Here's the difference between 20th Century Chess and 21st century chess: Nowadays, a position like that seen at 3:38 would probably be considered a draw and not even played out.
Vielen Dank. Eine sehr interessante Serie. Mich würde die Partie Nummer 5 des WM Kampfes zwischen Lasker und Schlechter aus dem Jahr 1910 interessieren.
Thanks again for all your hard work Mato! I subscribe to a few chess channels and you are top of the league. I have a question or two. You must spend a lot of time analysing games and choosing which ones to show us. For each video you produce, how many games do you go through, on average? And how much time in total do you spend, per day or per week, analysing old chess games? Thanks!
What no blitz games to decide the championship? I think it’s a travesty the way the world championship is decided nowadays. They tied well ties go to the champion no speed chess. Another wonderful attacking game with a great back story. Thanks again Mato, you never fail to impress.
Lasker was perhaps the greatest player in chess history in positions in which he needed to defend an inferior position. He didn't study opening theory all that much and often defended weak positions when he had the black pieces. Even so, he was especially hard to defeat in such positions.
A philosophical question: If one cannot beat a World Champion, one does not deserve to become a World Champion. That statement appears uncontroversial. However, if a World Champion cannot defeat an opponent, does he deserve to be the World Champion? To answer my own question. Clearly, being World Champion doesn't mean that you can never be beaten. It is simply an arbitrary title given under set conditions. If the challenger agrees to the conditions, then fails to meet the standard, the incumbent retains the title. Still, the recent Carlsen-Caruana 2018 WC series brings these 100-year old questions into frame.
Champions who cannot beat, only tie their challengers deserve to remain Champions based simply on the idea that you have to have somebody as a world champ, and if no better champ can be found, then the current champs is the most logical choice. Another question is: why continue with the Candidates/Challenger/Champ model? Why not just put all players into a tournament and the winner is the champ? This would be more fair. However I'm not sure I prefer it. I like the continuity with the old chess practice and I think the notoriety of Chess increases with this format.
This is what I hate about queen endgames! You can have a very good position when boom, something went wrong! One tiny mistake and you’re dead! I think Lasker's mistake was trying to hide his king in the open field. An old friend of mine might have described it as “The Spread Legs' Defence”.
Vielen Dank. Eine sehr interessante Serie. Mich würde die Partie Nummer 5 des WM Kampfes zwischen Lasker und Schlechter aus dem Jahr 1910 interessieren.
Here's the difference between 20th Century Chess and 21st century chess:
Nowadays, a position like that seen at 3:38 would probably be considered a draw and not even played out.
Thank you so much, dear Mato!
Thank you Mato for this instructive and beautiful game! I love this endgames with pawns and heavy pieces.
Dobar Video Mato. Pozdrav iz Turska.
Great game and analysis. Thank you!
Great game. Thanks Mato!
"Between a rook and a hard place.:" Mato
Very nice game. It's interesting to see that even the longest reigning world champion Lasker also commits mistakes.
Leatn little from victory and much from defeat.
Thx Mato
Thank u coach for this lesson ♥️
Wow that took a quick and surprising turn. Was almost sure black was going to take it! Thanks mato
Vielen Dank. Eine sehr interessante Serie. Mich würde die Partie Nummer 5 des WM Kampfes zwischen Lasker und Schlechter aus dem Jahr 1910 interessieren.
Very nice!
Thanks mato
Great game!
thanks Mato
Very good game , thanx , I liked how it ended
Hi Mato! I've always been your fan since the beginning. I'm curious, what is your current Elo rating - USCF or FIDE?
Thanks again for all your hard work Mato! I subscribe to a few chess channels and you are top of the league.
I have a question or two. You must spend a lot of time analysing games and choosing which ones to show us. For each video you produce, how many games do you go through, on average? And how much time in total do you spend, per day or per week, analysing old chess games?
Thanks!
It may take 3 hours to make 5 min video
Thanks for your efforts, Mato!!!
TKS.
What no blitz games to decide the championship? I think it’s a travesty the way the world championship is decided nowadays. They tied well ties go to the champion no speed chess. Another wonderful attacking game with a great back story. Thanks again Mato, you never fail to impress.
Damo Hanson i don’t think introduction of blitz (only as a backup) is necessary a bad idea
Pure chess. A game of wits.
Very nice. :)
Nice !
Awesome
Lasker was perhaps the greatest player in chess history in positions in which he needed to defend an inferior position. He didn't study opening theory all that much and often defended weak positions when he had the black pieces. Even so, he was especially hard to defeat in such positions.
A philosophical question:
If one cannot beat a World Champion, one does not deserve to become a World Champion. That statement appears uncontroversial.
However, if a World Champion cannot defeat an opponent, does he deserve to be the World Champion?
To answer my own question.
Clearly, being World Champion doesn't mean that you can never be beaten. It is simply an arbitrary title given under set conditions.
If the challenger agrees to the conditions, then fails to meet the standard, the incumbent retains the title.
Still, the recent Carlsen-Caruana 2018 WC series brings these 100-year old questions into frame.
@Oissev Onos I agree with your position.
Thanks for contributing and have a good day yourself!
Champions who cannot beat, only tie their challengers deserve to remain Champions based simply on the idea that you have to have somebody as a world champ, and if no better champ can be found, then the current champs is the most logical choice.
Another question is: why continue with the Candidates/Challenger/Champ model? Why not just put all players into a tournament and the winner is the champ? This would be more fair. However I'm not sure I prefer it. I like the continuity with the old chess practice and I think the notoriety of Chess increases with this format.
What do I think? I think it's a shame that they didn't keep playing until there was a clear winner
Waiting chance to make best of the best possible right solutions for any things.
Can you also show the game between Schleter and Reti
I've often found myself between a rook and a hard place. Didn't work out for me either...
That's all, folks!
Sclechter vs Alekhine ??
Demanding two points ahead. Lasker seemed to be a really bad sportsman.
This is what I hate about queen endgames! You can have a very good position when boom, something went wrong! One tiny mistake and you’re dead!
I think Lasker's mistake was trying to hide his king in the open field. An old friend of mine might have described it as “The Spread Legs' Defence”.
Glad you agree.
Yes, I have extreme difficulty in those Q/R endgames. Tiny mistake= dead.
Vielen Dank. Eine sehr interessante Serie. Mich würde die Partie Nummer 5 des WM Kampfes zwischen Lasker und Schlechter aus dem Jahr 1910 interessieren.