Emanuel Lasker - 2nd World Chess Champion

Emanuel Lasker – 2nd World Chess Champion

Immanuel (later changed to Emanuel) Lasker was born in Berlinchen (now Barlinck, Poland as of 1945), the Prussian province of Brandenberg, on December 24, 1868. He was the second son of Michaelis Aaron Lasker (who later changed his name to Adolf), a Jewish cantor (musician that leads the congregation in songful prayer) in a synagogue. His mother was Rosalie Israelssohn. Emanuel was the second of four children. He had an older brother, Berthold (born Dec 31, 1860), and two younger sisters (Theophilia and Amalia). One of his sisters later died in a Nazi gas chamber.
In 1879, at the age of 11, Emanuel was sent to Berlin to attend school. There, he was taught how to play chess by his older brother, who was a medical student and later became a medical doctor. Emanuel displayed unusual mathematical abilities and wanted to be a mathematician. His father wanted him to be a cantor. Emanuel studied the Talmud with his father and his grandfather, a rabbi.
Emanuel Lasker was accepted into one of Berlin’s best high schools and was advanced two class years ahead of his peers after scoring very high on all his exams. Soon, however, Emanuel fell ill with measles and had to be sent to a hospital. It was this period that Berthold began teaching Emanuel how to play chess to help Emanuel pass the time while in the hospital.
In the early 1880s, Emanuel began visiting the “Tea Salon” with his brother. Berthold was making extra money by hustling chess and Emanuel observed chess play at the master level for the first time. It was here that Emanuel first met and played Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934), who was a medical student in Berlin. Tarrasch was also a daily visitor of the Café Kaiserhof.
In 1884 Emanuel Lasker became a serious chess player. He was soon a frequent visitor at the Cafe Kaiserhof, a chess meeting-place. He was spending so much time studying and playing chess, that is parents told Berthold to find another school for Emanuel. Berthold did find a new school for Emanuel, in the small town of Landsberg (now Gorzow Wielkopolski, Poland). However, the head of the new school was president of the local chess club and Lasker’s math teacher, Kevitz, was the local chess champion. This encouraged Emanuel even more to play chess.
In 1888 he was the best chess player at the Cafe Kaiserhof, the gathering place of the strongest chessplayers in Berlin. Berthold had graduated from the University of Berlin Medical School and moved to Elberfeld to set up his medical practice.
In the spring of 1888, Lasker finished high school at Landsberg-on-the-Warthe, Prussia, and attended the university of Berlin and Gottingen to study mathematics and philosophy.
In the winter of 1888-89, Emanuel Lasker won his first tournament, the Kaiserhof Café championship, with the score of 20-0. His victory now attracted friends and supporters. One supporter was Jakob Bamberger (1822-1907), a banker, who sent Emanuel 10 marks every month. Years later, Emanuel married Jackob’s daughter, Martha (born Nov 19, 1867). Lasker did not marry until he was 42 and Martha had been a widow.
In July, 1889, he gained the German master title (schachmeister) in the Hauptturnier A section of the German Chess League at Breslau. Tarrasch won the International Masters’ section. This was part of the 6th Congress of the German Chess Federation. Lasker won this tournament by accident. Another competitor, Emil Ritter von Feyerfeil (died Feb 28, 1917), had lost his final game to Paul Lipke (1870-1955) after 121 moves. If von Feyerfeil would have drawn or won, he would have won the event and the master title. It was later discovered that one of his pawns was knocked off the board just before sealing the adjourned move. They had sealed a position (rook + knight + pawn against 2 bishops + knight + 2 pawns) with a missing pawn that would have given Von Feyerfeil a drawing or winning game. Lasker, who told his brother that he would give up serious chess if he did not win, won the event and the master title. Lasker won the Hauptturnier 1 section with 7 wins and 2 draws. He tied in the final section (with von Feyerfeil) with 4 wins and 2 losses. In the play-off, Lasker beat von Feyerfeil.
After winning his master title, he was invited to the master tourney in Amsterdam, where he took 2nd, behind Amos Burn (1848-1925). The event was held Aug 26-31, 1889. Lasker won 5, drew 2, and lost 1. It was the 20-year old Lasker’s first foreign chess tournament.
In November, 1889, Lasker defeated Curt Von Bardeleben (1861-1924) in a match in Berlin. Lasker won 2, drew1, and lost 1.
In February 1890, Lasker defeated Henry Bird (1830-1908) in a match, held in Liverpool. Lasker won 7, drew 3, and lost 2.
In March 1890, Lasker defeated Nicholas Miniati (1860-1909) in a match held in Manchester. He won 3, drew 2, with no losses.
In July 1890, Emanuel Lasker and his brother, Berthold Lasker, tied at a tournament in Berlin. Emanuel Lasker’s score was 5 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss. Emanuel than had a play-off with his brother and won win 1 win and 1 draw.
In Aug-Sep 1890, Lasker took 3rd at Graz, Austria, behind Gyula Makovetz and Johann Bauer. Lasker won 3, drew 2, and lost 1.
In 1890, Lasker defeated Berthold Englisch in a match, held in Vienna. He won 2, drew 3, and lost none.
Lasker travelled to London in 1891 to run a chess pavilion at a German exhibition. He accepted the invitation so that he could make enough money for his sisters to move to Berlin. After the exhibition ended, Lasker decided to remain in England and take up chess professionally. He stayed in England from 1891 to 1893, then from 1895 to 1904, and from 1934 to 1935.
In 1891, he defeated Francis Lee in London with 1 win, 1 draw, and no losses.
In March 1892, Lasker finished 1st at the 7th British Chess Association Tournament, held in London. He won 8, drew 2, and lost 1. He finished 1.5 points ahead of second place prize winner – James Mason. Joseph Blackburne objected to inviting a German master to this national event. He boycotted the event and did not play.
In April 1892, Lasker won the British Chess Club Invitational with 5 wins, 3 draws, and no losses. The event has held in London. Blackburne took 2nd.
In June 1892, Lasker defeated Henry Blackburne in a match held in London. Lasker won 6, drew 4, and lost none.
From August 1892 to July 1893 Lasker published his first chess magazine, 19 issues of The London Chess Fortnightly chess magazine.
In September 1892, Lasker defeated Henry Bird in a match, held at Newcastler on Tyne. Lasker won 5-0.
During the two years that Lasker stayed in London, Lasker lost only one game (to Bird) in four events against the strongest masters in the country. It gave hims confidence to try to play for the world championship.
He moved to New York in 1892 in hopes of playing Wilhelm Steinitz for the world chess championship.
In April 1893, Lasker defeated Jackson Whipps Showalter in a match held in Kokomo. Lasker won 6, drew 2, and lost 2. Lasker received $375 for his efforts.
