Answers.Body: <p>We can't know the truth. Lasker is dead and he's the only one who knows if he really played like that intentionally. We can create an absolutely perfect analysis of his games and still never know if he intentionally played a bad move that happened to work out in a particular game or whether he just made a mistake and didn't get punished for it.</p>
  
  <p>Good moves will beat psychology every time, but even so there exists ample evidence to support the idea that sometimes moves that are less than perfect will win games because they fit in with the psychological moment.</p>
  
  <p>My own opinion? I think Reti invented that as an excuse to cover the fact Lasker was making moves he (Reti) couldn't fathom. Not that Lasker never played the man instead of the board, but that he didn't do it as often as Reti would like us to think he did.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-03T20:01:23.240Z
Answers.Text: My own opinion is that Lasker was the first of the truely modern players. Steinitz, Tchigorin and even Reti were gentleman scientists, enamoured by the beauty of their theories, Lasker on the other hand played to win.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-05T12:52:19.413Z
Answers.Text: "... if he intentionally played a bad move that happened to work out in a particular game or whether he just made a mistake and didn't get punished for it." are you talking about Lasker or Tal?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-05T22:09:15.757Z
Answers.Text: That's the whole problem with Lasker's "psychological" moves. In many ways Tal was like him, in that he dove into things believing he would find his way through it all. That may explain a lot; Lasker's "psychology" was believing he was the best chess player at the board. "So what if I can't see the end of this line? I'll outplay him along the way!" And, unlike his contemporary Janowski, he usually was, and usually did.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-03T19:30:54.000Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-09-03T19:30:54.000Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>I need to know if there exists any such analysis which are available
    online so that we can know the truth ?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>I don't believe any such analysis exists online. The closest you will come is the excellent book by GM John Nunn confusingly called <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1906454825" rel="nofollow">John Nunn's Chess Course</a> </p>
  
  <p>This is actually a book in which Nunn dissects in great detail a number of Lasker's games including a lot of high quality new analysis. Nunn looks particularly critically at previous analyses by other writers which suggest that Lasker made doubtful moves against some opponents which caused his opponents to go astray and lose the game when with best play they should have won from those positions. </p>
  
  <p>Nunn shows that these analyses are wrong and that the so-called "bad" moves were actually very good moves not only in terms of computer analysis, in that they addressed the tactical and strategic needs of the position, but also in terms of making life difficult for the opponent by giving him lots of plausible possible continuations and therefore lots more chances to go wrong.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-05T12:54:22.823Z
Answers.Text: +1 If the best, most logical move leads to loss, it is prudent to save one's energy by resigning... or by playing a 'non-best' move in order to complicate the position to give your opponent the chance to blunder.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-04T09:12:03.330Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-09-04T09:12:03.330Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>I know that there has been some analysis done which compares computer moves to historical games.  Here is a wikipedia article including that comparison and also some other measurements for comparing players throughout history: </p>
  
  <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history</a></p>
  
  <p>Perhaps the Lasker wikipedia page refers to one of these kind of measurements.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-03T20:46:38.433Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-09-03T20:54:12.733Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2015-09-03T20:54:12.733Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Diisciiple
Body: <p>I have heard many people saying that Lasker used psychology to win. But I have also read a Wikipedia page mentioning recent researches refuting this belief and justifying Lasker's tactics to be quite ahead of his time and something laden with a hidden master plan. I need to know if there exists any such analysis which is available online so that we can know the truth ? </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-05-07T16:35:22.340Z
Comments.Text: Why must the material be online? There is an excellent **Book** called Why Lasker Matters by Andy Soltis
Comments.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Tags: <psychology><famous-players><lasker>
Title: Emanuel Lasker and Psychology
ThreadText: # Emanuel Lasker and Psychology
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-09-03)
  
  I have heard many people saying that username_0 used psychology to win. But I have also read a Wikipedia page mentioning recent researches refuting this belief and justifying username_0's tactics to be quite ahead of his time and something laden with a hidden master plan. I need to know if there exists any such analysis which is available online so that we can know the truth ?
  
  **Tags:** psychology, famous-players, lasker
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Why must the material be online? There is an excellent **Book** called Why username_0 Matters by Andy Soltis  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2015-09-03. Score: 5
  
  We can't know the truth. username_0 is dead and he's the only one who knows if he really played like that intentionally. We can create an absolutely perfect analysis of his games and still never know if he intentionally played a bad move that happened to work out in a particular game or whether he just made a mistake and didn't get punished for it.
  
  Good moves will beat psychology every time, but even so there exists ample evidence to support the idea that sometimes moves that are less than perfect will win games because they fit in with the psychological moment.
  
  My own opinion? I think Reti invented that as an excuse to cover the fact username_0 was making moves he (Reti) couldn't fathom. Not that username_0 never played the man instead of the board, but that he didn't do it as often as Reti would like us to think he did.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: My own opinion is that username_0 was the first of the truely modern players. Steinitz, Tchigorin and even Reti were gentleman scientists, enamoured by the beauty of their theories, username_0 on the other hand played to win.  
  > **username_4**: "... if he intentionally played a bad move that happened to work out in a particular game or whether he just made a mistake and didn't get punished for it." are you talking about username_0 or Tal?  
  > **username_2**: That's the whole problem with username_0's "psychological" moves. In many ways Tal was like him, in that he dove into things believing he would find his way through it all. That may explain a lot; username_0's "psychology" was believing he was the best chess player at the board. "So what if I can't see the end of this line? I'll outplay him along the way!" And, unlike his contemporary Janowski, he usually was, and usually did.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2015-09-04. Score: 3
  
  > I need to know if there exists any such analysis which are available
  > online so that we can know the truth ?
  
  I don't believe any such analysis exists online. The closest you will come is the excellent book by GM John Nunn confusingly called [John Nunn's Chess Course](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1906454825)
  
  This is actually a book in which Nunn dissects in great detail a number of username_0's games including a lot of high quality new analysis. Nunn looks particularly critically at previous analyses by other writers which suggest that username_0 made doubtful moves against some opponents which caused his opponents to go astray and lose the game when with best play they should have won from those positions.
  
  Nunn shows that these analyses are wrong and that the so-called "bad" moves were actually very good moves not only in terms of computer analysis, in that they addressed the tactical and strategic needs of the position, but also in terms of making life difficult for the opponent by giving him lots of plausible possible continuations and therefore lots more chances to go wrong.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: +1 If the best, most logical move leads to loss, it is prudent to save one's energy by resigning... or by playing a 'non-best' move in order to complicate the position to give your opponent the chance to blunder.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2015-09-03. Score: -1
  
  I know that there has been some analysis done which compares computer moves to historical games. Here is a wikipedia article including that comparison and also some other measurements for comparing players throughout history:
  
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history>
  
  Perhaps the username_0 wikipedia page refers to one of these kind of measurements.
  
  
  ---
  
  