"The Historian" wrote in message
ps.com...

Of course, all this was written *after* Alekhine had won the world
title from Capa. Had he failed, no doubt the tournament book would
have
had a markedly different tone.-

Speaking of "markedly different tone", I'm pleased that chess finally
broke into a thread dominated by Robtroll and Innes. Thank you, Taylor.

---

Having got it all wrong, but no doubt still holding to his virulently
abusive conclusions, Taylor is reassured by 'Historian' Brennan on the
chessic worth of his contributions, compared with the derisory efforts of
Mitchell and Innes.

While Brennan makes a *nothing* out of Kingston's ventures into even braver
opinions, as Kingston himself wrote of his own *nothings* in much the same
spirit about more modern players recorded in the Kingston Files, lets pay
Lasker, Alekhine, and the Spirit of the Times their due respect, and not be
content with this hobbdehoy history racket by writers who have studied much
or not so much, but understood so very little!

ON ALEKHINE

How embarrassing for Kingston to be contradicated by a world champion! If
Max Euwe was not a capable judge of Alekhine, who would we prefer? While of
course only ignoramuses like myself and Euwe do not understand
Kingston's -natural talent- comment, which he is pleased to be vaguely
promote as connection to the chess-gene, the W. Ch. Prof. Euwe did say of
Alekhine:-

"He is a poet, who creates a work of art out of something
which would hardly inspire another man to send home
a picture postcard."

Presumably Euwe has in mind while writing those words these other
men -natural talents- even those stuffed choc-a-block with *chess genes*
when he wrote this comparative comment - he certainly didn't laud anyone
else to that degree, and he certainly did know 'em all. Is what Euwe
describes -natural talent- or even superior natural talent to Alekhine's
contemporaries? And even describes chess genius without the ex cathedra
means of a chess gene?

ON LASKER

I do not mean to say anything /against/ another great player as much as
frame the time of his main influence which was pre-WW1. Lasker, who was
known for his superb defensive play, [in case that too is challenged, the
comment is from Bardeleben, who says this influence is directly from
Steinitz and hence the mainline romantic-classicism era in chess, and
pre-scientific' hypermodernism], but Lasker was also known for his
unscientific and risky attacks, and while he first defeated Capa this way
Capa handed him his head for trying the same stuff in 1921. He cannot really
be held that against more resolute defences of the hyper-moderns he would
have improved his attacking technique, and in fact did not vary sufficiently
to surmount Capa, nor can Lasker be said to have been as big a set back to
the hypermodernists in the early '20's as was Alekhine in the late '20s and
30s.

Lasker was virtually retired from chess by 1925, and seriously took up
Bridge and Go instead.

LASKER'S PUBLICATIONS in ENGLAND

Anyone seeking rare Lasker titles* might research W. H. Watts [publ.] circa
1932/34 in England where Lasker had removed himself from the 3rd Reich. By
1936 Lasker only placed 8th at Nottingham which certainly drew the curtain
on his carear.

He left England for USA in 1937 where he lectured [on philosophy, he wrote
three titles in Germany], and continued to write though not much on chess,
and in ill health declined and died, 11 Jan 1941.

Phil Innes

*Lasker's manual of Chess, London 1932
*Lasker's Chess Primer, London 1934

and interestingly:-

*The Return Match, Alekhine v Boguljubov, London 1934

Source: Sunnucks, Encycl. Chess
And with thanks to D. Hooper //1969// for these Lit. Refs. /ibidem