In September 1893, he won all his games (13-0) at the Manhattan Chess Club in New York.
In late 1893, Lasker lectured on differential equations at Tulane University in New Orleans.
On March 15, 1894 Lasker began his world chess championship match with Wilhelm Steinitz in New York. On May 26, 1894, he defeated Steinitz (14 wins, 3 draws, 4 losses) for the world championship. The match was held in New York, Philadelphia, and Montreal. He became the second world chess champion and held the title from 1894 to 1921 (27 years). Lasker was 25 and Steinitz was 58. Lasker received $2,000 for his efforts. Lasker then returned to Germany in late 1894. There, he contracted typhoid fever and almost died. (Henry Buckle died of typhoid fever in 1862 and Samuel Boden died of typhoid fever in 1882).
In 1894, Berthold Lasker married Else Schuler. They divorced in 1899.
In 1895, Lasker moved back to England, this time as world chess champion. He first lived in London, where he was the resident master of the Divan Chess Association. He later moved to Manchester where he wrote a chess column for the local newspaper, gave lectures at the Manchester Chess Club, and performed simuls.
In 1895, world champion Lasker came in 3rd place (behind Pillsbury and Chigorin) at Hastings, despite recovering from typhoid fever. Lasker won 13, drew 3, and lost 4. Lasker stayed in England and gave a series of lectures on chess.
Lasker gave a series of chess lectures in London in 1895. The lectures were later published as Common Sense In Chess.
In January 1896, Lasker won at St. Petersburg with 8 wins, 7 draws, and 3 losses.
In 1896 he wrote Common Sense in Chess, based on a series of 12 chess lectures that he gave in London. The German edition was published in 1896 and the English edition was published in 1897.
In August 1896, Lasker won at Nuremberg with 12 wins, 3 draws, and 3 losses.
Lasker defeated Steinitz in a return world championship (6th official world chess championship) match held in Moscow in 1896-97 with 10 wins, 5 draws, and 2 losses.
In 1897 Lasker enrolled at Heidelberg University and transferred to Erlangen University in 1900.
In 1898, Lasker gave many simultaneous exhibitions throughout the Netherlands.
In 1899, Lasker won a tournament in London with 20 wins, 1 loss, and 7 draws. He won with 4.5 points more than the 2nd place finisher.
In June 1900, Lasker won at Paris with 14 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss.
In 1901 Lasker was a mathematics lecturer at Victoria University in Manchester, England.
In 1901 Lasker presented his doctoral thesis Uber Reihen auf der Convergengrenze to Erlangen University, which was published in Philosophical Transactions.
In December 1901, Lasker defeated Dawid Janowski in a match held in Manchester. Lasker won 1 game and drew 1 game, with no losses.
In January 1902, he gained his doctorate degree in mathematics and philosophy from Erlangen University. His dissertation was titled, Uber Reihen auf der Convergenzgrenze (“On Series at Convergence Boundaries”). His mathematical researches were based upon his studies at the universities of Berlin, Gottingen, and Heidelberg. His advisor was the famous mathematician David Hilbert.
After he defended his dissertation, he went to a Wiesbaden resort for some rest. He played chess with the director of its opera theater.
From April to June 1902, Lasker gave simultaneous exhibitions throughout the United States.
In 1902, Lasker met Martha Cohn at the home of Ludwig Metzger, editor of the Berliner Lokalanzeiger newspaper. Martha was an employee of the newspaper, and had not interest in mathematics, philosophy, or chess. She said that chess must be terribly boring and was not to her tastes. Martha’s husband, Emil, died in 1910 and Emanuel married Martha in 1911.
After obtaining his PhD, he moved to New York, where he stayed until 1907.
From 1901 to 1914, Lasker played in only three chess tournaments. He demanded high appearance fees that tournament organizers could not afford. Lasker was also using his time to study mathematics and philosophy.
In 1903, Lasker lost a Rice Gambit match against Mikhail Chigorin, held in Brighton. Lasker won 1, drew 3, and lost 2.
In 1904, Lasker played at Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania where he took 2nd place (tied with David Janowski), behind Frank Marshall. Lasker won 9, drew 4, and lost 2. World champion Lasker came from Berlin to play in the event. He had not played in a chess tournament in four years. His last tournament was in Paris in 1900, which he won with 14 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss. After Cambridge Springs, Lasker would not play in a chess tournament for another 5 years (St Petersburg 1909), which he tied for 1st place with Akiba Rubinstein.
In November 1904, Lasker started Lasker’s Chess Magazine. It ran until 1907 in 8 volumes.
In 1905 Lasker introduced the notion of a primary ideal (ring theory), and proved the primary decomposition theorem for an ideal of a polynomial ring in terms of primary ideals. This proof was published in volume 60 of Mathematische Annalen in 1905. This is now known as the Lasker-Noether theorem. Emmy Noether was a distinguished lady mathematician from Gottingen who refined Lasker’s work on polynomial rings in 1919. She built an abstract theory which developed ring theory into a major mathematical topic. A communitive ring R is now called a Lasker ring if every ideal of R can be represented as an intersection of a finite number of primary ideals. A theorem in the theory of vector spaces is known as the Lasker theorem. His work provided the foundation of modern algebraic geometry.
In 1906 Lasker became secretary of the Rice Gambit Association. In July, 1906, Lasker won the 19th New York State Chess Championship at Trenton Falls with 4 wins, 2 draws, and no losses.
In Jan-April 1907, Lasker beat Frank Marshall in the 7th world championship match and won with 8 wins, 7 draws and no losses. The match was played in New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Memphis, Chicago, and Baltimore. After the match, Lasker returned to Germany. He would not play another game of chess until the next world championship match.
In 1907 Lasker wrote Kampf in German and re-wrote Struggle in English, which was published in New York by Lasker’s Publishing Company. This is a book on philosophy and the laws governing struggles in general.
In May 1908, Lasker performed several simuls throughout the Netherlands.
In September, 1908, Lasker defeated Siegbert Tarrasch with 8 wins, 5 draws, and 3 losses (first one to win 8 games, draws not counting, was the winner). The match was held in Dusseldorf and Munich. Lasker was convinced that Tarrasch had hypnotic powers and wanted to play the match from a different room. Lasker received 4,000 marks for his winnings and 7,500 marks for the appearance fee.
In December 1908, Lasker defeated the strongest Dutch master, Abraham Speijer, in a match held in Amsterdam. Lasker won 2, drew 1, and lost none.
