Laskers whole point of using exchange Spanish, is that Capa only needed a draw, so he would play for a safe draw. But in this line, black gets the two bishops and an open board, so the most promising play would be to go to the offense. Which he didn't do. This was probably the most brilliant psychological trap in chess history. Directing the game where your opponent didn't want to go.
No matter what sport or game you do, the people that come after you will have an advantage. They have the privilege of studying past games and players and then can capitalize on these understandings
Right, these players function the same was as modern players. The moves and tactics they play are just a reflection of their environment. It's the same with rts games
Not only this, but they have been able to study game theory with AI and learn how computers that far outperform humans play and how they value situations. Also just the fact that they can study games with stockfish to see best possible moves in situations give modern players a massive experience advantage to old players.
The argument wasn't that they were as talented or more so, it was that Lasker would dominate today which is worthy of being clickbait with how much the game has advanced since then.
@@AntiquatedApe Advanced as in moved foreword yes, but gotten better no. The same things that worked in the past don't work anymore you can see this across the entire progression of chess, or any sport/game. And this has been accelerated with ai. You will get lower elo if you play a lower player in a none recognized way even if you beet them harder. And moves that don't work on lowewr level players work on high level ones. All that has changed is the context of every move.
@@notmissunity8240 "The same things that worked in the past don't work anymore" that is absurd. If that were true there would be no chess openings no defenses no gambits no lines no anything. My favorite opening for white the Ponziani is mentioned as early as the late 1400s. If it didn't work today nobody would play it.
@@AntiquatedApe My statement is just a general statement to how things involve with rapid acceleration. Things may still work and infact ai has opened more opportunities in chess. But the context changes, and metas change. The statement "the same things in the past don't work anymore," is just a general statement to how the game evolves, and not everything that used to work still works. Just because one thing ore multiples things work that used to work. Doesn't prove it wrong. I could have used a better example on how mid games are almost entirely maped out between high level players. Not all high level players to clarify. But you'll make a raven fallacy as you have.
I’ve often thought the older generation of players could give modern players a hard time. Fischer Karpov Tal Alehekine could easily hang with todays field. Your videos are outstanding I only wish there were more. Keep putting out great content sir!!
Fischer played Nigel Short in the early 2000s in online blitz. The number 2 rated blitz player in the world got crushed by very unusual opening play from Fischer. Mind you this is before Chess engines were anywhere even close to GM level, and most moves were far from stockfish 16's top recommendations
Tal beat Kasparov while he was actually within days of his death, and won. He was the most fascinating chess player who ever lived. And he wrote epic chess books. He was a meteor who was on the top ten his entire adult life. No one was safe from him. I wish I could have met him. Bobby Fischer feared few players... except him.
Just remember that player from the past today would have the same tools that all other players. Imagine what Tal, Fisher or Casparov combinations would look like if they worked on their lines with modern tools. I think there are about the same strength. Casparov said that about Carlsen.
Fischer would be a menace with modern tools given how he played without them. Him being about 50 years too early to use computers to get a deeper understanding of plays that look "inhuman" to traditional chess strategies sounds disgusting.
Today's chessplayers would come up with some crazy engine prep and give the masters of the past a hard time during the opening phase of the game. But if the masters of the past survive that their ability to play decent strategic chess would save their day.
Certainly, Lasker, Alekhine, and Capablanca would face significant challenges against today's top chess players. The evolution of chess over the past century has been immense. Contemporary players have a deeper theoretical grasp of the game and benefit from rigorous training schedules. While the legends of the past were undoubtedly masters in their time, they lacked the physical conditioning of modern players, which is crucial given the demanding nature of current tournaments. That said, their prowess in their era was unquestionable, but adapting to the modern game would be a daunting task.
@@joerichardson6107 When the people compare the great players of the past with the current one they do not assume that Capablanca will come now will learn the new chess theory and have time to adapt to the new way of playing. They assume that you take the player from the past and he will perform at the top level today. Which is clearly false.
My old computer tought 5:22 minutes Capablanca-Reti game move and solved! Same computer tought 4:37 minutes Kasparov-Kramnik! The computer telling the truth Capablanca better than Kasparov! Fischer beat weak awful Spassky 17 wins 11 losses! Capablaca would beat Spassky 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat Spassky 6 wins 6 draws zero losses! Caruana scored 8,5/10 in St Louis scoring elo rating world record 3080! Karpov 11/13 in Linares 1994 elo score 3040! Alekhine in San Remo 1930 elo score 3040! Fischer and Kasparov their best tournament scores only 2990!
So you are saying they would take years to absorb all of the advancements in chess that have gone on since they played? If that's the case, and we are giving them ten years at least to catch up, yes I think they could compete. If you are taking them from their personal peak and having them sit across from Magnus, he will absolutely destroy them.@@joerichardson6107
Very smooth conversion. Positional domination by lasker. I don’t really look at classical games bc I don’t feel like it helps my rating but games like this make me want to.
The AI engines all say differently as the older players percent accuracy is woefully behind - even in these supposedly simpler and more direct positions.
Very modernesque game, not at all the swashbuckling classical stuff (if that even makes sense). A bit before exchange sacs was a big thing. Thanks for the great presentation John
The thing that has “advanced” most notably is opening theory which goes sometimes all the way to the endgame. As for the ending , there’s been advances in theory but in practice , if you compare quality of ending play from elite players of 100+ years ago with engine , you can say that the best could have no trouble nowadays. As for middle game calculation in irrational positions still shows that the elite players from the past are at least as accurate as modern players. Other factors play too like time controls but overall really” opening “ theory (which includes structures and middle game plans, even the ending at times) would be decisive but bring the best Capa,Alekhine, Lasker with motivation and engine prep , that’d be awesome although Capablanca + book probably would be like Karpov or Alekhine’s + Book = Kasparov or something.
