed and roasted like a Christmas turkey. However the commentary at Chess in the Year 1908 says Lasker's 14... Ng4 was an attempt to escape "difficulties", T's 15 Bxg7 should have given T a winning position, but 19 Qxa7 was a mistake. I have to go with the commentary (WP:NOR). The commentary at also say the game is an example of Lasker's view that "a policy of seeking complications was preferable, if he got into positional difficulties, than submitting himself to a positional struggle". I've looked unsuccessfully for other commentaries on the game. My own feeling is that this game is too long and has too many debatable points to go in the main text. I'd suggest putting it in "Notable Games" and cite Chess in the Year 1908 about Lasker seeking complications in inderior positions - but we have quite a lot of games already. Re the diagram, I'm not sure it's the right position to choose but I'm not sure what would be the best one. If we keep the diagram I think the caption should link to chessgames.com.
I have added the link to ChessGames in the caption, as you suggest. I agree with you the game is too long to go fully in the main text, that is why I only reproduced the typical position that is presented by my source. Tarrasch played 15.Fxg7 because he thought the resulting position would be in his favour, not only because of the pawn ahead (I do not think Tarrasch was a pawn grabber), but also because of the static aspects of the position (doubled pawns, bad bishop). Alas, Lasker was to demonstrate the dynamic aspects of the position (weakened king, possible pawn thrusts in the center) outweighted the static ones. In other words, this game gives a summary both of the development of the match, and of the difference of conception between Tarrasch and Lasker. SyG (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "Tarrasch was thinking he would win easily", did T commnet on this after the game?
Not that I know of, and my source is more general. I have changed the sentence accordingly. SyG (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being such a pain!
PS I found this while searching - you might enjoy it. --Philcha (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No pain at all, my sentences are always eagerly waiting for improvements. And thanks for the link, it was an enjoyable read. SyG (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the coverage on Janowski. Although the coverage of Marshall is still light, I think on the whole 3 paragraphs for these 3 world championships is roughly adequate. Have a look. SyG (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the paragraph on the match against Schlechter deals with the 10th game. I agree this is the most important one, especially with such a dramatic outcome. But I would also like to have some hints on what happened before, like the swindle that is briefly mentioned. SyG (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a run through the 10 games would be too long. However Decisive Games in Chess History by Ludek Pachman gives nice summary, which I could mention in a footnote after "... in 1910 by winning the last game that was played". --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could also include in the footnote game 5, which Lasker lost from what should have been a winning position. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1918 – end of life

[edit]
Issues resolved
  • Done "Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, gained dictatorial powers in March 1933, and in April 1933 started a campaign of discrimination and intimidation against Jews. Lasker and his wife Martha, who were both Jews, left Germany in 1933, and all their assets in Germany were confiscated."
I find the first sentence a bit long, as it is only there to give a context. I would propose the following:
"In 1933, due to the campaign of discrimination against Jews started by Adolf Hitler, Lasker and his wife Martha left Germany, and all their assets there were confiscated".
SyG (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have been unable to discover exactly when the Laskers left. Lasker: New Approaches says, "It speaks for Lasker's political insight, that he, unlike so many others, was under no illusions whatsoever about the nature of the new German rulers. It also indicates his inner strength that with 65 years of age he decided to give up all his possessions in Germany and went into exile," which makes appear as if he decided to get out before things became much, much worse. OTOH Unknown Quantity (by John Derbyshire; a history of maths; 2006; p. 235) says, "The Nazis confiscated all of their property and drove them penniless out of their homeland." I've asked Karakatoa if he has any info. If not, I think it's best for the article to tiptoe round this, for example, "In April 1933 Adolf Hitler began a campaign of discrimination and intimidation against Jews. Lasker and his wife Martha, who were both Jews, left Germany in 1933, and all their assets in Germany were confiscated." --Philcha (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Krakatoa's research indicates Lasker was pushed:
"It may well be that, but for the stormy events of 1933, Lasker would have lived out his life contentedly in the quiet retirement of his country home. But it was not to be, and for the Laskers, no less than for so many Germany Jews and other anti-Nazis, the advent of the Hitler régime meant the loss of their property and citizenship, it meant being uprooted from their home and forced into exile." Dr. J. Hannak, Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master, Simon and Schuster, 1959, p. 268.
"As a result of the persecution of Jews he and his wife were driven out of Germany in 1933 and their property confiscated." David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed. 1992), p. 218.
"In 1933 he and his wife left Germany. Their property confiscated, he had to begin all over again." Anne Sunnucks, The Encyclopaedia of Chess, St. Martin's Press, 1970, p. 275.
So I've revised the text. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is very well for me. SyG (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. --Philcha (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could add Kramnik's comment that Lasker seem to play fairly well - which I suppose would imply (without saying so explicitly) that Capa consistently played a little better, and thus won 4 and lost none. --Philcha (talk)
Added Kramnik's comment. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chess strength and style

