An Artist, A Genius ,The Machine

Akiba Rubinstein in a July 1926 interview: "Alekhine is an artist, Lasker is a genius and Capablanca is a machine." https://t.co/W6gcjAaZYk pic.twitter.com/SqQaJnPc7O

— Olimpiu G. Urcan (@olimpiuurcan) February 4, 2021

This is a reprint of the original third book, with all of the games converted into Algebraic Figurine PGN Notation with diagrams in the back. Alekhine died in 1946, so this third volume was edited by International Master and British Chess Champion Conel Hugh O’Donel Alexander, based in part on the notes left by Alekhine to some of the games. Alexander Alexandrovich Alekhine (1892-1946) was not only one of the strongest and most original chess players who ever lived, but he was also the most controversial, second only to Bobby Fischer. Everything about his life and death was controversial and is still being written about even today, although he died in 1946..

“An Artist”

[Event “Munich”]
[Site “Munich GER”]
[Date “1941.09.18”]
[EventDate “1941.09.08”]
[Round “13”]
[Result “0-1”]
[White “Peter Leepin”]
[Black “Alexander Alekhine”]
[ECO “A22”]
[WhiteElo “?”]
[BlackElo “?”]

           Leepin – Alekhine 0-1

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Nb6 6. a4 a5 7. d3 Bb4 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. O-O O-O 10. Be3 Bg4 11. Rc1 f5 12. Ng5 f4 13. Bxb6 Qxg5 14. Bxc7 Qh5 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. Rc2 Bxc3 17. Rxc3 Bxe2 18. Qb3+ kh8 19. Re1 Qh3 20. Bxe5 f3

The Life of a Chess Master, published by Dr. Jacques Hannak in 1952 (written in German in 1942).

Barnie Winkelman wrote to Einstein to see if he would write an introduction to Hannak’s book for an Engish edition. 

  Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent.

I am not a chess expert and therefore not in a position to marvel at the force of mind revealed in his greatest intellectual achievement – in the field of chess. I must even confess that the struggle for power and the competitive spirit expressed in the form of an ingenious game have always been repugant to me.

I met Emanuel Lasker at the house of my old friend, Alexander Moszkowski, and came to know him well in the course of many walks in which we exchanged opinions about the most varied questions. It was a somewhat one-sided exchange, in which I received more that I gave. For it was usually more natural for this eminently productive man to shape his own thoughts than to busy himself with those of another.

To my mind, there was a tragic note in his personality, despite his fundamentally affirmative attitude towards life. The enormous psychological tension, without which nobody can be a chess master, was so deeply interwoven with chess that he could never entirely rid himself of the spirit of the game, even when he was occupied with philosophic and human problems. At the same time, it seemed to me that chess was more a profession for him than the real goal of his life. His real yearning seems to be directed towards scientific understanding and the beauty inherent only in logical creation, a beauty so enchanting that nobody who has once caught a glimpse of it can ever escape it.

Spinoza’s material existence and independence were base on the grinding of lenses; chess had an analogous role in Lasker’s life. But Spinoza was granted a better fate, because his occupation left his mind free and untroubled, while, on the other hand, the chess playing of a master ties him to the game, fetters his mind and shapes it to a certain extent so that his internal freedom and ease, no matter how strong he is, must inevitably be affected. In our conversations and in the reading of his philosophical books, I always had that feeling. Of these books, “The Philosophy of the Unattainable” interested me the most; the book is not only very original, but it also affords a deep insight into Lasker’s entire personality.

Now I must justify myself because I never considered in detail, either in writing or in our conversations, Emanuel Lasker’s critical essay on the theory of relativity. It is indeed necessary for me to say something about it here because even in his biography, which is focused on the purely human aspects, the passage which discusses the essay contains something resembling a slight reproach. Lasker’s keen analytical mind had immediately clearly recognized that the central point of the whole question is that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is a constant. It was evident to him that, if this constancy were admitted, the relative of time could not be avoided. So what was there to do? He tried to do what Alexnder, whom historians have dubbed “the Great,” did when he cut the Gordian knot. Lasker’s attempted solution was based on the following idea: “Nobody has any immediate knowledge of how quickly light is transmitted in a complete vacuum, for even in interstellar space there is always a minimal quantity of matter present under all circimstances and what holds there is even more applicable to the most complete vacuum created by man to the best of his ability. Therefore, who has the right to deny that its velocity in a really complete vacuum is infinite?”

To answer this argument can be expressed as follows: “It is, to be sure, true that nobody has experimental knowledge of how light is transmitted in a complete vacuum. But it is as good as impossible to formulate a reasonable theory of light according to which the velocity of light is affected by minimal traces of matter which is very significant but at the same time virtuallt independent of ther density.” Before such a theory, which moreover, must harmonize with the known phenomena of optics in an almost complete vacuum, can be set up, it seems that evey physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot – if he is not satisified with the present solution. Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers.

But I liked Lasker’s immovable independence, a rare human attribute, in which respect almost all, including intelligent people, are mediocrities. And so I let matteers stand that way.

I am glad that the reader will be able to get to know this strong and, at the same time, find and lovable personality from his sympathetic biography, but I am thankful for the hours of conversation which this ever striving, independent, simple man granted me.

COMMON SENSE in CHESS..

“A Genius”

[Event “St. Petersburg 1895/96”]
[Site “St. Petersburg RUE”]
[Date “1896.01.04”]
[EventDate “1895.12.13”]
[Round “10”]
[Result “0-1”]
[White “Harry Nelson Pillsbury”]
[Black “Emanuel Lasker”]
[ECO “D50”]
[WhiteElo “?”]
[BlackElo “?”]
[PlyCount “60”]

            Pillsbury -Lasker 0-1

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Qh4 Be7 8. O-O-O Qa5 9. e3 Bd7 10. Kb1 h6 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Nd4 O-O 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. Qh5 Nxd4 15. exd4 Be6 16. f4 Rac8 17. f5 Rxc3 18. fxe6 Ra3 19. exf7+ Rxf7 20. bxa3 Qb6+ 21. Bb5 Qxb5+ 22. Ka1 Rc7 23. Rd2 Rc4 24. Rhd1 Rc3 25. Qf5 Qc4 26. Kb2 Rxa3 27. Qe6+ Kh7 28. Kxa3 Qc3+ 29. Ka4 b5+ 30. Kxb5 Qc4+ 0-1

“THE MACHINE”

[Event “St. Petersburg”]
[Site “St. Petersburg RUE”]
[Date “1914.05.03”]
[EventDate “1914.04.21”]
[Round “9”]
[Result “1-0”]
[White “Jose Raul Capablanca”]
[Black “David Janowski”]
[ECO “C68”]
[WhiteElo “?”]
[BlackElo “?”]
[PlyCount “61”]

        Capablanca- Janowski  1-0

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. Nc3 Bc5 6. d3 Bg4 7. Be3 Bxe3 8. fxe3 Qe7 9. O-O O-O-O 10. Qe1 Nh6 11. Rb1 f6 12. b4 Nf7 13. a4 Bxf3 14. Rxf3 b6 15. b5 cxb5 16. axb5 a5 17. Nd5 Qc5 18. c4 Ng5 19. Rf2 Ne6 20. Qc3 Rd7 21. Rd1 Kb7 22. d4 Qd6 23. Rc2 exd4 24. exd4 Nf4 25. c5 Nxd5 26. exd5 Qxd5 27. c6+ Kb8 28. cxd7 Qxd7 29. d5 Re8 30. d6 cxd6 31. Qc6 1-0