What a complex game. This seems like the hardest part of chess for me. An endgame with lots of pieces still on the board. Somehow the middlegame seems simpler if you know the pawn structures and standard plans.
will Keymer finally be the next German Worldchampion after more than a 100 years we enjoyed Lasker? Great game, great analysis. Thank you for the video. I really enjoy some of the classics of chess :)
The biggest difference, as we all know, is engines. What the best players of today know that the best players of 100 years ago did not is entirely brought upon by computers. I think that the older generation of players definitely has as good of a positional understand as players of today, but their knowledge of what is or isn't good in theory suffers compared to those today because, as many top players have said time and time again, "Engines have taught us that you can basically play anything and be alright." Even if you took away the contemporary theory advantage of today's players, the engine-like knowledge of tactical play would still allow the top 10 of today to mostly outplay the top 10 of before. This game is a great example of positional play, but most games today hardly end up being positional, that's the issue. Classical chess has transformed from the constant slow positional game to the tactic-heavy, engine-like play we see now. There are moves that any 2800 today would play in an instant that the likes of stockfish would rejoice in that you couldn't pay a 2700 in 1914 to play for a billion dollars. That's the difference. The knowledge of playing style and which moves to look at has been so enhanced by engines that only people like Tal or Fischer (who already played much like brilliant engines even if it didn't always work out) could stand amongst the top 10 today. Not saying Lasker would be a 2600, but there's a clear gap between someone like Magnus or Hikaru and a 2700 like Dubov.
My old computer tought 5:22 minutes Capablanca-Reti move and solved! Same computer tought only 4:37 minutes Kasparov-Kramnik move and solved! The computer telling the truth Capablanca better than Kasparov! Fischer beat weakest champion Spassky 17 wins 11 losses! Capablanca would beat awful blunder maker Spassky 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat Poor Spassky 6 wins 6. Draws zero losses! Caruana scored 8,5/10 in St Louis scoring elo rating tournament world record 3080! Karpov in Linares 1994 elo score 3040! Alekhine in San Remo 1930 elo score 3040! Fischer beat Spassky in 1992 10 wins 5 losses 15 draws! Spassky was 2558 rating world ranking 162th! Fischer 58,33% win over Spassky gives Bobby Fischer 2617,7 rating! Fischer was at 49 years old! Lasker won the New York Tournament in 1924 at 55 years old scoring 2870 rating!
The tactical brilliance of some of these older players is insane. Theory can only take you so far, but when you get into the midgame and endgame you have to be able to compete. I think some people like Morphy woudl at least hold their own against mid-tier GMs today if not higher. I think the super GMs, though, and the knowledge from computers, may be too much for older generations who didn't even have that as an option
Bobby Fischer even learnd Russian to improve his playstyle, so of course he would today also use any modern device like a Chess engine or other modern methods
@@-ZHThe same also applies for other sports/games ..e.g. table tennis with different racket (invention of the rubber with sponge, treatment of the sponge with different chemicals etc), different ball (size, material), more athleticism, etc... it's not the same sport in the 1960s vs. 1980s vs. 2000s. vs. today
@@ravanpee1325 if you consider that our current population is much larger than back then then it is very likely for the very top chess players to be more talented on average than the best of the past. Obviously this isn’t certain though.
It was 6-2 in Capa’s favor. Lasker won here and in 1935, as the other comment mentions. Kingscrusher analyzed the game a few years ago. Lasker had a strong attack, won Capa’s queen, and shuffled until adjournment so he could find the breakthrough, and Capablanca resigned
When I was very young, my first Chess book was from Lasker. It really helped me out and so I have a soft spot for him. I too feel that the old-guys would have adapted and brought themselves 'up-to-curve' and been competitive. Thanks for making this video and showing us great play from the past...
All the critiques of older players assume that they wouldn't be able to spend a few days with a computer analyzing lines. Modern chess has no endgames because it's all about memorizing computer prep. You'd never see someone trade a bishop for a knight early on followed by a queen exchange these days -- because the computers don't calculate it as a first 20 moves advantage.
Fischer learned Russian just so he could read more chess literature and get better. If he had engines he would’ve been ahead of anyone else. It’s absurd to say the classic players couldn’t compete today.
When you are the undisputed champion for Consecutively 27 years and no one else has come close to it yet, you have be considered the best player of all time.
If you took players from the earlier eras of competitive chess and put them in today's environment they would adapt. They would study current games and theory and adjust their play accordingly. They would still have their own unique approaches to the game while being mindful of how it has changed and be very strong players.
I got a chess board for Christmas and one of the people that was over with the family is a board game aficionado you know the type almost 60 single lived with his mom until she passed stayed in her home afterwards... Not trying to be judgmental or condescending in any way just giving the facts. Anyway I asked him if he wanted to play and he said yes. I play a little bit online my ELO is 700 on a good day and one of my shortcomings is I don't know any openings or any theory. He also does not and sure enough we had a pretty good game I came out on top at the end but I had a discussion with him about how many of the players I have noticed have memorized openings and memorized traps so if you don't know how to get through the first part of the game you end up in a huge disadvantage. I think this has a lot to do with people from early in history of the game where there hasn't been as much analysis. hope that made sense
Theory had already advanced the game a lot, when computers revolutionised it. Today's young players can analyze their games in ways the players of old could only dream of. Assuming that intelligence stays a constant, modern players with modern tools will achieve better results as they can train much faster and with higher accuracy.
The top players of yesteryear indeed were the same as the top players of today, but, as GM Nunn proved examining tournament games for average errors, the master tournament players of yesteryear were on average worse players than the average masters of today.
Because of the tools nowadays, these errors are considered errors now that we have engines. But the point is simple, bring some of these champs, give them the same tools and some adaptation and they will beat the crap out of the best today.
