Talk:Emanuel Lasker/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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)
 * 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)

General remarks

 * 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)
 * 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)


 * The article is 102-kb long, which is a lot. Only 47 kb are prose, so I think it passes WP:SIZE but it may need to be reduced in the future. SyG (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Chess 1894–1918

 * The treatment of the matches against Marshall, Tarrasch and Janowski seems too short to me. These are World Championship matches, right ? SyG (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See above and the scores - Lasker hardly paused to take his coat off. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "as long as one full sentence" - ROFL --Philcha (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ←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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I have implemented your suggested change. SyG (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Sorry for being such a pain!
 * PS I found this while searching - you might enjoy it. --Philcha (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1918 – end of life

 * There is no description of the match against Capablanca, only a lengthy description of the preparation. SyG (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Chess strength and style

 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Done. --Philcha (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Passing the article as GA-class
After all this work (doh!) on the article, here is my assessment of the article against the Good article criteria:
 * No problem that I can see. The chess jargon is avoided as far as possible, there are few lists, and the Lead is appropriate.
 * Abundantly referenced, and no original research.
 * 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".
 * 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.
 * The article has been abundantly changed during this review, but I do not think it counts as an edit war.
 * Images that did not have correct copyright status have been removed.
 * 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.
 * The article has been abundantly changed during this review, but I do not think it counts as an edit war.
 * Images that did not have correct copyright status have been removed.
 * The article has been abundantly changed during this review, but I do not think it counts as an edit war.
 * Images that did not have correct copyright status have been removed.
 * 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)

Numbering
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Then you'll love this on my Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's exactly the sort of thing one encounters on FA and GA review. Krakatoa (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
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." Krakatoa (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)