[edit]
Issues resolved
  • Done "Richard Réti even speculated that Lasker would sometimes knowingly choose inferior moves if he knew they would make his opponent uncomfortable." A reference would be nice. SyG (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why Lasker matters and How to defend in chess (review) cover it all, down to "... counterattacking and complicating the game before a disadvantage became serious." --Philcha (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I cannot find a mention of Réti in your second reference. Anyway, your first reference is enough to back the claim, so I have added it in the article. I understand, however, that in this reference Watson is quoting Soltis, himself quoting Réti, so we are very far from the original source. I would have loved to find the quote, but I could not find it in Modern Ideas in Chess, the only book from Réti I have. SyG (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5679. Deliberately bad play says it was in Masters of the Chessboard". --Philcha (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a ref to 5679. Deliberately bad play in the existing footnote about Reti's statement. --Philcha (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done "Even when Lasker was in his late 60s, Capablanca considered him the most dangerous player around in any single game." This seems to have little to do with Lasker's skills in openings ? SyG (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first half of the para is about openings, the 2nd half about Lasker's skill generally, and especially Capa's opinion. This sentence was in before I started on this article. I've looked for a ref and have asked others to do so, with no result. I'm prepared to delete the sentence, as there's enough well-sourced material about Capa's high opinion of Lasker's skill. --Philcha (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I have removed the sentence. SyG (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have several concerns with the paragraph on the famous game against Capablanca with the exchange variation:
  1. In the first sentence, Kramnik's explanation is presented as a rebuttal that Lasker had a "psychological" style. However Kramnik is talking about the moves of the game, and not about the choice of the opening itself. Also, no deep positional understanding could beat Capablanca by itself, as this was exactly the style in which Capablanca was a genius. SyG (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole of the opposing argument is that Lasker psyched out Capa in 1914, by choosing a drawish variation when he needed a win. Kramnik's part of the rebuttal is that, once the game started, Lasker outplayed Capa. "no deep positional understanding could beat Capablanca by itself" sounds a little like hero-worship of Capa or an insinuation that Lasker used voodoo :) --Philcha (talk)
Yep, I agree my argument is not 100% scientific :-) However, the beauty of choosing this variation at that moment is much more sophisticated than just choosing a drawish variation. See my more detailled explanation lower. SyG (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The third sentence starts a long list of facts, in a very heavy style as the sentence runs on 6 lines. And then there is no clear conclusion: what do these facts tell us ? I guess the conclusion would be something like "Thus Lasker could possibly have chosen this opening just because he used to win with it", but this is not stated for the moment. SyG (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could cut it down to " However an analysis of Lasker's use of this variation throughout his career concludes that he had excellent results with it as White against top-class opponents, and sometimes used it in "must-wins situations" - and put the details in the footnote. --Philcha (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a good solution, provided this analysis and conclusion are done by a referenced, reliable, authoritative source. SyG (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The paragraph does not explain why this choice of opening was considered as very psychological: the winning endgame that White has from the start, the compensation of the two bishops that Black must use actively, the fact that Capablanca's position in the tournament made it difficult to play this opening appropriately, etc. SyG (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time everyone except Lasker thought the Exchange Variation was harmless (see the quote from Fine a sentence or 2 earlier) and Fine, being a psychiatrist, thought it was a psych-out. --22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
PS do you have a ref for the view you've just presented? While I've seen enough to discount the idea that "Lasker played inferior moves to unsettle opponents", I remember something that said Lasker did choose openings that made opponents uncomfortable if he thought they were actually OK - and there's already the Capa ref that Lasker disagreed with contemporary evaluations of some openings. --Philcha (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the analysis I have always been presented with for that game. In this opening, White has a very simple way to win: exchange all pieces, and then the K+P ending is winning because White can create a passed pawn on the kingside while Black cannot do the same on the queenside. Hence White has a strong positional advantage from the start. This advantage is balanced (and even slightly more) by the advantage of the two bishops for Black. But that means Black has to play actively to maintain the balance. He has to open the position for his bishops, keep the right pieces, push his pawns to harrass the knights, etc. And this is exactly what Capablanca, being sole first, was not in the mood to do. So this is a bit more elaborated than just going into a drawish variation randomly chosen. In reality, if Black does not react in the appropriate way, the exchange variation is winning "in line" (as we say in France). SyG (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is consistent with what Taylor Kinston's review (more informative than Watson's, IMO) of Why Lasker Matters says about Lasker's ability to create positions where errors by himself were less serious than errors by his opponents - starting with 4.BxNc6 in this case. Do you have a ref for it?
Of course this is not the same as the Reti / Fine idea that Lasker played the man, not the board - he played what he considered good moves but, where there were equally good choices, tried to tempt his opponents into errors. --Philcha (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on chess