@@relaxeddude3096 I would like to think that's true. But the "Flynn Effect" says every generation is smarter than the one before. BUT, the "reverse Flynn Effect" says *post* 2000, the kids are actually not as smart as before. So maybe you are right...for the current generation.
My old computer tought 5:22 minutes Capablanca-Reti move and solved! Same computer tought only 4:37 minutes Kasparov-Kramnik move and solved! The computer telling the truth Capablanca better than Kasparov! Fischer beat awful Spassky only 17 wins 11 losses! Capablanca would beat weak Spassky 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat poor blunder maker Spassky 6 wins 6 draws zero losses! Caruana scored 8,5/10 in St Louis scoring tournament world record elo rating 3080! Karpov 11/13 in Linares 1994 elo score 3040! Alekhine in San Remo 1930 elo score 3040! Fischer and Kasparov their best tournament scores only 2990!
ELO is a relative measurement. It changes based on who you are playing against. All this is really showing is how much better these people performed relative to their peers during that specific tournament. I could also be outperforming all the other 1st graders at my school, but I still wouldn't know much of anything when compared to different cohorts, especially adult PhDs.
Hi, I notice that the best players of the past have remarkable signatures in his game and are popular, for example Capablanca engames, Tal Sacrifices, Petrosian Defense, Kasparov calculation but what about the less popular that people dont talk about, they also should have something distintive right? Im 1100 rated.
yes, absolutely. IM Rashid Nezhmetdinov was a stellar attacker (crazier than Tal), GM Seraiwan was a master of unusual Caro-Kann play, Judit Polgar played the King's gambit with a lot of success, and so on. Lots to explore in those games, and those of other top players as well if you so choose!
Rudolf Spielmann - literally wrote the book on sacrifices; Schlechter - draws; Nimzovitch - "First restrain, then blockade, then destroy;" Alekhine - deep combinations.
In measurable sports: the stars of the past obviously can't compete with modern dominant players. But when it's unmeasurable, people get nostalgic and naively (yet honestly) believe that Brazil of 1970 would beat any team! and so would the 90's bulls or Ali or Lasker. This is all, disappointingly , just not true. Every single top 100 player of today, would obliterate Lasker 8 or 9 out of every 10 matches. That's just the way it is
If brought down to simply "who would win?", anyone could given the right circumstances. Brazil 1970 has to be taken in their context at the time, which was a team that packed 6 number 10s and improvised their way to a third World Cup. Of course that's an over simplification, but that essentially what Zagallo did, and it worked far better than anyone might have reasonably expected back then. That sort of improvisation has never been seen since at the World Cup. I mean, Holland in 1974 were the best of the rest, but Total Football is a deliberate system, not improvisation, and well, they lost that Final. I'm of the opinion that they deserve the hype they get. Once it's based on what they accomplished in their time. The comparisons are a waste of time, because we would never know, and plus the tactical superiority of today among other advancements are built upon ideas from the 1970s and before.
@@hiranom20100% agree with what you're saying. It's just that the question I find more interesting to investigate (or at least think about), is the question of WHY people so often honestly think that the superstars of the past would defeat the champions of today, even though it is very very clear, that in every measurable aspect or parameter, there is tremendous improvement. This is of course much more of a question about people, than it is about sports
@@RoyPitchon Yeah. As someone who's inching toward 40, I'm starting to understand it's partly a mad grab to hold onto what we once knew. To hold onto a time where the world was viewed with rose-tinted glasses.
Lasker wouldn't be able to compete in today's world, just as today's champions wouldn't be able to compete professionally in the past times. What we have today isn't chess---its the illusion of a previously strategic game that allowed room for a beautifull creativity which is nowdays bein reduced to one that rewards lifetime memorization and repetition Of course he wouldn't be able to compete, as unlike today GMs, he acttualy was a chess player. And this isn't even harsh.
Games like this showcase the modern understanding of "a knight on the 6th supported by a pawn, is worth at least a rook." In many positions like this, the point eval often goes above 3 points for white above. Kasparov or any modern GM wouldn't hesitate to move the bishop back to c8 and eliminate the knight. Lasker showed what weaknesses could be exploited in such positions. As the white knight became an powerful octopus, the dark bishop became no more than a tall pawn.
Resources and a larger human population have led to more great chess players in quantity today. But the best of the best back then are just as talented as those today, they just had less knowledge gained in total accumulation over the decades.
I think morphy is arguably the best player of all time. The thing is, all the greats got so good by learning from their peers and from the past, and had opportunities to play against people much better than them. Players today are good because you can do endless tactics trainer online, play people much better than you from across the world, etc. The thing about morphy is that he was so insanely far ahead of all of his peers that it’s not clear how he ever got that good. No one was even close. He taught us about the power of piece activity and attacking chess. All in all, morphy compared to his contemporaries is like how Magnus today would compare to club players. If all Magnus had to play against and learn from were club players, I doubt he would ever come close to the strength he is now, so how did morphy get so good?
e5 is the top choice of "modern" computers? I've tried several old engines, and even some crappy ones with 2300 ELO find e5 quite easily within seconds. Yes, it's a great move, but even an old weak computer engine will find it.
Alireza would prefer to invite Lasker instead of GM Fedorchuk, provided that good Manni had the appropriate rating. And Hikaru would make Kramnik go nuts about him farming poor Lasker.
I think computers have sort killed chess magic. Psrt of the greatness in this game in the genius m8nd innovation, not memorizing things you saw on a computer
I propose a change in chess rules. Don't allow resignation. If a player knows he or she is beaten at any point, they have to go through with the plays and.... also, change the ending so it doesn't end at checkmate. The king is STILL ALIVE! Capturing him hasn't even happened so.... once he's checked to where he can't escape, he must capture ONE of the attackers and get mass murdered by another one. Then the winner gets to do the cutting throat motion and gloat for up to 10 seconds then they shake hands and say good game. HEHEHEHE Now, that would invigorate the whole thing, yes? Losers have to go through the demoralizing endings and.... if they CHOOSE to just walk away... they are banned from any current tournament they are doing. ! That would be GREAT. But middle finger to the loser or vulgar words etc would not be allowed during the gloat period. hahahah man... these are great ideas! Someone needs to make this happen in these high profile tournaments. Official chess tournament rules.