In March 1909, Lasker, representing the United States, tied for 1st place with Akiba Rubinstein at St. Petersburg (Chigorin Memorial). He won 13, drew 3, and lost 2. He then published a book on the tournament.
In May 1909, Lasker played David Janowski in an exhibition match held in Paris. The match was drawn with 2 wins and 2 losses each.
In Oct-Nov 1909, Lasker played David Janowski in another exhibition match held in Paris. The match was sponsored by the Dutch painter Leo Nardus, who paid Lasker 7,000 francs to play. Lasker won the match with 7 wins, 2 draws, and 1 loss. Nardus continued to support Janowski, until one day, Nardus suggested an alternate move or analysis in one of Janowski’s post-mortem games. Janowski called Nardus an idiot in front of the crowd. Nardus never gave Janowski any financial support after that.
In Jan-Feb 1910, Lasker played Carl Schlechter in a match of 10 games (9th world championship match). It was supposed to be a match of 30 games, but lack of funds kept it shorter. Lasker won 1 game, drew 8 games, and lost one game to tie the match. Schlechter needed only a draw in the last round to win the match. During that last game, he was winning, but eventually lost the game in 71 moves and the match. The match was held in Vienna and Berlin. Lasker received 1,000 marks for each game played. After the match, the public decided to call this match a world chess championship match. There is little evidence that Lasker considered this a world championship match where he would lose his title if he lost this short match. No contract has ever been found to prove this was a world championship match. The American Chess Bulletin of 1910 stated that the two players agreed to play a series of games, but the result would not affect the world championship title.
In June 1910, Lasker gave two lectures in Buenos Aires, one devoted to Paul Morphy, and the other to William Stienitz. The lectures were later published in one of the local newspapers.
In November 1910, Lasker defeated Janowski with 8 wins, 3 draws, and no losses in the 10th world championship match in Berlin. He had defended his world championship title 6 times in 4 years. Lasker would not play serious chess for another 3 ½ years.
On March 1, 1911, at the age of 42, Emanuel Lasker married Martha Bamberger Cohn in Berline and became a husband, father, and grandfather at the same time. His wife was a year older than Lasker, widowed (Emil Cohn owned the Trautweins’s piano factory and died on Dec 18, 1909), rich, and already a grandmother. Martha had a daughter, Lotta, from her previous marriage. Lotta later moved to Chicago. The Laskers lived in Thyrow, an hour’s journey from Berlin where he acquired a house, a garden, and a big dog. It was here, in 1913, that he wrote Das Begreifen die Wielt (Understanding the World).
In 1911, Lasker invented a games called Lasca (Laska) and took a patent out on the game. It is played with checker pieces played on a 7×7 board. The game was derived from American Checkers and a Russian game called Bashni (Tower).
In 1914 Lasker took 1st place at St. Petersburg. In the preliminary rounds, Lasker won 4, drew 5, and lost 1. In the final, Lasker won 6, drew 2, and lost none. Nicholas II, Czar of Russia, conferred the title of Grandmaster of Chess to Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Tarrasch, and Marshall. These were the original five grandmasters. Lasker was paid 4,000 roubles as an appearance fee. This was the first time a chess player received an appearance fee.
Just before World War I, Lasker was supposed to play Rubinstein for the World Championship. Capablanca planned to play the winner. World War I interrupted these matches.
During World War I, Lasker (along with Rubinstein) invested all of his money in German war bonds. At the end of the war, he had lost all his money and savings. During that period, he wrote a book declaring that Germany had to win the war if civilization were to be saved, and he applauded the politics of Wilhelm II.
After the War, Lasker tried to breed pigeons for the Berlin Pigeon Fair, He had studied many books about the breeding of pigeons and thought he could win medals at the Berlin Poulty show. However, all the pigeons Lasker bought were male.
In Nov 1916, Lasker defeated Siegbert Tarrasch in a match held in Berlin. He won 5, drew 1, and lost none.
In Oct 1918, Lasker won at Berlin with 3 wins, 3 draws, and no losses.
In 1919, he wrote Die Philosophie des Unvollendbaren (The Philosophy of the Unattainable). Albert Einstein expressed interest in Lasker’s work, calling the book, “a lively interest in all the problems that bedevil mankind,” and “a most original work.”
In January 1920, Lasker met with Capablanca at The Hague in the Netherlands. An agreement was drawn up to play half the world championship in the Netherlands and the other half in the United States. The deal later fell through because of insufficient finances.
In 1920 Lasker wrote to Capablanca in Spanish and resigned his title to Capablanca without playing a game. However, he needed the money and agreed to play Capablanca in 1921 for the world championship for $11,000.
In March-April 1921, Lasker was defeated by Capablanca in the 11th world chess championship, held in Havana. Lasker did not win a game, had 10 draws, and 4 losses. Lasker then claimed ill health and quit playing after 14 games of the 24 games scheduled, and he resigned the title.Capablanca’s prize fund was $12,000. He had played in 8 world championship matches for 27 years, 337 days (from May 26, 1894 to April 21, 1921), the longest reign of any world chess champion. Lasker then retired from chess until 1923.
In 1922, London hosted the “Victors’ Tournament.” It invited all the strongest players in the world except Lasker, due to his politics during World War I. The tournament included Capablanca, Alekhine, Vidmar, Rubinstein, Bogoljubow, Reti, Tartakower, Maroczy, Yates, Atkins, Euwe, Znosko-Borovsky, and a few others, but not Lasker.
In 1922, Lasker wrote My Match with Capablanca. In it, he believed that chess would exhaust itself in short order and that draws would kill chess. A few years later, he changed his mind, regarding the future of chess more optimistically. He did not think chess was close to being played out to a draw.
In July 1923, ex-world champion Lasker won at Moravska Ostrava with 8 wins, 5 draws, and no losses.
From 1895 to 1924 he won or tied for first place in eight of the 10 major chess championships he played in. The other two, he took 2nd place and 3rd place.
In April 1924, Lasker, age 55, won the New York International, ahead of world champion Capablanca and Alexander Alekhine. He won 13, drew 6, and lost 1. Lasker now took up bridge and Go.
In Nov-Dec 1925, Lasker took 2nd, behind Bogoljuvow, at Moscow. He won 10, drew 8, and lost 2. Lasker was the first foreign master to make a guest appearance in Soviet Russia after the October Revolution. Lasker would not play serious chess for another 9 years.
In 1926 he wrote Lehrbuch des Schachspiels. He re-wrote it in English in 1927 as Lasker’s Manual of Chess. He dedicated the book to his wife, Martha. It read, “To me dear wife, who has shared with me everything in life, together with her, with a sense of humor.”
