The second World Champion, Emanuel Lasker, won born on this day in 1868. Lasker won the title in 1894 and kept it until 1921 - the longest reign of any officially recognised world champion in history.
Did you know that, apart from chess, Lasker contributed to the development of other games such as bridge, Go and his own invention Lasca, as well as the mathematical analysis of card games?
And that is not all; Lasker also was a research mathematician known for his contributions to commutative algebra, while, later in life, he published philosophical works and a drama that he co-wrote.

Source: FIDE

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+2, Phil Innes wrote:

The second World Champion, Emanuel Lasker, won born on this day in 1868.

Bs"d

Happy birthday!!

Lasker won the title in 1894 and kept it until 1921 - the longest reign of any officially recognised world champion in history.

Well done!

I should do that as well, when I can spare some time.

Did you know that, apart from chess, Lasker contributed to the development of other games such as bridge, Go and his own invention Lasca, as well as the mathematical analysis of card games?

No, didnt't know, and I don't care. I have chess, don't need anything else.

And that is not all; Lasker also was a research mathematician known for his contributions to commutative algebra, while, later in life, he published philosophical works and a drama that he co-wrote.

Source: FIDE

Don't believe everything the FIDE tells you.

https://tinyurl.com/Lask-chess-fight

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 8:57:29 AM UTC-5, Phil Innes wrote:

The second World Champion, Emanuel Lasker, won born on this day in 1868. Lasker won the title in 1894 and kept it until 1921 - the longest reign of any officially recognised world champion in history.
Did you know that, apart from chess, Lasker contributed to the development of other games such as bridge, Go and his own invention Lasca, as well as the mathematical analysis of card games?
And that is not all; Lasker also was a research mathematician known for his contributions to commutative algebra, while, later in life, he published philosophical works and a drama that he co-wrote.

Source: FIDE

Yes, Lasker did in fact get a PhD in mathematics, which requires original research. Somewhere, in a book of algebra, I found a reference to his work.
Perhaps it was a book by another chess player, Nathan Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" - a work about mathematics, not revolutionaries.

Contrary to rumor, Emmy Noether was not his PhD supervisor. I may have been the one who started that rumor. At this point I cannot recall.

Lasker supported himself by playing bridge from about 1926 to 1934. Contract bridge was new at the time and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he
advanced the game. But he was not at all a good Go player, having learned the game too late.

Lasker, his brother Berthold, and Edward Lasker conceived a scheme to rectify this. Edward was to take a job in Tokyo and learn the game from
Japanese masters. Alas, his firm only posted employees to Tokyo who spoke English, and Edward did not. So he got a job in London so as
to learn English, and was there, an enemy alien, in 1914. A sympathetic chess-playing magistrate got him passage to the US. Thus is
history made.

Edward did become a reasonably good Go player, but was not as strong at go as he was at chess. A six-dan Go player I knew, who did go to Japan
to improve his game, said that Edward was a strong player without sounding patronizing. So first dan at least. Edward felt that Lasca was quite a good
game, but it did not catch on.

(most of this from Edward's memoirs).

I have seen Emanuel's philosophical works. Not only is philosophy not my own field, but my German is definitely not up to the task of reading
those books. Edward, again, had a friend, philosopher Ernst Cassirer, who he introduced to Lasker. The former's view was that Emanuel had many
original ideas, though he was handicapped by a lack of background in the subject, often reinventing things already discovered (the great
physicist Dirac had a similar habit).

Soltis' "Why Lasker Matters" is a good read with a hundred of Lasker's games, annotated more readably than in any previous Lasker
collection. Edward Winter is scathing about Soltis' chess history in other contexts, but in this case the GM has taken more care,
and in any case for me what matters here are the games. Though for those interested in controversy, his annotations of the
last game of the Schlecter match, and Lasker-Capablanca 1914 are must reads.

William Hyde

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 3:53:59 PM UTC-5, William Hyde wrote:

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 8:57:29 AM UTC-5, Phil Innes wrote:

The second World Champion, Emanuel Lasker, won born on this day in 1868. Lasker won the title in 1894 and kept it until 1921 - the longest reign of any officially recognised world champion in history.
Did you know that, apart from chess, Lasker contributed to the development of other games such as bridge, Go and his own invention Lasca, as well as the mathematical analysis of card games?
And that is not all; Lasker also was a research mathematician known for his contributions to commutative algebra, while, later in life, he published philosophical works and a drama that he co-wrote.

