illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote:
Nick wrote:
Here's what Edward Lasker wrote about nationalism:

"My French friend proved to be a very interesting fellow, remarkably mature
for his 18 years. He was studying mathematics at the Sorbonne, and we
compared notes on the French and German system of education. Basically,
there did not seem to be much difference. ... In both countries the
youngsters were indoctrinated with the most stupid kind of nationalism.
The result was that every German boy reached maturity with the conviction
that everything in Germany was better than in any other country; and every
French boy reached maturity with the same conviction regarding France.
In later years, when I lived in England and in the United States, I was
much surprised to find that the same methods were used, as a matter of
course, in Anglo-Saxon schools. I do not wonder that we had two world wars."
--Edward Lasker ('Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters', p. 135)

I think Mr. Lasker was correct.

However, it is mistaken to refer to American schools as "Anglo-Saxon."
Here in America. there are many different peoples, from a diverse range of
ancestries, only one of which is "Anglo-Saxon." The idea of American schools
being comprised of homogenous "Anglo-Saxons" is almost racist, in addition to
being erroneous. ...

Edward Lasker showed a tendency to make some oversimplified generalizations.

"The kind of chess which I saw at the Regence (in Paris) was not very
impressive when compared with what I had been up against in Berlin.
For some reason the French people had not produced a first class chess master
since Philidor and La Bourdonnais, just as chess in Spain and Italy had failed
to live up to the great promise shown in the days of Ruy Lopez and Greco or
Stamma. Perhaps the quick Romanic (sic) tournament is not as conducive to
good chess as the more contemplative character of Northern people. The latter
are more drawn to the study of intellectual games and this provides a broad
background from which masters develop more readily. If it were not for this
lack of chess background, one would expect France to produce outstanding
masters. For chess mastery requires a mind capable of scientific thinking
and one gifted at the same time with a flair for artistic creation. And a
country which produced an Henri Poincare and a Cezanne should certainly be
fertile ground for rearing another Philidor."
--Edward Lasker ('Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters', pp. 132-3)

Would Edward Lasker have believed that Bobby Fischer's 'chess mastery'
demonstrated that Fischer must have 'a mind capable of scientific thinking
and one gifted at the same time with a flair for artistic creation'?

--Nick