In 1927, Lasker was not invited the strongest tournament of the year, New York 1927.
On October 19,1928, Emanuel Lasker’s brother, Berthold died.
In the early 1930s Lasker became an international bridge player, representing Germany in international events. He became a Life Master in bridge and was the team leader of the German team at the Bridge Olympics.
In 1931, Lasker wrote a book called Popular Board Games.
Lasker was a good friend of Dr. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), but did not believe that the speed of light was constant.
In 1933 he was driven out of Germany beause he was a Jew. He was the grandson of a rabbi. All of his property in Berlin was confiscated as well as a farm he owned. In 1933 he moved to England.
In 1934, after 9 years of retirement, Lasker took 5th at Zurich. He won 9, drew 2, and lost 4. Lasker had now taken up golf.
In 1935 Lasker moved to the USSR. He had been invited to the Second Moscow International Tournament by Krylenko and took 3rd place at the age of 67. He won 6, drew 13, and lost none. He was then invited to become an honorary member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which he accepted, and took permanent residence in Moscow. He became involved in mathematical studies and was offered a professorship at a university. He played chess with Ivan Vinogradov, the director of the Institute of Mathematics, and with David Oistrakh, the famous violinist.
At the end of 1935 he went to Holland to cover the world championship match between Alekhine and Euwe for Russian newspapers.
In 1936, Lasker gave a short talk in Russian at the Young Pioneers’ Club about the studies of chess composer A.A. Troitsky. Lasker inspired several boys to become strong chess players at that meeting, including Yuri Averbakh and Vladimir Simagin.
In August 1936, Lasker played in the Nottingham International, which he took 7th place. He won 6, drew 5, and lost 3. Lasker played under the Soviet sickle-and-hammer flag, representing the USSR.
In late 1937 Lasker moved to Manhattan, New York. His patron in the USSR, Krylenko, was condemned as a traitor and later executed in a purge. Lasker feared for his life and left the USSR, despite doctors telling him that his wife was too sick to travel. He was able to immigrate to the United States by telling the authorities that his step daughter, who was living in Chicago, wanted to be re-united with her mother. On Nov 19, 1937, the Laskers celebrated Martha’s 70th birthday in Chicago with her daughter and grandchildren.
In 1938, Lasker was upset at not being invited to participate in the AVRO tournament in the Netherlands.
In 1939 Lasker was suffering from ill health.
In 1940, Lasker wrote his last book, The Community of the Future.
In May 1940, Lasker agreed to play an exhibition match with Frank Marshall. After two games, both players had won one game each. But Lasker had to cancel the rest of the match due to illness.
Lasker died of a kidney infection in New York on January 11, 1941. He was 72. He had been a charity patient at Mount Sinai hospital. About the same time, his sister died in a Nazi gas chamber. A condolence letter was sent to Martha Lasker by Albert Einstein, when Emanuel Lasker died.
From 1892 to 1924, he won 12 of 14 tournaments, placing 2nd and 3rd in the other two. From 1889 to 1916, he won 20 of 21 matches (the other one drawn).
Lasker’s winning percentage is the highest of any world chess champion: 66%. He won 52 games, drew 44, and lost 16 in world championship play. His calculated ELO rating is 2720.
Lasker played in more chess tournaments in Russia than in any other country. Lasker visited Russia 10 times between 1895 and 1937, playing in all the strongest chess tournaments.
Lasker’s wife died on October 18, 1942 in Chicago, Illinois.
Dr. Albert Einstein contributed a forward about Lasker in the book Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master by Jacques Hannak, published in 1952.
In 1968 East Germany issued a stamp with Lasker’s portrait in honor of the 100th anniversary of Lasker’s birth.
Tournament Record:
Year City Place Won Lost Drawn
1889 Breslau 1st 7 0 2
1889 Breslau 1st-2nd 4 2 0
1889 Amsterdam 2nd 5 1 2
1890 Berlin 1st-2nd 5 1 1
1890 Graz 3rd 3 0 3
1892 London 1st 8 1 2
1892 London 1st 5 0 3
1893 New York 1st 13 0 0
1895 Hastings 3rd 14 4 3
1895-6 St. Petersburg 1st 8 3 7
1896 Nuremberg 1st 12 3 3
1899 London 1st 20 1 7
1900 Paris 1st 14 1 3
1904 Cambridge Springs 2nd-3rd 9 2 4
1906 Trenton Falls 1st 4 0 2
1909 St. Petersburg 1st-2nd 13 2 3
1914 St. Petersburg 1st 10 1 7
1918 Berlin 1st 3 0 3
1923 Mahrisch-Ostrau 1st 8 0 5
1924 New York 1st 13 1 6
1925 Moscow 2nd 10 2 8
1934 Zurich 5th 9 4 2
1935 Moscow 3rd 6 0 13
1936 Moscow 6th 3 5 10
1936 Nottingham 7th-8th 6 3 5
25 tournaments, 353 games, 212 wins, 37 losses, 104 draws
Match Record:
Year Opponent W L D
1889 Bardeleben 2 1 1
1890 Mieses 5 0 3
1890 Bird 7 2 3
1890 Miniati 3 0 2
1890 Englisch 2 0 3
1892 Blackburne 6 0 4
1892 Bird 5 0 0
1892-3 Showalter 6 2 1
1893 Golmayo 2 0 1
1893 Vasquez 3 0 0
1893 Ettinger 5 0 0
1894 Steinitz 10 5 4
1896-7 Steinitz 10 2 5
1907 Marshall 8 0 7
1908 Tarrasch 8 3 5
1909 Speijer 2 0 1
1909 Janowski 2 2 0
1909 Janowski 8 0 3
1910 Schlechter 1 1 8
1916 Tarrasch 5 0 1
1921 Capablanca 0 4 10
22 matches, 194 games, 107 wins, 23 losses, 64 draws
Bibliography:
Bird, Steinitz and Lasker match, 1894
Capablanca, Lasker-Capablanca
Charushin, Lasker’s Combinations
Cunningham, The Games in the Steinitz-Lasker Championship, 1894
Fine & Reinfeld, Lasker’s Greatest Chess Games, 1889-1914, 1963
Forster & Hansen & Negele, Emanuel Lasker, 2009
Fox, Chess Match 1921, Lasker-Capablanca
Gunsberg & Hoffer, Steinitz-Lasker Championship Match, 1894
Hagemann, Emanuel Lasker – Schach, Philosophie, Wissenschaft, 2001
Hannak, Emanuel Lasker: Biography of the World Champion, 1952
Hoffer, The Championship Match: Lasker v. Tarrasch, 1908
Hoffer, Lasker v. Schlechter, 1910
Khalifman, Emanuel Lasker: Games 1889-1903
Khalifman, Emanuel Lasker: Games 1904-1940, 1998
Lasker & Tarrasch, Der schachwettkampf lasker-tarrasch um die weltmeister, 1908
Lasker, Common Sense in Chess, 1917
Lasker, How to Play Chess, 1995
Lasker, Kampf (Struggle), 1907
Lasker, Lasker’s Chess Magazine, 1904-1907
Lasker, Lasker’s Chess Primer, 1934
Lasker, Lasker’s Manual of Chess, 1927 & 1932
Lasker, Lasker’s Manual of Chess, New 21st Century Edition, 2010
Lasker, Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca, 1922
Lasker, Meine sches partien mit Dr. Tarrasch, 1917
Lasker, My Match with Capablanca, 1922
Lasker, The International Chess Congress, St. Petersburg 1909, 1910
Lasker, Textbook of Chess Games 1980
Linder, Emanuel Lasker: 2nd World Chess Champion, 2010
Soloviov, Emanuel Lasker Games, 1889-1903
Soloviov, Emanuel Lasker Games, 1889-1940
Soltis, Why Lasker Matters, 2005
Tarrasch, Der Schachwettkamph: Lasker-Tarrasch, 1908
Vainstein, Lasker, 1984
Varnusz, Emanuel Lasker, vol 1, 1889-1907, 1998
Whyld, Emanuel Lasker (3 volumes), 1976
– Bill Wall