There is little I can add to this synopsis, so here follows an interspersion to dilate some topical items:—

Source: FIDE

Yes, Lasker did in fact get a PhD in mathematics, which requires original research. Somewhere, in a book of algebra, I found a reference to his work.

PhD Erlangen, Jan 1902 — just in passing of "the live record" he beat Marshall in a match series in 1907. Sometime in 1990 I managed a win against Frank Bornholz still rated a master who had the habit of beating NY master players, including Marshall.

Perhaps it was a book by another chess player, Nathan Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" - a work about mathematics, not revolutionaries.

Contrary to rumor, Emmy Noether was not his PhD supervisor. I may have been the one who started that rumor. At this point I cannot recall.

It was David Hilbert who encouraged his doctorate which followed publishing of certain papers:— In his 1905 article on commutative algebra, Lasker introduced the theory of primary decomposition of ideals, which has influence in the theory of Noetherian
rings. Rings having the primary decomposition property are called "Laskerian rings" in his honor.

His attempt to create a general theory of all competitive activities were followed by more consistent efforts from von Neumann on game theory, and his later writings about card games presented a significant issue in the mathematical analysis of card
games.

I have been unable to find his thesis supervisor, but list his published works at the foot of this note which includes his topic.

Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.

Lasker supported himself by playing bridge from about 1926 to 1934. Contract bridge was new at the time and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he
advanced the game. But he was not at all a good Go player, having learned the game too late.

His property confiscated in 1933 he fled Germany and settled in London and was published by Watts
including on Contract Bridge and other games — Anne Sunnocks cites D. Hooper on this, but the titles are not given so I am unsure if the title below was translated, or if Hooper knows of other works.

Bridge is my other vice, yet I have not seen nor heard of any titles from Lasker, and only note this title in German, Das Bridgespiel ("The Game of Bridge"), 1931

I'll finish here with a quote:—

Réti wrote, "In analyzing Lasker's tournament games, I was struck by his lasting and at first seemingly incredible good luck. ... There is no denying the fact that over and over again Lasker's exposition is poor, that he is in a losing position hundreds
of times and, nevertheless, wins in the end."Réti, Richard (1976). Masters of the Chessboard. Dover Publications. p. 132. ISBN 0-486-23384-7. Réti considered, but rejected as too improbable, the "hypothesis of lasting luck", finally concluding that the
only explanation for Lasker's repeated success from bad positions is that he "often plays badly on purpose". Id. Réti concluded that Lasker studied his opponents' strong and weak points, and that, "He is not so much interested in making the objectively
best moves as he is in making those most disagreeable to his opponent; he turns the game in a direction not suitable to the style of his opponent and on this unaccustomed road leads him to the abyss, often by means of intentionally bad moves, as I have
previously described." Id. at 133.

Cordially, Phil Innes

footnote: published works

Lasker, his brother Berthold, and Edward Lasker conceived a scheme to rectify this. Edward was to take a job in Tokyo and learn the game from
Japanese masters. Alas, his firm only posted employees to Tokyo who spoke English, and Edward did not. So he got a job in London so as
to learn English, and was there, an enemy alien, in 1914. A sympathetic chess-playing magistrate got him passage to the US. Thus is
history made.

Edward did become a reasonably good Go player, but was not as strong at go as he was at chess. A six-dan Go player I knew, who did go to Japan
to improve his game, said that Edward was a strong player without sounding patronizing. So first dan at least. Edward felt that Lasca was quite a good
game, but it did not catch on.

(most of this from Edward's memoirs).

I have seen Emanuel's philosophical works. Not only is philosophy not my own field, but my German is definitely not up to the task of reading
those books. Edward, again, had a friend, philosopher Ernst Cassirer, who he introduced to Lasker. The former's view was that Emanuel had many
original ideas, though he was handicapped by a lack of background in the subject, often reinventing things already discovered (the great
physicist Dirac had a similar habit).

Soltis' "Why Lasker Matters" is a good read with a hundred of Lasker's games, annotated more readably than in any previous Lasker
collection. Edward Winter is scathing about Soltis' chess history in other contexts, but in this case the GM has taken more care,
and in any case for me what matters here are the games. Though for those interested in controversy, his annotations of the
last game of the Schlecter match, and Lasker-Capablanca 1914 are must reads.