[edit]
Issues resolved
  • Done "Lasker's Defense to the Evans Gambit (which effectively ended the use of this gambit in tournament play)" We should precise that it was ended only until Kasparov revived it. SyG (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've made me look, Evans Gambit gives a 1963 win by Fischer against Fine - from whom I got the pronouncement of death! - as well as a couple of wins by Kasparov. According to Tim Harding, Kasprov's revival of the Evans was short-lived. OTOH MCO, 2008 edition, p. 26 says that the previous edition's prediction of a decline in the Evans had been falsified. Since this article is about Em. Lasker, and is unlikely to be updated every time the latest view of the Evans changes, I suggest the furthest it should go is "(which effectively ended the use of this gambit in tournament play until the 1960s)" and summarize the other points in the footnote. --Philcha (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS while looking for an answer to another of your queries I found 4202. Pillsbury’s opening preferences in 1901 recommends the Lasker Defense or refusal of the Evans Gambit. --Philcha (talk)
I have implemented your suggestion in the text. SyG (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the Evans Gambit item to "until a revival in the 1990s", citing MCO (2000). --Philcha (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends and relatives

[edit]
Issues resolved
  • Done I would like to know more on Einstein's relationship with Lasker. How did they meet ? What did they discussed ? What was Einstein's opinion on chess, and on Lasker ? Was Lasker knowledgeable enough in physics to get a grasp on Einstein's theories ? SyG (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein friendly with Lasker in the 1930s but disliked the competitive nature of chess - Einstein and the Generations of Science by Lewis Samuel Feuer, chapter=Prologue, p. xxxiv; World Chess Championship 2001-02 Braingames & Einstein quotes Einstein's foreword to Hannak's biography of Em. Lasker, "I have to confess that I have always disliked the fierce competitive spirit embodied in that highly intellectual game [of chess]."
Lasker contributed "a mere eight lines, criticizing Einstein for giving a finite velocity to the speed of light" to the book "A Hundred Authors against Einstein" - The Attraction of Gravitationby John Earman, Michel Janssen, John D. Norton - p 257, chapter=The Reaction to Relativity in Germany: III A Hundred Authors against Einstein. From the same source: the Theory of Relativity was generally accepted in germany in the 1920s, but interest declined as the theory offered few testable predictions, and quantum mechanics took centre-stage; "A Hundred Authors against Einstein" was a booklet consisting of 28 short signed statements agains the Theory of Relativity (Special or General); the organisers of this included a handful of scientists who had opposed Einstein in the 1920s, and most of whom later supported Hitler and / or other right-wing groups. The booklet eventually begame part of Nazi propaganda against "Jewish science". Lasker's comment is dumb, as James Clark Maxwell calculated the speed of light in a vacuum in 1864. I don't know whether Lasker was pressured into contributing to "A Hundred Authors against Einstein", and his comment is so dumb that it may have been a coded disavowal of "A Hundred Authors against Einstein" (see theories that mis-spellings and other errors in Alexander Alekhine's anti-Semitic articles were coded messages). The whole thing's not worth bothering with.
David Hilbert, Lasker's mentor at Erlangen, worked on the Theory of Relativity (Erlangen, by Gary C. Fouse, p 207 , so it's a fair bet that Lasker knew quite a lot about Einstein arounf 1905, when Einstein published the Special Theory of Relativity - but without WP:RS, ...
That's all Google's got me. IMO only Einstein's dislike of chess is usable. --Philcha (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few lines, including a quotation from Einstein on Lasker. SyG (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice quote - how did I miss it? But Lasker did not understand physics well enough, as Einstein's "Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers" gently points out - see History of special relativity for all the 1890s and early 1900s work that Lasker did not grasp. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have removed the mention of Lasker's criticism of Einstein's theories. SyG (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the thought for the deed - I've removed it. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be possible to expand this part slightly further, but I will thake that as done for the sake of this GA-review. SyG (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable games