Respect

Respect is not earned. It is given.

PALAY - Grain of Life

Rice (genus Oryza) is a plant in the family of herbs which is a major source of food for more than half the population of people in the world. It is the third largest grain crop, after corn and wheat .

In the past months rice is very expensive here in the Philippines. Government was under fire for its failure to regulate the supply and price of rice. If news is to be believed, government agencies in charge claimed that there is more than enough supply of rice in our warehouses. The country even exported tons of rice overseas!

But why is Rice or Palay Price continue to be high notwithstanding the claim of the government that it is otherwise?

I made my own research and what is more patriotic way but to engage in palay/rice trading myself to determine once and for all which is which.

I am a banker not a farmer so imagine how difficult it is for me to engage in the business.

In my interview with the farmers, a capitalization of $600 or P30,000 is needed for every hectare of land for farming inclusive of the seeds and the fertilizers. Normally, the farmers for some reasons do not have that amount of capital. What will they do is they will borrow fertilizers from the store or borrow capital from a financer normally at 3% per month for a palay period of 120 days at most. The Palay will then be sold to the financer at a much lower price than the market. Income from palay farming is good but it is seasonal. Depending on the demand for palay, the income can really be good if not better.

There are two seasons worth remembering in planting palay:
a. ending normally in September
b. ending normally in March

Understandably, these seasons will mark the beginning of buying palay.

PLANTING SEASON:

1. Land preparation
2. Application of organic fertilizer
3. Application of Molouscide (pangkahol)
4. Application of Herbicide (pangdamo)
5. Application of Insecticide
6. Application of Fertilizer
7. Application of Insecticide
8. Application of Fungicide
9. Application of Fertilizer

These cycle must carefully and heartfully be applied so palay will be ready for human consumption. Cycle normally lasts to 98 days to 120 days at most.

BUYING SEASON:

As in regular business the we have to know the expenses to be incurred to know if we are really earning.

Cost
1. Milling - P85 per sack
2. Sack - 11 per sack
3. Measurement of Darak - .10 per kilo
4. Drying (Diesel) - 65 per sack (P40 per sack if ordinary Dryer)
5. Arrangement - 2 per sack
Total P163.10
=====

SELLING TIME:

It is now time for selling but first we should determine the "Recovery" meaning how many kg of palay is needed to fill up a 50kg of rice or 1 cavan of rice.

The formula will be:

let x be the recovery.
x = no. of kg of palay bought/no. of cavans of palay milled
x = 2042/18 cavans and 44 kilos
x = 2042/18.88
x = 108.15 kg needed to complete a cavan of rice
====

To determine the Selling Price (SP ) of a cavan the formula will be:
SP = (Recovery x Cost of Palay bought per Kg) + Total Costs - Other Income (By-products)
= (108.15 x 19.50) + 163.10
= 2,108.93 + 163.10
SP = P 2,272.03
=======
This means that the SP should not be lower than P2,300 per cavan (with consideration of course on the amount earned from by-products).

This also means that the cost of palay bought which was P19.50 was very expensive unless there is a predetermined computation that the seller was willing to shoulder due to previous commitments.

Further, the buyer of palay grains should monitor the prices of the Ricemill which ideally should be less than P1.00.

The question of why the prices of rice is high is still due to the rule of "Supply and Demand". Wether the supply is controlled by some sectors to appear that there is artificial shortage is another question (Which I would like to believe). This is aside from the fact that this is the time of the year where harvesting is affected by continous rains brought about by typhoons.

Chess Killer Tip

http://youtu.be/qgTiCf2X5NQ

‘A GM is a GM’? – FIDE title devaluation

26.6.2013 - Although much has been made of the rising Elos, little has been said of the FIDE titles that rely on them, and their increasing devaluation. It is not just the grandmaster title, but all titles that are losing their value, and even those dropping standards are being tossed aside as FIDE hands out titles to players who are underrated by hundreds of Elo. Here is a look at this worrisome trend.

 

‘A GM is a GM?’ – FIDE title devaluation

By Albert Silver

While voicing serious concerns with a grandmaster about the inflation of international chess titles and their dwindling value, the grandmaster agreed there was reason to worry, but then added “still, a GM is a GM to be fair.” Is it? Many players view the issue as a relatively recent phenomenon, as if it were just a minor issue of Elo adjustment over the last decade, but the issue goes much deeper and further. Since its adoption and creation by FIDE in 1950, the title has not only changed in its requirements, but its very definition.

History of the grandmaster title

When FIDE first awarded the grandmaster title in 1950, it was bestowed upon 27 players of the day, which included world champion Mikhail Botvinnik and all those who had qualified or been seeded in the inaugural Candidates Tournament: Isaac Boleslavsky, Igor Bondarevsky, David Bronstein, Max Euwe, Reuben Fine, Salo Flohr, Paul Keres, Alexander Kotov, Andor Lilienthal, Miguel Najdorf, Samuel Reshevsky, Vasily Smyslov, Gideon Ståhlberg, and László Szabó.

It was also given to players still living who, though past their prime in 1950, were recognized as having been world class at their peak: Ossip Bernstein, Oldrich Duras, Ernst Grünfeld, Borislav Kostic, Grigory Levenfish, Géza Maróczy, Jacques Mieses, Viacheslav Ragozin, Akiba Rubinstein, Friedrich Sämisch, Savielly Tartakower, and Milan Vidmar.

Jacques Mieses playing Akiba Rubinstein in 1909. 41 years later FIDE could not
fail to recognize their stature.

The standard used for the title was clear: a grandmaster was someone who was recognized as a world-class player at some point in their career. As the process advanced, clear criteria needed to be established for future title contenders.

Under the 1957 regulations, the title of International Grandmaster was automatically awarded to the world champion and to any player qualifying from the Interzonal tournament to play in the Candidates Tournament. It is worth noting that it was under these conditions that Bobby Fischer became the world’s youngest grandmaster at age 15, when he qualified for the Candidates tournament. Looking at it in today’s eyes, one might conclude these draconian conditions were ridiculously tough, but when FIDE convened in 1965 with the purpose of revising the rules, the prevailing opinion was that the 1957 rules were… too easy!

When Bobby Fischer was awarded the grandmaster title at age 15, it was because
he had qualified as a world championship contender.

At the FIDE Congress in 1961, GM Milan Vidmar said that the regulations "made it possible to award international titles to players without sufficient merit", and when FIDE convened in 1965 to revise them, GM Miguel Najdorf echoed Vidmar’s concerns, and stated that the existing regulations were leading to an inflation of international titles. As a result, the rules were tightened up, and now the grandmaster candidate had to score 40% in the Candidates Tournament, or reach the quarter finals of the Candidates Matches. This is what was expected of a player holding the grandmaster title.