William Hyde

Mathematical Works
Lasker, Emanuel (August 1895). "Metrical Relations of Plane Spaces of n Manifoldness". Nature. 52 (1345): 340–343. Bibcode:1895Natur..52R.340L. doi:10.1038/052340d0. S2CID 4017358.
Lasker, Emanuel (October 1895). "About a certain Class of Curved Lines in Space of n Manifoldness". Nature. 52 (1355): 596. Bibcode:1895Natur..52..596L. doi:10.1038/052596a0. S2CID 4016031.
Lasker, Emanuel (1901). "Über Reihen auf der Convergenzgrenze ( "On Series at Convergence Boundaries" )". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 196 (274–286): 431–477. Bibcode:1901RSPTA.196..431L. doi:10.1098/rsta.1901.0009. – Lasker'
s PhD thesis.
Lasker, E. (1905). "Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale". Math. Ann. 60 (1): 19–116. doi:10.1007/BF01447495. S2CID 120367750.

Philosophical Works
Kampf (Struggle), 1906.[62]
Das Begreifen der Welt (Comprehending the World), 1913.[56]
Die Philosophie des Unvollendbar (sic; The Philosophy of the Unattainable), 1918.[56]
Vom Menschen die Geschichte ("History of Mankind"), 1925 – a play, co-written with his brother Berthold.[61]
The Community of the Future, 1940.[61]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 9:57:53 AM UTC-5, Phil Innes wrote:

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 3:53:59 PM UTC-5, William Hyde wrote:

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 8:57:29 AM UTC-5, Phil Innes wrote:

The second World Champion, Emanuel Lasker, won born on this day in 1868. Lasker won the title in 1894 and kept it until 1921 - the longest reign of any officially recognised world champion in history.
Did you know that, apart from chess, Lasker contributed to the development of other games such as bridge, Go and his own invention Lasca, as well as the mathematical analysis of card games?
And that is not all; Lasker also was a research mathematician known for his contributions to commutative algebra, while, later in life, he published philosophical works and a drama that he co-wrote.

There is little I can add to this synopsis, so here follows an interspersion to dilate some topical items:—

Source: FIDE

Yes, Lasker did in fact get a PhD in mathematics, which requires original research. Somewhere, in a book of algebra, I found a reference to his work.

PhD Erlangen, Jan 1902 — just in passing of "the live record" he beat Marshall in a match series in 1907. Sometime in 1990 I managed a win against Frank Bornholz still rated a master who had the habit of beating NY master players, including Marshall.

Perhaps it was a book by another chess player, Nathan Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" - a work about mathematics, not revolutionaries.

Contrary to rumor, Emmy Noether was not his PhD supervisor. I may have been the one who started that rumor. At this point I cannot recall.

It was David Hilbert who encouraged his doctorate which followed publishing of certain papers:— In his 1905 article on commutative algebra, Lasker introduced the theory of primary decomposition of ideals, which has influence in the theory of

Noetherian rings. Rings having the primary decomposition property are called "Laskerian rings" in his honor.

Hilbert was also a supporter of Noether, who could not in those days get the professorship she deserved, so this double
connection perhaps is the source of the rumor that I either started or passed on.

His attempt to create a general theory of all competitive activities were followed by more consistent efforts from von Neumann on game theory, and his later writings about card games presented a significant issue in the mathematical analysis of card

games.

I have been unable to find his thesis supervisor, but list his published works at the foot of this note which includes his topic.

Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.

Lasker supported himself by playing bridge from about 1926 to 1934. Contract bridge was new at the time and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he
advanced the game. But he was not at all a good Go player, having learned the game too late.

His property confiscated in 1933 he fled Germany and settled in London and was published by Watts
including on Contract Bridge and other games — Anne Sunnocks cites D. Hooper on this, but the titles are not given so I am unsure if the title below was translated, or if Hooper knows of other works.

Bridge is my other vice, yet I have not seen nor heard of any titles from Lasker, and only note this title in German, Das Bridgespiel ("The Game of Bridge"), 1931

As there was more money to be made at bridge, I suspect that anything he discovered would be kept quiet until no longer of use to him.

I'll finish here with a quote:—

Réti wrote, "In analyzing Lasker's tournament games, I was struck by his lasting and at first seemingly incredible good luck. ... There is no denying the fact that over and over again Lasker's exposition is poor, that he is in a losing position

hundreds of times and, nevertheless, wins in the end."Réti, Richard (1976). Masters of the Chessboard. Dover Publications. p. 132. ISBN 0-486-23384-7. Réti considered, but rejected as too improbable, the "hypothesis of lasting luck", finally concluding
that the only explanation for Lasker's repeated success from bad positions is that he "often plays badly on purpose". Id. Réti concluded that Lasker studied his opponents' strong and weak points, and that, "He is not so much interested in making the
objectively best moves as he is in making those most disagreeable to his opponent; he turns the game in a direction not suitable to the style of his opponent and on this unaccustomed road leads him to the abyss, often by means of intentionally bad moves,
as I have previously described." Id. at 133.