Today chess is played based on memory, with te exception of very few players there is no imagination, no new openings no new concepts, Kramnik and Leko are examples of players who were not willing to take chances at all, lets see how the new generation does
i completely agree. i'm somehow less impressed with the modern chess champions like Hikaru and Carlsen compared to legends like Morphy, Capablanca, Lasker, Fischer and others. i feel that the beauty of chess is being killed by the deemphasis on classical games, which i love studying, especially the games of the men i just mentioned, and i feel the predominance of speed chess has drowned out the beauty of classical chess (i admit i cannot play speed chess very well, i need to take my time to calculate to play a good game, but i also choose not to because i dislike it). moreover, the computerization of chess has caused even more problems. all that to say, the old school of chess > modern chess.
I agree the great players of the past can compete with todays top GMs. Assuming they are on the equal footing with the use of chess engines in their preperation.
one thing is lacking with todays most generation chess players... the innovation and adaptation during the game. moat of the time they rely on simulation. once the move does not goes tp the simulation, they lost.
The game today is much more about memorization than it use to be. Computers have solved chess so its less on the individual coming up with ideas and more about remembering the computer line. Hard to say how the old greats would do with that, some of them may be better now than they were in their own time while others would likely be worse.
Computers have no where near solved chess, short term and in the opening moves, there are optimal forms of play but to say chess is anywhere close to solved is ridiculous.
I mean they would have the talent but this isn’t about talent it’s about a ridiculous difference in knowledge. The difference in opening theory, having completely solved endgames up to 7 pieces, computer evaluations and alphazero tactics, pattern recognition and knowledge from a century of extra games. Etc etc This is like those people acting like Capa can hold his own because of his accuracy, totally naive of the fact accuracy is only impressive if the competition is high level and the positions difficult and complex. There is a reason 1200 players can get an accuracy of 90+… their positions are very simplistic. There is not a super GM alive that thinks they won’t slaughter anyone from a past era if those would get no time to adjust or redo their childhood in the modern era.
my fav player of all time is Alekhine. But i think these old folk would have the shock of their lives if they plyed now. They would get obliterated! just my opinion. i am only rated about 1800, so there is a lot i do not understand....
It's hard to compare because there are a lot of what ifs involved. I don't think that Lasker or any of the other far past greats would be able to compete against the top GMs today if you just plucked them from the past and put them in today's tournaments. Even the commentary sort of showed that by referencing Kasparov's superior understanding of positional dynamics in analyzing Capablanca's moves. But if you took them from the past and exposed them at a young age to modern chess and resources then perhaps they would be competitive.
"Simple and clear"? That's not my understanding of Lasker at all.. He would take on cramped positions and play provocatively with dubious moves. Capa and Rubinstein were simple and clear, not Lasker.
Laskers whole point of using exchange Spanish, is that Capa only needed a draw, so he would play for a safe draw. But in this line, black gets the two bishops and an open board, so the most promising play would be to go to the offense. Which he didn't do. This was probably the most brilliant psychological trap in chess history. Directing the game where your opponent didn't want to go.
Your analysis, game selection and commentary are way better than those of the usual GMs or IMs on TH-cam. Splendid channel. Thank you!
No matter what sport or game you do, the people that come after you will have an advantage. They have the privilege of studying past games and players and then can capitalize on these understandings
Right, these players function the same was as modern players. The moves and tactics they play are just a reflection of their environment. It's the same with rts games
Not only this, but they have been able to study game theory with AI and learn how computers that far outperform humans play and how they value situations. Also just the fact that they can study games with stockfish to see best possible moves in situations give modern players a massive experience advantage to old players.
Modern players aren’t better, just modern theory. Talent is timeless.
The argument wasn't that they were as talented or more so, it was that Lasker would dominate today which is worthy of being clickbait with how much the game has advanced since then.
@@Dagoldenshizzlei wouldn't say advanced. I would say modern theory and players have prioritized different aspects of the game
@@AntiquatedApe Advanced as in moved foreword yes, but gotten better no. The same things that worked in the past don't work anymore you can see this across the entire progression of chess, or any sport/game. And this has been accelerated with ai. You will get lower elo if you play a lower player in a none recognized way even if you beet them harder. And moves that don't work on lowewr level players work on high level ones. All that has changed is the context of every move.
@@notmissunity8240 "The same things that worked in the past don't work anymore" that is absurd. If that were true there would be no chess openings no defenses no gambits no lines no anything. My favorite opening for white the Ponziani is mentioned as early as the late 1400s. If it didn't work today nobody would play it.
@@AntiquatedApe My statement is just a general statement to how things involve with rapid acceleration. Things may still work and infact ai has opened more opportunities in chess. But the context changes, and metas change. The statement "the same things in the past don't work anymore," is just a general statement to how the game evolves, and not everything that used to work still works. Just because one thing ore multiples things work that used to work. Doesn't prove it wrong. I could have used a better example on how mid games are almost entirely maped out between high level players. Not all high level players to clarify. But you'll make a raven fallacy as you have.
Lasker's jumping into an early endgame with Capablanca was startling in itself. He then proceeded to take the wizard's scepter and choke him with it.
I’ve often thought the older generation of players could give modern players a hard time. Fischer Karpov Tal Alehekine could easily hang with todays field. Your videos are outstanding I only wish there were more. Keep putting out great content sir!!
