Answers.Body: <p>Lasker already knew at that point that Capa was a far superior player and that's evidenced by the fact that when they met for the world championship, Lasker didn't win a single game. Lasker was playing for draws to save face. He knew he couldn't beat Capa and that's why he later tried to refuse to even play him for the world championship.</p>
  <p>I completely disagree with your assertion that Lasker was better in the endgame. I learned a lot about the endgame from reading Capa's books. Maybe more than any other author. I can't say I ever learned anything from Lasker. He beat a near 60 year old Steinitz to win the title and then refused to play any top contenders for the next 30 years. When he finally did he lost and lost badly. Fischer called Lasker a &quot;coffee house player&quot; and I tend to agree. Lasker was still playing 1860s chess 60 years later. If Morphy had lived, Lasker would have never been world champion. Keep in mind, Morphy was actually younger than Steinitz and while both were alive, most estimates rate Morphy 400-500 rating points higher than Steinitz throughout their careers. That's roughly the difference between Magnus and an IM. So Lasker's world championship would be like somebody beating a 60 year old 2300, declaring themselves world champion and refusing to play any top players for the next 30 years.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-04-22T06:27:06.300Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-04-22T09:04:49.053Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-04-22T09:04:49.053Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Savage47
Body: <p>In 1914, world champion Emanuel Lasker was trailing future world champion J.R. Capablanca in a tournament, meaning that he needed to win, not just draw, against Capablanca.</p>
  
  <p>He played the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez, trading his best attacking pieces, his queen and light squared bishop, early in this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bSpMwciBc" rel="noreferrer">classic game</a>.
  For these reasons, the variation was considered "drawish." Except that Lasker won.</p>
  
  <p>Here's some background that may explain why:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><p>Lasker was the best endgame player in the world. Capablanca was inferior (at the time) in this regard. (Both of these opinions are Capablanca's.)</p></li>
  <li><p>Capablanca was already a ferocious middle game player (and seen as such).</p></li>
  <li><p>At the time, Lasker was 46 years old and Capablanca was 26. Lasker was more "mature." </p></li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>In "Chess Fundamentals," Capablanca noted that immediately after the queen exchange, "The reader should note that if all the pieces were exchanged, White would be practically a pawn ahead and therefore have a won game." In fact, Capablanca was "rattled" by the prospect of a lost endgame and therefore misplayed what passed for a middle game.</p>
  
  <p>Even though it was regarded as "unconventional," did Lasker's strategy make sense from the point of view of his endgame advantage?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-12T05:56:33.523Z
Comments.Text: By comparative advantage, do you mean this:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-12T06:01:12.567Z
Comments.Text: @Scounged: If Lasker and Capa are equally good in the middle game, and Lasker is better at the end game, Lasker has a comparative advantage in the endgame.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-12T08:05:44.130Z
Comments.Text: @Tom Au: But if Capablanca is much better in the middle game and only a little better in the endgame, then Lasker has a comparative advantage in the endgame as well. In your example one would rather just say that Lasker has an advantage in endgame play.
Comments.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-12T08:07:59.673Z
Comments.Text: @BlindKungFuMaster:Ok, changed it to "endgame advantage." Thanks for your help.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Tags: <opening><strategy><history><ruy-lopez>
Title: Did it make sense for Lasker to play the Exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez in 1914?
ThreadText: # Did it make sense for Lasker to play the Exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez in 1914?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-12)
  
  In 1914, world champion Emanuel Lasker was trailing future world champion J.R. Capablanca in a tournament, meaning that he needed to win, not just draw, against Capablanca.
  
  He played the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez, trading his best attacking pieces, his queen and light squared bishop, early in this [classic game](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bSpMwciBc).
  For these reasons, the variation was considered "drawish." Except that Lasker won.
  
  Here's some background that may explain why:
  
  1. Lasker was the best endgame player in the world. Capablanca was inferior (at the time) in this regard. (Both of these opinions are Capablanca's.)
  2. Capablanca was already a ferocious middle game player (and seen as such).
  3. At the time, Lasker was 46 years old and Capablanca was 26. Lasker was more "mature."
  
  In "Chess Fundamentals," Capablanca noted that immediately after the queen exchange, "The reader should note that if all the pieces were exchanged, White would be practically a pawn ahead and therefore have a won game." In fact, Capablanca was "rattled" by the prospect of a lost endgame and therefore misplayed what passed for a middle game.
  
  Even though it was regarded as "unconventional," did Lasker's strategy make sense from the point of view of his endgame advantage?
  
  **Tags:** opening, strategy, history, ruy-lopez
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: By comparative advantage, do you mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage  
  > **username_0**: @username_1: If Lasker and Capa are equally good in the middle game, and Lasker is better at the end game, Lasker has a comparative advantage in the endgame.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0: But if Capablanca is much better in the middle game and only a little better in the endgame, then Lasker has a comparative advantage in the endgame as well. In your example one would rather just say that Lasker has an advantage in endgame play.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2:Ok, changed it to "endgame advantage." Thanks for your help.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2022-04-22. Score: 0
  
  Lasker already knew at that point that Capa was a far superior player and that's evidenced by the fact that when they met for the world championship, Lasker didn't win a single game. Lasker was playing for draws to save face. He knew he couldn't beat Capa and that's why he later tried to refuse to even play him for the world championship.
  
  I completely disagree with your assertion that Lasker was better in the endgame. I learned a lot about the endgame from reading Capa's books. Maybe more than any other author. I can't say I ever learned anything from Lasker. He beat a near 60 year old Steinitz to win the title and then refused to play any top contenders for the next 30 years. When he finally did he lost and lost badly. Fischer called Lasker a "coffee house player" and I tend to agree. Lasker was still playing 1860s chess 60 years later. If Morphy had lived, Lasker would have never been world champion. Keep in mind, Morphy was actually younger than Steinitz and while both were alive, most estimates rate Morphy 400-500 rating points higher than Steinitz throughout their careers. That's roughly the difference between Magnus and an IM. So Lasker's world championship would be like somebody beating a 60 year old 2300, declaring themselves world champion and refusing to play any top players for the next 30 years.
  
  
  ---
  
  