[edit]
Issues resolved
  • Done We may have a disagreement here, but... who find these games notable ? I mean, I would prefer that each of these game is referenced in a book that presents it, because if we Wikipedians consider these games are more notable than others, I would consider that as WP:OR. SyG (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added these refs. --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is great, thanks for your understanding ! SyG (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Match results

[edit]
Issues resolved
Google gives only 4 pages of results for "lasker showalter match logansport kokomo" and none of them gives the state of either town. --Philcha (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have dewikified them, until we know more. SyG (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the article as GA-class

[edit]

After all this work (doh!) on the article, here is my assessment of the article against the Wikipedia:Good article criteria:

  1. Well-written:
    No problem that I can see. The chess jargon is avoided as far as possible, there are few lists, and the Lead is appropriate.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    Abundantly referenced, and no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    Parts of the article could probably be slightly summed up further or put in footnotes, but not to the point where I would call it "unnecessary detail".
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    No problem on that side, although the part dealing with Lasker's style may be seen as slightly biased towards contemporary judgment that Lasker's style was not psychologic.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    The article has been abundantly changed during this review, but I do not think it counts as an edit war.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    Images that did not have correct copyright status have been removed.

So I am passing this article as GA-class. Congratulations to Philcha for all his superb work ! SyG (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering

[edit]

Minor point: when you're discussing the first Steinitz-Lasker match, you start out using words for the games: (first, second, sixth), then you switch to numbers (11th, 12th etc.). WP:MOSNUM says you're supposed to use one or the other in a passage, not switch - even when you go from below ten to above ten. Krakatoa (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God, you're crotchety after that FA review :-) Changed all to numerals as there are a few above 10. Personally I prefer numerals, but some reviewers get grumpy about them. In future I'll use WP:MOSNUM against them, thanks for reminding me >-)
I'll let you off with the American use of "through" (at least it wasn't "thru"), since you're right, it is more precise in this case.
Thanks for the additional refs! --Philcha (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the U.S., I've seen T-shirts for sale posing the question, "Does anal retentive have a hyphen?" FA reviewers are the kind of people who have a firmly established position on that. :-) Krakatoa (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'll love this on my Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's exactly the sort of thing one encounters on FA and GA review. Krakatoa (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

Consider using these someplace:

  • Viktor Korchnoi, of Lasker: "My chess hero." - quoted by Soltis in Why Lasker Matters, page 3.
  • Mikhail Tal: "The greatest of the champions was, of course, Emanuel Lasker." Soltis, page 3 again.
  • "He had an immense influence on younger players in the Soviet Union, and Tal and Korchnoi, in particular, regarded Lasker as their chess hero." Crouch, Colin (2000). How to Defend in Chess. Everyman Chess. p. 115. ISBN 1-85744-250-4. Krakatoa (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gr8, they're in, although when I searched for the Korchnoi text I think I've got the actual source. Many thanks!
BTW I was about to save my response then you added the Crouch one - edit conflicts occasionally have their uses. --Philcha (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emanuel_Lasker/GA1&oldid=293290629"