Although this undoubtedly kept the prestige of the grandmaster title immaculate, it was probably a little overprotective. The consequence of the new regulations was that in 1966 only one title was conferred and the same was true again in 1968.

In 1970, the modern system for awarding titles was presented at the FIDE Assembly at the Siegen Chess Olympiad with proposals by Dr. Wilfried Dorazil, then FIDE Vice-President, and fellow Committee members Svetozar Gligoric and Professor Arpad Elo. These changes were based on the widespread adoption of the Elo system by FIDE and its role in awarding the grandmaster title. At the time, a rating performance equivalent to 2551 was enough for a norm, and the rating required was 2450. Just as today, the player needed three norms, but at the time the three norms had to be scored within a three year period. Eventually the rating requirement was raised to 2500 as the ratings rose and the preservation of the title’s value became a concern.

Lowering the standards

To put this into perspective, in 1973, 40 years ago, a Grandmaster norm performance was the equivalent of a player ranked in the top 20-40 players in the world. This was still true ten years later in 1983, and it is worth noting that the 2450 rating required to become a grandmaster was still quite close to the world top 100, where the 91st to 100th players were rated 2485, and included Boris Gulko, Joel Benjamin, and others.

In 1987, Boris Gulko was barely 25 Elo above the minimum to be
recognized as a grandmaster, yet that ranked him 80th in the world.

By 1993, 20 years ago, things had changed significantly after several inflationary rules did their damage, such as a rule in which a tournament winner could not lose Elo, and the GM norm was now the equivalent of a player ranked in the top 60. Today, in 2013, a GM performance equates to a player ranked in the top 250, and the minimum rating to earn the title, which 30 years ago would have almost had you in the top 100 players, would now rank you around 930 in the world.

A GM is a GM? The title may be the same, but the definition and expectation of the title have clearly changed. Assuredly there are more strong players than ever before, but the grandmaster title was not an exam one passed with a diploma at the end, it was a stamp of prestige that implied world-class ability. Still, the trend of the devaluation of titles does not stop there.

The trickle-down effect

A few special cases were also introduced over time, such as winning the World Junior Under-20 Championship. At first, this prestigious championship, won by players such as Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky, and even top players of today such as Anand, Aronian, and Mamedyarov, earned the player the International Master title. As time passed this was upgraded to earn the winner a grandmaster norm, until finally in 2004 it was deemed worth the title outright. From a purely Elo perspective this would seem to make sense. After all, by 2004 there were no sub-2600 winners, so the promise of the title was never actually put into practice. Unfortunately this has also led to an alarming trickle-down effect to other titles. 

Garry Kasparov, winner of the World Junior Championship in Dortmund in 1980.
Second was Nigel Short (right) and third Chilean IM Ivan Eduardo Morovic (left).

Until now, the discussion has been the nonstop devaluation of what it means to be a grandmaster and the devaluation of the title itself, but this affects all other titles as a result. The reason is that all titles are actually proportionate to the grandmaster title. The requirements to become an International Master (IM) are the same as those of a Grandmaster except the rating required is 100 below. This is how it was even in 1970.

In 1978 the FIDE Master (FM) title was introduced and today the requirement is that a player be rated 2300 FIDE, which is 100 below that of the IM, or 200 Elo below that of the Grandmaster. There is also a Candidate Master (CM) title for players who reach 2200. No norms are required for these last two titles, and they are strictly dependent on one’s rating. Although there has never been any question about these titles suggesting world class ability, the problem comes with the alternate ways one can achieve these lifetime titles.

Gata Kamsky is the highest ranked player ever to not be a grandmaster,
when at age 16, and still untitled, he was 8th in the world with 2650 Elo.

One example is that one can become a FIDE Master for life by winning an event such as the Pan-American under eight championship. One might think this means that these chess-playing seven-year-olds are in fact playing at 2300 strength, but the fact is you will not find a single one of these players rated even 2000 FIDE much less 2300. So why are they receiving titles that suggest a 2300 playing strength? Good question.

As of July 1st, FIDE will expand on this title generosity, by providing a free-for-all for the Candidate Master title, which is a lifetime title conferred to players who are rated 2200 FIDE. The idea of a title to allow players, unable to achieve grandmaster status, to show they reached a dignified level of skill is commendable, but what is one to think of FIDE regulations that then guarantee the title to a six-year-old player for coming third in the Continental School under-seven championship despite being rated hundredsof Elo below the requirements? What value does the title have then?

It is obvious that the strict definition of a grandmaster as a world-class player no longer holds true, but there is a vast difference between a world-class player and one ranked no.930 in the world. It would be a tragedy for FIDE to let its most prestigious title, and aspired goal, dwindle down to mediocrity.

Solution

So what is the solution? If FIDE acknowledges the problem and wishes to revert this worrisome direction, then strong measures need to be taken. When the Elo system was implemented by FIDE in 1970, no provisions were made for possible ratings inflation and subsequently the titles, as a result, only one 50 Elo adjustment has been made in the last 40 years. Since then the rating of the 100th player has risen approximately 150 Elo.

To those who would argue that it is due to an increase in stronger players, realize that the difference between the 10th and 100th player has not changed in over 40 years. For example, in 1983, the world no.10 was 115 Elo stronger than the world no.100, and today in June 2013 the difference is 109 Elo.  

In theory this would seem to indicate a need to recalibrate the title requirements, rating and norms, by 150 Elo, but a compromise would be a 100 Elo raise so that new grandmasters entering the list would still be in the top 240 players, instead of the 930th as is the case now. To prevent the problem from getting out of hand again, FIDE would implement a practice of regularly re-examining the requirements every five years and recalibrating them, if necessary, according to the lowest rating of the top 200-250 players.

As to the distribution of Elo-based titles such as FIDE Master and Candidate Master to players who have not proven their worthiness in any way or form, cease the practice immediately, as this not only besmirches the value of the title, but is an insult to players who earn them through dedication and skill. Otherwise, why stop there? Just declare them all grandmasters.

Sex for Flight Scheme - 1987

               I was a Yakuza victim!

               This was revealed by a Pinay who went to Japan to be a waitress but ended up an unpaid prostitute           
                She went there because she wanted to earn some money to be able to sell meat in the market. However, she found herself turned into a piece of meat sold into japanese market for sex with  these japanese customers. Every night she other women were brought  to a hotel and sold to at least two Japanese.  The most courageous among them hatched for an escape plan and thru the help of a symphatetic Japanese who happened to be a girlfriend of one of the Pinay's there, they manage to escape to Tokyo. They sought refuge in the Philippine Embassy, however, some embassy officials before helping these women forced them to have sex with them in return for their passports and visas back to the Philippines.

                  Last year our government was very proud, very fortunate indeed! Imagine the Philippines has just generated $xxx from its local export , however, the Filipina has lost her face, her dignity, her womanhood.  She has become  a some kind of commodity - an export product. She has become a some kind of a meat - a very very cheap meat!