Fischer played Nigel Short in the early 2000s in online blitz. The number 2 rated blitz player in the world got crushed by very unusual opening play from Fischer. Mind you this is before Chess engines were anywhere even close to GM level, and most moves were far from stockfish 16's top recommendations
Tal beat Kasparov while he was actually within days of his death, and won. He was the most fascinating chess player who ever lived. And he wrote epic chess books. He was a meteor who was on the top ten his entire adult life. No one was safe from him. I wish I could have met him. Bobby Fischer feared few players... except him.
maybe that generation but not laskers
fischer was close to 2800 thats not the subject he talks lasker who was barely 2600
How can you compare Elo, when it depends on the competition? If they played today, they would have learned new things as well.
Just remember that player from the past today would have the same tools that all other players. Imagine what Tal, Fisher or Casparov combinations would look like if they worked on their lines with modern tools. I think there are about the same strength. Casparov said that about Carlsen.
Fischer would be a menace with modern tools given how he played without them.
Him being about 50 years too early to use computers to get a deeper understanding of plays that look "inhuman" to traditional chess strategies sounds disgusting.
Today's chessplayers would come up with some crazy engine prep and give the masters of the past a hard time during the opening phase of the game. But if the masters of the past survive that their ability to play decent strategic chess would save their day.
modern day masters have traning tools to hone their skills chess is a game of progression walking on shoulders of giants
This game is legendary, and rightly so! Thx for sharing!
Def my fav chess channel. You’re commentary is excellent. Thanks so much!
Against Capablanca such clean game this is legend.
Certainly, Lasker, Alekhine, and Capablanca would face significant challenges against today's top chess players. The evolution of chess over the past century has been immense. Contemporary players have a deeper theoretical grasp of the game and benefit from rigorous training schedules. While the legends of the past were undoubtedly masters in their time, they lacked the physical conditioning of modern players, which is crucial given the demanding nature of current tournaments. That said, their prowess in their era was unquestionable, but adapting to the modern game would be a daunting task.
Not really, they would take advantage of the modern benefits
@@joerichardson6107 When the people compare the great players of the past with the current one they do not assume that Capablanca will come now will learn the new chess theory and have time to adapt to the new way of playing. They assume that you take the player from the past and he will perform at the top level today. Which is clearly false.
My old computer tought 5:22 minutes Capablanca-Reti game move and solved! Same computer tought 4:37 minutes Kasparov-Kramnik! The computer telling the truth Capablanca better than Kasparov! Fischer beat weak awful Spassky 17 wins 11 losses! Capablaca would beat Spassky 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat Spassky 6 wins 6 draws zero losses! Caruana scored 8,5/10 in St Louis scoring elo rating world record 3080! Karpov 11/13 in Linares 1994 elo score 3040! Alekhine in San Remo 1930 elo score 3040! Fischer and Kasparov their best tournament scores only 2990!
What physical conditioning? Chess is played sitting in a chair this isn’t gymnastics or weightlifting
So you are saying they would take years to absorb all of the advancements in chess that have gone on since they played? If that's the case, and we are giving them ten years at least to catch up, yes I think they could compete. If you are taking them from their personal peak and having them sit across from Magnus, he will absolutely destroy them.@@joerichardson6107
your analysis is very instructive thank you so much!
Your channel is quickly becoming my favorite for analysis. You have a knack for selecting interesting games. Please continue.
Very smooth conversion. Positional domination by lasker. I don’t really look at classical games bc I don’t feel like it helps my rating but games like this make me want to.
love your videos dude! so close to 10k subs
The AI engines all say differently as the older players percent accuracy is woefully behind - even in these supposedly simpler and more direct positions.
WTFFF THIS WAS A BEAUTIFUL GAME THANK YOU DAWG
Congratulations to you for 10 k subs...when I subscribed you I was the 100 or 200 one
Thank you!
Very nice game sir and nice analysis. And loved the idea that clear simple chess still works today. Than you!
Great Analysis!
One of my favorite games of all time!
Brilliant! And without having to resource to computers, it's just utterly astonishing! It's impossible to compare with nowadays chess.
Beautiful game, You gain my subscription
Very modernesque game, not at all the swashbuckling classical stuff (if that even makes sense). A bit before exchange sacs was a big thing. Thanks for the great presentation John
The thing that has “advanced” most notably is opening theory which goes sometimes all the way to the endgame. As for the ending , there’s been advances in theory but in practice , if you compare quality of ending play from elite players of 100+ years ago with engine , you can say that the best could have no trouble nowadays. As for middle game calculation in irrational positions still shows that the elite players from the past are at least as accurate as modern players. Other factors play too like time controls but overall really” opening “ theory (which includes structures and middle game plans, even the ending at times) would be decisive but bring the best Capa,Alekhine, Lasker with motivation and engine prep , that’d be awesome although Capablanca + book probably would be like Karpov or Alekhine’s + Book = Kasparov or something.
Very clear thinking by Lasker.
A very elegant style of play
Not only enjoying but gaining experience as well from the mistakes of of others.
The true Short and Sweet = subscribed
Beautiful!
What a complex game. This seems like the hardest part of chess for me. An endgame with lots of pieces still on the board. Somehow the middlegame seems simpler if you know the pawn structures and standard plans.
That was beautiful
I always was a fan of Lasker.. a “fighter!”
Chess Dawg is the mf BIG DAWG!! Love his analysis - on par with Agadmator no nonsense, romantic, clever and entertaining
Thanks for the kind words.
@@chessdawgdude you’re awesome we want more of you
Thanks! 27 years as world champion! Unequaled since!
will Keymer finally be the next German Worldchampion after more than a 100 years we enjoyed Lasker? Great game, great analysis. Thank you for the video. I really enjoy some of the classics of chess :)
I'm scared of the exchange variation! Jeez! There's probably some good games for black too.
