On Apr 23, 7:01 am, David Richerby
wrote:

No, it's an historical fact. For example the Hannak biography, page
195, says "Finally, after long and fruitless efforts to come to
mutually satisfactory terms, Lasker threw quite a bombshell by
publishing a statement solemnly renouncing his title for good and
all." This was in 1920, I believe.

But did anyone take this seriously? In the eyes of the world, was it
any more legitimate for Lasker to say, ``I'm not World Champion any
mo Capablanca is'' than it would have been for Capa to say, ``He's
not World Champion any mo I am''?

These days world champions are not allowed to hand
off their titles, as they are the property of FIDE. Back
then, things were different, but still such a hand-off can
hardly be equated to earning the title in the traditional
way.


You're right, Capablanca definitely wanted to win the title the
right way, by beating Lasker. I was merely reporting the fact that
Lasker *had* resigned the title before them match, and so,
technically, Capa was *already* champion.

Capa was already champion in Lasker's opinion. I'm not sure anyone
else really agreed with him.

Becoming world champion requires a bit more than
becoming the strongest player in the eyes of any
one man -- even the reigning champ.

-- help bot