Issac Asimov and Chess

Issac Asimov and Chess

Isaac Asimov was born on January 2, 1920. In his lifetime, he wrote 470 books and is one of the greatest science fiction writers. Some of his science fiction stories mentioned chess.

One of his first science fiction stories, Nightfall, written in 1941, contains a reference to chess. A multi-chess board was set up and a six-member game was started. “The men about the table had brought out a multi-chess board and started a six member game. Moves were made rapidly and in silence. All eyes bent in furious concentration on the board.” In 1968, the Science Fiction Writers of America voted Nightfall the best science fiction short story ever written. When the book was expanded into a novel, multi-chess had been changed to stochastic chess.

His first published novel, Pebble in the Sky, published in 1950, propelled a man thousands of years into the future. The only thing that did not change, after thousands of years, was the game of chess. The novel also mentioned variants of chess such as 3-D chess, and chess played with dice.

“Chess, somehow, hadn’t changed, except for the names of the pieces. It was as he remembered it, and therefore it was always a comfort to him. At least, in this one respect, his poor memory did not play him false. Grew told him of variations of chess. There was fourhanded chess, in which each player had a board, touching each other at the corners, with a fifth board filling the hollow in the center as a common No Man’s Land. There were three-dimensional chess games in which eight transparent boards were placed one over the other and in which each piece moved in three dimensions as they formerly moved in two, and in which the number of pieces and pawns were doubled, the win coming only when a simultaneous check of both enemy kings occurred. There were even the popular varieties, in which the original position of the chessmen were decided by throws of the dice, or where certain squares conferred advantages or disadvantages to the pieces upon them, or where new pieces with strange properties were introduced. But chess itself, the original and unchangeable, was the same–and the tournament between Schwartz and Grew had completed its first fifty games. They used a “night-board,” one that glowed in the darkness in a checkered blue-and-orange glimmer. The pieces, ordinary lumpish figures of a reddish clay in the sunlight, were metamorphosed at night. Half were bathed in a creamy whiteness that lent them the look of cold and shining porcelain, and the others sparked in tiny glitters of red.”

Asimov mentioned chess in his 1950 short story, Legal Rites. “Every night we sat up together. When we didn’t play pinochle or chess or cribbage, we just sat and talked over the news of the day. I still have the book we used to keep records of the chess and pinochle games. Zeb made the entries himself, in his own handwriting.”

In 1953, in Asimov’s short story, Monkey’s Finger, he wrote, ““Yes. Yes.” Torgesson paced faster. “Then you must know that chess-playing computers have been constructed on cybernetic principles. The rules of chess moves and the object of the game are built into its circuits. Given any position on the chess board, the machine can then compute all possible moves together with their consequence and choose that one which offers the highest probability of winning the game. It can even be made to take the temperament of its opponent into account. Torgesson said, “Now imagine a similar situation in which a computing machine can be given a fragment of a literary work to which the computer can then add words from its stock of the entire vocabulary such that the greatest literary values are served. Naturally, the machine would have to be taught the significance of the various keys of a typewriter. Of course, such a computer would have to be much, much more complex than any chess player.”

In his 1953 book, Second Foundation, he wrote, “But she had died. Less than five years, all told, it had been; and after that he knew that he could live only by fighting that vague and fearful enemy that deprived him of the dignity of manhood by controlling his destiny; that made life a miserable struggle against a foreordained end; that made all the universe a hateful and deadly chess game. But there was no way of making the people suddenly disbelieve what they had believed all their lives, so that the myth eventually served a very useful purpose in Seldon’s cosmic chess game.”

In his 1955 short story, Franchise, he wrote, “We can’t let you read a newspaper, but if you’d care for a murder mystery, or if you’d like to play chess, or if there’s anything we can do for you to help pass the time, I wish you’d mention it. Reason alone wouldn’t do. What was needed was a rare type of intuition; the same faculty of mind (only much more intensified) that made a grand master at chess. A mind was needed of the sort that could see through the quadrillions of chess patterns to find the one best move, and do it in a matter of minutes.”

In his 1956 short story, The Dead Past, he wrote, “Your scientists can’t write. Why should they be expected to? They aren’t expected to be grand masters at chess or virtuosos at the violin, so why expect them to know how to put words together? Why not leave that for specialists, too?”

In his 1968 short story, Exile to Hell, he wrote, “He considered the chessboard carefully and his hand hesitated briefly over the bishop. Parkinson, at the other side of the chess board, watched the pattern of the pieces absently. Chess was, of course, the professional game of computer programmers, but, under the circumstances, he lacked enthusiasm. By rights, he felt with some annoyance, Dowling should have been even worse off; he was programming the prosecution’s case. He tapped his finger on the chessboard for emphasis, and Dowling caught the queen before it went over. “Adjusting, not moving,” he mumbled. Dowling’s eyes went from piece to piece and he continued to hesitate.”

In his 1970 short story, Waterclap, he wrote, “No mystery,” said Bergen genially. “At any given time, some fifteen of our men are asleep and perhaps fifteen more are watching films or playing chess or, if their wives are with them-”

From 1971 to 1974, Asimov wrote Tales of the Black Widowers. It had several chess references. He wrote, “He was a master at Chinese checkers, Parcheesi, backgammon, Monopoly,checkers, chess, go, three-dimensional ticktacktoe.” Do you have a chess set, Mr. Atwood?”

“Certainly!”

“Yours? Or was it a present from Mr. Sanders?”

“Oh, no, mine. A rather beautiful set that belonged to my father. Sanders and I played many a game on it.”

In 1972, in his short story, Take a Match, he wrote, “He said there was a low hum that you could hear in one of the men’s rooms that you couldn’t hear anymore. And he said there was a place in the closet of the game room where the chess sets were kept where the wall felt warm because of the fusion tube and that place was not warm now.”

In his 1976 short story, The Winnowing, he wrote, “Peter Affarre, chairman of the World Food Organization, came frequently to Rodman’s laboratories for chess and conversation.”

In 1978, Asimov wrote a story for the September 4, 1978 issue of New York Magazine, entitled, “Gosh, Kreskin, That’s Amazing!” He wrote, “The amazing Kreskin, who bills himself as the “world’s foremost mentalist,” played chess with Cleveland Amory and Jacques d’Ambroise at the Raga restaurant last Tuesday. Kreskin was blindfolded, and he announced he would call out his opponent’s moves after thay made them, presumably by reading their minds. He called out the first two moves of each opponent, then caled a halt to that part of the demonstration. Both Amory and d’Abroise made the common Pawn-to-King’s-Four opening move, and Kreskin guessed the move – after much patter and visible suffering. Kreskin moved his Queen’s Pawn up to Amory’s piece, and Amory promptly too it with his King’s Pawn. In being taken from the board, the two chess pieces made a pronounced click – a dead giveaway. Kreskin guessed the move again with suffering and delay.