Analyze accuracy first of Capablanca's moves first then Lasker's
The biggest difference, as we all know, is engines. What the best players of today know that the best players of 100 years ago did not is entirely brought upon by computers. I think that the older generation of players definitely has as good of a positional understand as players of today, but their knowledge of what is or isn't good in theory suffers compared to those today because, as many top players have said time and time again, "Engines have taught us that you can basically play anything and be alright." Even if you took away the contemporary theory advantage of today's players, the engine-like knowledge of tactical play would still allow the top 10 of today to mostly outplay the top 10 of before. This game is a great example of positional play, but most games today hardly end up being positional, that's the issue. Classical chess has transformed from the constant slow positional game to the tactic-heavy, engine-like play we see now. There are moves that any 2800 today would play in an instant that the likes of stockfish would rejoice in that you couldn't pay a 2700 in 1914 to play for a billion dollars. That's the difference. The knowledge of playing style and which moves to look at has been so enhanced by engines that only people like Tal or Fischer (who already played much like brilliant engines even if it didn't always work out) could stand amongst the top 10 today. Not saying Lasker would be a 2600, but there's a clear gap between someone like Magnus or Hikaru and a 2700 like Dubov.
My old computer tought 5:22 minutes Capablanca-Reti move and solved! Same computer tought only 4:37 minutes Kasparov-Kramnik move and solved! The computer telling the truth Capablanca better than Kasparov! Fischer beat weakest champion Spassky 17 wins 11 losses! Capablanca would beat awful blunder maker Spassky 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat Poor Spassky 6 wins 6. Draws zero losses! Caruana scored 8,5/10 in St Louis scoring elo rating tournament world record 3080! Karpov in Linares 1994 elo score 3040! Alekhine in San Remo 1930 elo score 3040! Fischer beat Spassky in 1992 10 wins 5 losses 15 draws! Spassky was 2558 rating world ranking 162th! Fischer 58,33% win over Spassky gives Bobby Fischer 2617,7 rating! Fischer was at 49 years old! Lasker won the New York Tournament in 1924 at 55 years old scoring 2870 rating!
@@RaineriHakkarainenI'm legitimately trying to understand what you are saying.
The tactical brilliance of some of these older players is insane. Theory can only take you so far, but when you get into the midgame and endgame you have to be able to compete. I think some people like Morphy woudl at least hold their own against mid-tier GMs today if not higher. I think the super GMs, though, and the knowledge from computers, may be too much for older generations who didn't even have that as an option
Bobby Fischer even learnd Russian to improve his playstyle, so of course he would today also use any modern device like a Chess engine or other modern methods
@@ravanpee1325
But whats the point if we also give them the technology? Thats just pitting modern day players against each other.
@@-ZH That's the point to see what is talent and what is just context...
@@-ZHThe same also applies for other sports/games ..e.g. table tennis with different racket (invention of the rubber with sponge, treatment of the sponge with different chemicals etc), different ball (size, material), more athleticism, etc... it's not the same sport in the 1960s vs. 1980s vs. 2000s. vs. today
@@ravanpee1325 if you consider that our current population is much larger than back then then it is very likely for the very top chess players to be more talented on average than the best of the past. Obviously this isn’t certain though.
Great game
Very nice, thank you. I think this was the only time Lasker won against Capa.
Lasker also defeated Capa in Moscow 1935!
It was 6-2 in Capa’s favor. Lasker won here and in 1935, as the other comment mentions. Kingscrusher analyzed the game a few years ago. Lasker had a strong attack, won Capa’s queen, and shuffled until adjournment so he could find the breakthrough, and Capablanca resigned
This game is fantastic, will ever be. One used to say that Lasker’s play was crystal clear, with a droplet of venom. Here too.
Maybe! But do not forget that there was no time control at these days - a move could take hours
That stopped in 1851.
When I was very young, my first Chess book was from Lasker.
It really helped me out and so I have a soft spot for him.
I too feel that the old-guys would have adapted and brought themselves 'up-to-curve' and been competitive.
Thanks for making this video and showing us great play from the past...
All the critiques of older players assume that they wouldn't be able to spend a few days with a computer analyzing lines. Modern chess has no endgames because it's all about memorizing computer prep. You'd never see someone trade a bishop for a knight early on followed by a queen exchange these days -- because the computers don't calculate it as a first 20 moves advantage.
Fischer learned Russian just so he could read more chess literature and get better. If he had engines he would’ve been ahead of anyone else. It’s absurd to say the classic players couldn’t compete today.
When you are the undisputed champion for Consecutively 27 years and no one else has come close to it yet, you have be considered the best player of all time.
Chess players who despise chess players from the past often overestimate themselves.
I don't think anyone despises them.
If you took players from the earlier eras of competitive chess and put them in today's environment they would adapt. They would study current games and theory and adjust their play accordingly. They would still have their own unique approaches to the game while being mindful of how it has changed and be very strong players.
Why no exchange sacrifice on e6 by Capablanca?
Capablanca must have thought: "Ai, ai, ai - how did I get caught in this locker room brawl!".
I got a chess board for Christmas and one of the people that was over with the family is a board game aficionado you know the type almost 60 single lived with his mom until she passed stayed in her home afterwards... Not trying to be judgmental or condescending in any way just giving the facts. Anyway I asked him if he wanted to play and he said yes. I play a little bit online my ELO is 700 on a good day and one of my shortcomings is I don't know any openings or any theory. He also does not and sure enough we had a pretty good game I came out on top at the end but I had a discussion with him about how many of the players I have noticed have memorized openings and memorized traps so if you don't know how to get through the first part of the game you end up in a huge disadvantage. I think this has a lot to do with people from early in history of the game where there hasn't been as much analysis. hope that made sense
Watching Lasker at work was like taking a science class with Sir Issac Newton.