In some of his writings Lasker emphasizes the "margin of draw", i.e. the idea that not all inferior positions are lost. Soltis disagrees
with Reti, arguing that many of Lasker's lost games were in fact tenable, but basically agreeing that Lasker was willing to risk
a trip into this grey area in order to produce the type of game the opponent disliked.

As a player I rather specialized in winning or drawing from lost positions, with a sideline in losing or drawing from
won positions (Canadian open, 1980, winning in every loss, losing in every win (bar one) one draw in a lost position, one
in a won) I have a special interest in these issues.

Mathematical Works
Lasker, Emanuel (August 1895). "Metrical Relations of Plane Spaces of n Manifoldness". Nature. 52 (1345): 340–343. Bibcode:1895Natur..52R.340L. doi:10.1038/052340d0. S2CID 4017358.
Lasker, Emanuel (October 1895). "About a certain Class of Curved Lines in Space of n Manifoldness". Nature. 52 (1355): 596. Bibcode:1895Natur..52..596L. doi:10.1038/052596a0. S2CID 4016031.

I was unaware that Nature published pure mathematics that late.

Lasker, Emanuel (1901). "Über Reihen auf der Convergenzgrenze ( "On Series at Convergence Boundaries" )". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 196 (274–286): 431–477. Bibcode:1901RSPTA.196..431L. doi:10.1098/rsta.1901.0009. –

Lasker's PhD thesis.

Lasker, E. (1905). "Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale". Math. Ann. 60 (1): 19–116. doi:10.1007/BF01447495. S2CID 120367750.

Philosophical Works
Kampf (Struggle), 1906.[62]
Das Begreifen der Welt (Comprehending the World), 1913.[56]
Die Philosophie des Unvollendbar (sic; The Philosophy of the Unattainable), 1918.[56]
Vom Menschen die Geschichte ("History of Mankind"), 1925 – a play, co-written with his brother Berthold.[61]
The Community of the Future, 1940.[61]

Berthold's first wife, Else Lasker-Schuler, was a well-known poet and playwright.


William Hyde

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:57:53 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:

Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.

Bs"d

And what an introduction it was!

Emmanuel Lasker, the 27 year world champion chess, was friends with a little known figure named Albert Einstein.
They had long debates about philosophy, physics, and other subjects.
Lasker was good enough versed in physics to attack Einstein’s theory of relativity with strong arguments.
I guess Einstein was not too happy about that, because after Lasker departed from this world, and the biographer Hannak asked Einstein to write the introduction of his biography of Lasker, Einstein used the opportunity to talk shit about both Lasker and
the field in which Lasker reached his greatest triumphs; chess.
It was published in the book: Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master, published by Dr. Jacques Hannak in 1952 (written in German in 1942).

I would subscribe the foreword of Einstein as: “A kick from the other side.”

Here is the foreword, it needs no further comment:

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 repugnant 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 Alexander, 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 circumstances 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 virtually independent of their 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 every physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot – if he is not satisfied 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 matters 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.

https://tinyurl.com/Lask-mate-him

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 4:55:24 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:57:53 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:

Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.

Bs"d

And what an introduction it was!

Emmanuel Lasker, the 27 year world champion chess, was friends with a little known figure named Albert Einstein.
They had long debates about philosophy, physics, and other subjects.
Lasker was good enough versed in physics to attack Einstein’s theory of relativity with strong arguments.

Actually, no, he wasn't.

Einstein was polite to Lasker, and respected him, and as he says, his intellectual independence (which served him very well
in chess, as we know).

I guess Einstein was not too happy about that, because after Lasker departed from this world, and the biographer Hannak asked Einstein to write the introduction of his biography of Lasker, Einstein used the opportunity to talk shit about both Lasker

I have read that, and no, he did not.

William Hyde



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 11:55:24 AM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:57:53 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:

Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.

Bs"d

And what an introduction it was!