For the second part of the demonstration, Kreskin had Cleveland Amory place a Knight on another chessboard with the 64 squares numbered sequentially. Although blindfolded and with his back to the chessboard, Kreskin guessed that the Knight was on No. 35. I don’t know how he did it, but I presume any good mentalist can do it. He then called off the number of 63 other squares in order, squares to which the Knight could move by legitimate Knight’s moves.

The various “Knight’s tours,” which is what these are called, are well known to chess players, and I suspect it is quite possible to memorize a Knight’s tour and then, having established the starting number, rattle off the other 63 numbers in the correct order.

Kreskin suffered through every number, though, asking for quiet, then pattering and squirming endlessly. He got the numbers right, of course.

He expressed surprise at one point that one position was followed by another square bearing a number higher than the previous one. There are 42 different positions on the squares that allow a move to another position ten higher in number by a Knight’s move, so his surprise was itself surprising.

Kreskin is offering to meet Bobby Fischer, together with the winner of the Korchnoi-Karpov match, and play them both simultaneously, himself blindfolded. If that should happen and Kreskin proceeds with constant chatter as last Tuesday, I wonder which of his two opponents will kill him first. Probably Fischer.”

In 1979, Asimov wrote Isaac Asimov’s Book of Facts. On page 68, he says, “The number of possible ways of playing just the first four moves on each side in a game of chess is 318,979,564,000.” This may be wrong. The number of possible ways for White to play the first move is 20 (16 pawn moves and 4 knight moves). For the first move with Black, the number is 400. For the 2nd move for white, the number of possible moves is 8,902 (5,362 distinct). For the 2nd move for Black, the number of possible moves is 197,281 (71,852 distinct). For the 3rd move for White, the number of possible moves is 4,865,617. For the 3rd move for Black, the number of possible moves is 119,060,679. For the 4th move for White, the number of possible moves is 3,195,913,043. For the 4th move for Black, the number of possible moves is 84,999,425,906. This is smaller than what Asimov says.

In 1981, Asimov wrote a science fiction short story called The Perfect Fit. He referred to a 3-dimensional chess game which was a game with 8 chessboards stacked upon each other, making the playing area cubic rather than square.

In 1984, in his book Bouquets of the Black Widowers, he wrote, “’Please! It will do you good to listen. You may be a distraction. If you play chess, you will know what I mean when I say you may be a sacrifice. You are sent in to confuse and distract us, occupying our time and efforts, while the real work is done elsewhere.”

In 1986, in his short story Robot Dreams, he wrote, “Paulson said, “We can’t let you read a newspaper, but if you’d care for a murder mystery, or if you’d like to play chess, or if there’s anything we can do for you to help pass the time, I wish you’d mention it.” “Reason alone wouldn’t do. What was needed was a rare type of intuition; the same faculty of mind (only

much more intensified) that made a grand master at chess. A mind was needed of the sort that could see through the quadrillions of chess patterns to find the one best move, and do it in a matter of minutes.”

In 1987, in his book Fantastic Voyage II – Destination Brain, he wrote, “In life, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate.” There were other references to chess in the novel. He wrote, “What’s more, Aleksandr was a dreadful chess player, much to his father’s disappointment, but he showed signs of promise on the violin.” “A pawn is the most important piece on the chessboard — to a pawn.”

In 1988, in his short story The Smile of the Chipper, he wrote, “Of course, we couldn’t hire them both. Getting two chippers to work together is impossible. They’re like chess grandmasters, I suppose. Put them in the same room and they would automatically challenge each other. They would compete continually, each trying to influence and confute the other. They wouldn’t stop couldn’t actually — and they would burn each other out in six months.”

In 1990, he wrote an essay for the Los Angeles Times, entitled “Checkmate?”, about computer chess vs. human intelligence.

In his book, Isaac Asimov’s Treasury of Humor, he wrote, “Once while I was in the army, I read “The Royal Game”, surely the best chess story ever written. It filled me with a wild desire to play chess and I began to approach various soldiers who appeared the chess type. No Luck! To each one I came with a wistful “Would you like to play a game of chess?” and from each one came a cold “No.” Finally I had the idea that I should have had to start with. I came to a soldier and said, “Would you like to read a terrific story?” and handed him “The Royal Game”. I waited. An hour passed. And then he came to me and said “Would you like to play a game of chess?”

In 1994, Isaac Asimov’s last autobiography, I. Asimov: A Memoir, was published after his death. In his chapter titled Games, this is what he said about chess.

“Failure at physical sports has never bothered me…What bothered me, though, was my failure at chess. When I was quite young and had a checkerboard, but no chess pieces, I read books on the game and learned the various moves. I then cut out cardboard squares on which I drew the symbols for the various pieces, and tried to play games with myself. Eventually I managed to persuade my father to get me real chessmen. Then I taught my sister the moves and played the game with her. Both of us played very clumsily indeed.

My brother, Stanley, who watched us play, learned the moves and, eventually, asked if he might play. Ever the indulgent older brother, I said, “Sure,” and prepared to beat the pants off him. The trouble was that in the first game he ever played he beat me.

In the years that followed, I discovered that everyone beat me, regardless of race, color, or religion. I was simply the most appallingly bad chess player who ever lived, and, as time went on, I just stopped playing chess.

My failure at chess was really distressing. It seemed completely at odds with my “smartness,” but I now know (or at least have been told) that great chess players achieve their results by years and years of studying chess games, by the memorization of large numbers of complex “combinations.” They don’t see chess as a succession of moves but as a pattern. I know what that means, for I see an essay or a story as a pattern.

But these talents are different. Kasparov sees a chess game as a pattern but an essay as a mere collection of words. I see an essay as a pattern and a chess game as a mere collection of moves. So he can play chess and I can write essays and not vice versa.

That’s not enough, however. I never thought of comparing myself to grand masters of chess. What bothered me was my inability to beat anyone! The conclusion that I finally came to (right or wrong) was that I was unwilling to study the chessboard and weigh the consequences of each possible move I might make. Even people who couldn’t see complex patterns might at least penetrate two or three moves ahead, but not I. I moved entirely on impulse, if not at random, and could not make myself do anything else. That meant I would almost certainly lose.

And again – why? To me, it seems obvious. I was spoiled by my ability to understand instantly, my ability to recall instantly. I expected to see things at once and I refused to accept a situation in which that was not possible.”

Asimov died on April 6, 1992 of AIDS after a blood transfusion during heart surgery.

In 1996, in Robert MacBride’s trilogy book Caliban – Utopia, set in Isaac Asimov’s Robot/Empire/Foundation universe, the author wrote, “A whole series of questions she dared not ask flickered through her mind, along with the answers she dared not hear from Kaelor. Like a chess player who could see checkmate eight moves ahead, she knew how the questions and answers would go, almost word for word.”

In 1997, Gregory Benford wrote Foundation’s Fear as part of the Second Foundation Trilogy. It was written after Asimov’s death, authorized by the Asimov estate. There were several chess references in the book.