Theory had already advanced the game a lot, when computers revolutionised it. Today's young players can analyze their games in ways the players of old could only dream of. Assuming that intelligence stays a constant, modern players with modern tools will achieve better results as they can train much faster and with higher accuracy.
The top players of yesteryear indeed were the same as the top players of today, but, as GM Nunn proved examining tournament games for average errors, the master tournament players of yesteryear were on average worse players than the average masters of today.
Because of the tools nowadays, these errors are considered errors now that we have engines. But the point is simple, bring some of these champs, give them the same tools and some adaptation and they will beat the crap out of the best today.
@@relaxeddude3096 I would like to think that's true. But the "Flynn Effect" says every generation is smarter than the one before. BUT, the "reverse Flynn Effect" says *post* 2000, the kids are actually not as smart as before. So maybe you are right...for the current generation.
@@raylopez99 thanks for the Flynn reference gonna research a bit more about it.
Modern players have memorized gimmicks and are hyper aggressive. If you can make it past their tricks they blow a gasket and fold.
Tell me you don’t understand chess without telling me you have no clue what you are talking about XD
May be some of his games are clear and simple but most of his games are complex and weird.Refer Gary Kasporov's book "My Great Predecessors".
@0:56 Did I hear Fischer?
That's assuming the modern champions would play like Capablanca played... the top chess guys would probably never got it his position.
My old computer tought 5:22 minutes Capablanca-Reti move and solved! Same computer tought only 4:37 minutes Kasparov-Kramnik move and solved! The computer telling the truth Capablanca better than Kasparov! Fischer beat awful Spassky only 17 wins 11 losses! Capablanca would beat weak Spassky 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat poor blunder maker Spassky 6 wins 6 draws zero losses! Caruana scored 8,5/10 in St Louis scoring tournament world record elo rating 3080! Karpov 11/13 in Linares 1994 elo score 3040! Alekhine in San Remo 1930 elo score 3040! Fischer and Kasparov their best tournament scores only 2990!
ELO is a relative measurement. It changes based on who you are playing against. All this is really showing is how much better these people performed relative to their peers during that specific tournament.
I could also be outperforming all the other 1st graders at my school, but I still wouldn't know much of anything when compared to different cohorts, especially adult PhDs.
Hi, I notice that the best players of the past have remarkable signatures in his game and are popular, for example Capablanca engames, Tal Sacrifices, Petrosian Defense, Kasparov calculation but what about the less popular that people dont talk about, they also should have something distintive right? Im 1100 rated.
yes, absolutely. IM Rashid Nezhmetdinov was a stellar attacker (crazier than Tal), GM Seraiwan was a master of unusual Caro-Kann play, Judit Polgar played the King's gambit with a lot of success, and so on. Lots to explore in those games, and those of other top players as well if you so choose!
Rudolf Spielmann - literally wrote the book on sacrifices; Schlechter - draws; Nimzovitch - "First restrain, then blockade, then destroy;" Alekhine - deep combinations.
Yes, everyone can have a distinctive style or part of the game they do better in.
I hate this stigma of modern chess infallibility
I like you videos. But slow down a little. Give us a little more detail.
chess is transparent fun begins when color it)
Plz upload the png with the games
In measurable sports: the stars of the past obviously can't compete with modern dominant players.
But when it's unmeasurable, people get nostalgic and naively (yet honestly) believe that Brazil of 1970 would beat any team! and so would the 90's bulls or Ali or Lasker.
This is all, disappointingly , just not true.
Every single top 100 player of today, would obliterate Lasker 8 or 9 out of every 10 matches. That's just the way it is
If brought down to simply "who would win?", anyone could given the right circumstances.
Brazil 1970 has to be taken in their context at the time, which was a team that packed 6 number 10s and improvised their way to a third World Cup.
Of course that's an over simplification, but that essentially what Zagallo did, and it worked far better than anyone might have reasonably expected back then.
That sort of improvisation has never been seen since at the World Cup. I mean, Holland in 1974 were the best of the rest, but Total Football is a deliberate system, not improvisation, and well, they lost that Final.
I'm of the opinion that they deserve the hype they get. Once it's based on what they accomplished in their time. The comparisons are a waste of time, because we would never know, and plus the tactical superiority of today among other advancements are built upon ideas from the 1970s and before.
@@hiranom20100% agree with what you're saying. It's just that the question I find more interesting to investigate (or at least think about), is the question of WHY people so often honestly think that the superstars of the past would defeat the champions of today, even though it is very very clear, that in every measurable aspect or parameter, there is tremendous improvement.
This is of course much more of a question about people, than it is about sports
@@RoyPitchon Yeah. As someone who's inching toward 40, I'm starting to understand it's partly a mad grab to hold onto what we once knew. To hold onto a time where the world was viewed with rose-tinted glasses.
Studying the classics is pushing your elo when it’s done deeply
yeah but listen to top players talk about the works of nimzovitch now they call it trash like a science new data often undermines old beliefs
" all champions have one thing in common they rise to the level of competition they are facing regardless of the era." - Joe Rogan
Lasker wouldn't be able to compete in today's world, just as today's champions wouldn't be able to compete professionally in the past times.
What we have today isn't chess---its the illusion of a previously strategic game that allowed room for a beautifull creativity which is nowdays bein reduced to one that rewards lifetime memorization and repetition
Of course he wouldn't be able to compete, as unlike today GMs, he acttualy was a chess player.
And this isn't even harsh.
Games like this showcase the modern understanding of "a knight on the 6th supported by a pawn, is worth at least a rook." In many positions like this, the point eval often goes above 3 points for white
above. Kasparov or any
modern GM wouldn't hesitate to move the bishop back to c8 and eliminate the knight. Lasker showed what weaknesses could be exploited in such positions. As the white knight
became an powerful octopus, the dark bishop became no more than a tall pawn.
well said
Chess is different today, bcause memory got more important, if Lasker would not adjust, he would fail against modern GMs
People today have this exact belief about everything. They assume our ancestors were dumber than we are simply because we have new technology or ideas
Resources and a larger human population have led to more great chess players in quantity today. But the best of the best back then are just as talented as those today, they just had less knowledge gained in total accumulation over the decades.
