Amazing article. I think that reason so many people in his era and even later fell back on the psychological explanation is that they didn’t fuunderstand what was happening in his games.
In most of his games if you take the position after the opening his play is completely modern. His understanding of dynamics and the various trade offs between material structure and activity was at least a generation ahead of his time.
His games feel completely modern in terms of middle and endgame play.
I agree. Compared to most players, his middle game is very modern. The games where he outwits his opponents with sharp counterplay are extremely instructive. It’s unfortunate that the “psychological“ narrative of his style still prevails today because I think that downplays the significance of what he was doing at that time.
Lasker's counterplay-finding approach is basically applied game theory before the formal frameworks existed. What's interesting is how his "practical" style mirrors what modern game theory calls mixed strategies, where deviating from "optimal" moves creates informational asymmetry. The comparison to Carlsen makes sense becasue both understood that human opponents don't calculate perfectly, so positions with more decison nodes favor the better calculator. The fighting mentality you mentioned is really about maximizing expectd value over board positions rather than just objective evaluation.
Amazing article. I think that reason so many people in his era and even later fell back on the psychological explanation is that they didn’t fuunderstand what was happening in his games.
In most of his games if you take the position after the opening his play is completely modern. His understanding of dynamics and the various trade offs between material structure and activity was at least a generation ahead of his time.
His games feel completely modern in terms of middle and endgame play.
Thanks for reading, William!
I agree. Compared to most players, his middle game is very modern. The games where he outwits his opponents with sharp counterplay are extremely instructive. It’s unfortunate that the “psychological“ narrative of his style still prevails today because I think that downplays the significance of what he was doing at that time.
Lasker's counterplay-finding approach is basically applied game theory before the formal frameworks existed. What's interesting is how his "practical" style mirrors what modern game theory calls mixed strategies, where deviating from "optimal" moves creates informational asymmetry. The comparison to Carlsen makes sense becasue both understood that human opponents don't calculate perfectly, so positions with more decison nodes favor the better calculator. The fighting mentality you mentioned is really about maximizing expectd value over board positions rather than just objective evaluation.