Emmanuel Lasker, the 27 year world champion chess, was friends with a little known figure named Albert Einstein.
They had long debates about philosophy, physics, and other subjects.
Lasker was good enough versed in physics to attack Einstein’s theory of relativity with strong arguments.
I guess Einstein was not too happy about that, because after Lasker departed from this world, and the biographer Hannak asked Einstein to write the introduction of his biography of Lasker, Einstein used the opportunity to talk shit about both Lasker

and the field in which Lasker reached his greatest triumphs; chess.

It was published in the book: Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master, published by Dr. Jacques Hannak in 1952 (written in German in 1942).

I would subscribe the foreword of Einstein as: “A kick from the other side.”

Here is the foreword, it needs no further comment:

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 repugnant 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 Alexander, 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 circumstances 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 virtually independent of their 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 every physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot – if he is not satisfied 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 matters 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.

https://tinyurl.com/Lask-mate-him

Bs"d

When writing a foreword to a biography of a dead man, you going to spend almost half of it on arguing physics??

And then burning down the purely intellectual field in which that person was a world champion for 27 years??

And then calling him "a simple man"??

Sounds to me Albert had an ax to grind with Lasker.

And then this one: "Spinoza’s material existence and independence were based 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."

So Spinoza was granted a "better fate" because he didn't play chess?

Spinoza grinded lenses, and inhaled all day glass dust. This gave him a lung disease which killed him.

According to Albert, slowly choking to death is a lot better then playing chess.

??????????????

We shouldn't take Albert too seriously.

He was clearly jealous of Lasker.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 2:08:32 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 11:55:24 AM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:57:53 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:

Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.

Bs"d

And what an introduction it was!

Emmanuel Lasker, the 27 year world champion chess, was friends with a little known figure named Albert Einstein.
They had long debates about philosophy, physics, and other subjects. Lasker was good enough versed in physics to attack Einstein’s theory of relativity with strong arguments.
I guess Einstein was not too happy about that, because after Lasker departed from this world, and the biographer Hannak asked Einstein to write the introduction of his biography of Lasker, Einstein used the opportunity to talk shit about both Lasker

and the field in which Lasker reached his greatest triumphs; chess.

It was published in the book: Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master, published by Dr. Jacques Hannak in 1952 (written in German in 1942).

I would subscribe the foreword of Einstein as: “A kick from the other side.”

Here is the foreword, it needs no further comment:

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 repugnant 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 Alexander, 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 circumstances 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 virtually independent of their 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 every physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot – if he is not satisfied 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 matters 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.

https://tinyurl.com/Lask-mate-him

Bs"d

When writing a foreword to a biography of a dead man, you going to spend almost half of it on arguing physics??

The forward can only be about his interactions with Lasker (otherwise why rope in Einstein at all?) and the main subject matter
of their discussions were politics and physics. And Lasker's comments on physics demonstrate his independence of mind,
which is Einstein's theme here.

And then burning down the purely intellectual field in which that person was a world champion for 27 years??

And then calling him "a simple man"??

Sounds to me Albert had an ax to grind with Lasker.

And then this one: "Spinoza’s material existence and independence were based 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."

So Spinoza was granted a "better fate" because he didn't play chess?

From Einstein any reference to Spinoza is praise in a high degree.

But I think Einstein is not correct in this. Lasker didn't spend nearly as much time on chess as Spinoza did on lens making. There
were years in which he played no chess at all. Six world championship matches in twenty seven years is hardly a crowded
schedule.

Edward Lasker wrote that before the match with Tarrasch Emanuel spent a few weeks at a cottage in the countryside near
Berlin. He didn't have a chess set there, or any books. Edward was invited over each day for a game of go to help
Emanuel wile away the time. At the train station on the way to the match he said:

"I think that if I am white in the first game I shall play the Ruy Lopez exchange variation." And that was the extent of his
preparation for a match with his most serious challenger to date.

It is one of the most remarkable aspects of Lasker's genius that once he gained an understanding of chess, he did
not need to keep at it to remain the best in the world. And despite his lack of study, he played better in his
second decade as champion than he did in his first.

Prior to New York 1924, he said to Edward that he probably wouldn't win, as there were all these new hypermodern
openings that he didn't know, and it would take him too long to work out the correct responses over the board. It didn't
turn out that way. In the 1930s, well on in years, and nine years after his last serious event, he turned to the Sicilian, an
opening he had rarely or never played before, and the treatment of which was far different from the Sicilian of his youth.
The games he played with this opening wouldn't have seemed out of place in a tournament in the 1970s.

William Hyde

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)