I think morphy is arguably the best player of all time. The thing is, all the greats got so good by learning from their peers and from the past, and had opportunities to play against people much better than them. Players today are good because you can do endless tactics trainer online, play people much better than you from across the world, etc. The thing about morphy is that he was so insanely far ahead of all of his peers that it’s not clear how he ever got that good. No one was even close. He taught us about the power of piece activity and attacking chess. All in all, morphy compared to his contemporaries is like how Magnus today would compare to club players. If all Magnus had to play against and learn from were club players, I doubt he would ever come close to the strength he is now, so how did morphy get so good?
e5 is the top choice of "modern" computers? I've tried several old engines, and even some crappy ones with 2300 ELO find e5 quite easily within seconds. Yes, it's a great move, but even an old weak computer engine will find it.
Alireza would prefer to invite Lasker instead of GM Fedorchuk, provided that good Manni had the appropriate rating. And Hikaru would make Kramnik go nuts about him farming poor Lasker.
I think computers have sort killed chess magic. Psrt of the greatness in this game in the genius m8nd innovation, not memorizing things you saw on a computer
Every new generation always assumes itself being better than the previous one😅
I propose a change in chess rules. Don't allow resignation. If a player knows he or she is beaten at any point, they have to go through with the plays and.... also, change the ending so it doesn't end at checkmate. The king is STILL ALIVE! Capturing him hasn't even happened so.... once he's checked to where he can't escape, he must capture ONE of the attackers and get mass murdered by another one. Then the winner gets to do the cutting throat motion and gloat for up to 10 seconds then they shake hands and say good game. HEHEHEHE Now, that would invigorate the whole thing, yes? Losers have to go through the demoralizing endings and.... if they CHOOSE to just walk away... they are banned from any current tournament they are doing. ! That would be GREAT. But middle finger to the loser or vulgar words etc would not be allowed during the gloat period. hahahah man... these are great ideas! Someone needs to make this happen in these high profile tournaments. Official chess tournament rules.
Today chess is played based on memory, with te exception of very few players there is no imagination, no new openings no new concepts, Kramnik and Leko are examples of players who were not willing to take chances at all, lets see how the new generation does
at least we all know that he would never beaten physiologically against Carlsen like Nepo did.
i completely agree. i'm somehow less impressed with the modern chess champions like Hikaru and Carlsen compared to legends like Morphy, Capablanca, Lasker, Fischer and others. i feel that the beauty of chess is being killed by the deemphasis on classical games, which i love studying, especially the games of the men i just mentioned, and i feel the predominance of speed chess has drowned out the beauty of classical chess (i admit i cannot play speed chess very well, i need to take my time to calculate to play a good game, but i also choose not to because i dislike it). moreover, the computerization of chess has caused even more problems. all that to say, the old school of chess > modern chess.
I agree the great players of the past can compete with todays top GMs. Assuming they are on the equal footing with the use of chess engines in their preperation.
I agree with you but the modern players just have so much more practice against a variety of players than the old players.
The thing is that the older players in a modern context also could use modern tools or theories..
one thing is lacking with todays most generation chess players... the innovation and adaptation during the game. moat of the time they rely on simulation. once the move does not goes tp the simulation, they lost.
And they didn't have computer analysis in those days.
"Modern Chess Sucks". That's funny, because it's true.
The game today is much more about memorization than it use to be. Computers have solved chess so its less on the individual coming up with ideas and more about remembering the computer line. Hard to say how the old greats would do with that, some of them may be better now than they were in their own time while others would likely be worse.
Computers have no where near solved chess, short term and in the opening moves, there are optimal forms of play but to say chess is anywhere close to solved is ridiculous.
you got tunnel vision
I mean they would have the talent but this isn’t about talent it’s about a ridiculous difference in knowledge. The difference in opening theory, having completely solved endgames up to 7 pieces, computer evaluations and alphazero tactics, pattern recognition and knowledge from a century of extra games. Etc etc
This is like those people acting like Capa can hold his own because of his accuracy, totally naive of the fact accuracy is only impressive if the competition is high level and the positions difficult and complex. There is a reason 1200 players can get an accuracy of 90+… their positions are very simplistic.
There is not a super GM alive that thinks they won’t slaughter anyone from a past era if those would get no time to adjust or redo their childhood in the modern era.
my fav player of all time is Alekhine. But i think these old folk would have the shock of their lives if they plyed now. They would get obliterated! just my opinion. i am only rated about 1800, so there is a lot i do not understand....
Lasker would be destroyed by any player above 2550 with any decent preparation, Magnus would eat him alive with 1 minute on the clock
My phone can beat anyone.
let's be real now🤦
Schelecter beat him and was denied as world champion by his sly politics...
The meek Schelecter was truly a good champion.
It's hard to compare because there are a lot of what ifs involved. I don't think that Lasker or any of the other far past greats would be able to compete against the top GMs today if you just plucked them from the past and put them in today's tournaments. Even the commentary sort of showed that by referencing Kasparov's superior understanding of positional dynamics in analyzing Capablanca's moves. But if you took them from the past and exposed them at a young age to modern chess and resources then perhaps they would be competitive.
"Simple and clear"?
That's not my understanding of Lasker at all.. He would take on cramped positions and play provocatively with dubious moves.
Capa and Rubinstein were simple and clear, not Lasker.
Emmanuel Lasker is too smart for Magnus Carlsen!
Then do Lasker tomorrow, rise up to the candidates and beat the champion. Not happening. Stop it with the click bait.