Who is the greatest chess player of all time? Hard to say. But one of the people on the list is arguably Emanuel Lasker. He was the second official world champion and held his title for a massive 27 years. Apart from this achievement, a significant part of his legacy is the book Common Sense in Chess which was first published more than a hundred years ago. This review is an attempt to present this classic book with all the respect that it deserves.
If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visit my patreon page for details.
Become a Patron!
The book is divided into five chapter, each concerning a different topic:
In the middlegame part he explains some principles or themes to know when and what to attack. For example weak king, mobility, weak pawns, Steinitz definition of the balance of the position. He talks about stalling an attack until the opponent's pieces are poorly placed. And then he has some games with comments to clarify this.
The endgame part consists of several examples that are winning or drawing and are carefully selected to enlight different themes in the endgame like the passed pawn, the active king, zugzwang, corresponding squares etc. I really liked this part because for me his carefully selected positions and striking comments makes it quite easy to remember the positions.
In the last chapter which is a bit philosophical he defines five different types of playing styles and exemplifies with some of his contemporary opponents. The value of doing this is for me a bit unclear, and gives a rather philosophical impression. Lasker states that only masters can have a style, and that he has never seen an amateur play a consistent game from start to finish. So perhaps one can use Lasker's categorization of the old masters to find role models to study. Or maybe one could just skip that chapter altogether. Either way is fine.
Laskers writing style is clear and easy to comprehend, and the Swedish version is just 70 pages. I was a bit surprised that such an old book was so well written and that it does not seem dated, being from 1895. The fundamental principles in it seem universal and stand the test of time. The openings are perhaps a bit old fashioned, but I do not think Lasker´s point was to make a repertoire book with the best moves, instead using examples to show principles.
Guest review by Boll.
If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visit my patreon page for details.
Become a Patron!
What can you expect from this book?
Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941) was a German chess player, mathematician and philosopher who was one of the world's greatest chess players. He won the World Championship title against Steinitz in 1894 and kept it for 27 years until he lost it to Capablanca in 1921. Besides being the longest reigning world champion of all time, he had some outstanding tournament results. For instance in Moscow 1935, he was undefeated and finished 3rd place behind Botvinnik and Flohr at the age of 66, which is quite remarkable.
Lasker was mostly known as a chess player, and not so much as an author. In addition to Common sense in chess, he has written the well-respected Lasker's Manual of Chess. But apart from these books, his publications are both few and mostly unknown.
Common sense in chess was first published in 1896 as an abstract of 12 lectures given to club players in London 1895. This was later republished in 1924 with the German title Gesunder Menschenverstand im Schach. I have read the Swedish version Sunt förnuft i Schack published in 1964. Apparently, the translator Bengt Hörberg, decided to exclude some of the opening lines were because they were considered outdated, a similar decision as was made with Questions of Modern Chess Theory. The original book was of course in descriptive notation, but the Swedish translation is in algebraic notation, which is nice.
The book is divided into five chapter, each concerning a different topic:
- General principles of opening play
- Principles of attack
- Principles of defensive play
- The endgame
- Different playing styles in chess
- Do not move any pawns in the opening of a game but the king and the queen pawn.
- Do not move any piece twice in the opening, but put it at once upon the right square (usually post the knights on c3, f3, c6 or f6 and the kingside bishop somewhere on its original diagonal if not exposed to exchange at c4).
- Bring your knights out before developing the bishops, especially the queen's bishop.
- Do not pin the adverse king knight by Bg5 before your opponent has castled.
In the middlegame part he explains some principles or themes to know when and what to attack. For example weak king, mobility, weak pawns, Steinitz definition of the balance of the position. He talks about stalling an attack until the opponent's pieces are poorly placed. And then he has some games with comments to clarify this.
The endgame part consists of several examples that are winning or drawing and are carefully selected to enlight different themes in the endgame like the passed pawn, the active king, zugzwang, corresponding squares etc. I really liked this part because for me his carefully selected positions and striking comments makes it quite easy to remember the positions.
In the last chapter which is a bit philosophical he defines five different types of playing styles and exemplifies with some of his contemporary opponents. The value of doing this is for me a bit unclear, and gives a rather philosophical impression. Lasker states that only masters can have a style, and that he has never seen an amateur play a consistent game from start to finish. So perhaps one can use Lasker's categorization of the old masters to find role models to study. Or maybe one could just skip that chapter altogether. Either way is fine.
Laskers writing style is clear and easy to comprehend, and the Swedish version is just 70 pages. I was a bit surprised that such an old book was so well written and that it does not seem dated, being from 1895. The fundamental principles in it seem universal and stand the test of time. The openings are perhaps a bit old fashioned, but I do not think Lasker´s point was to make a repertoire book with the best moves, instead using examples to show principles.
Common sense in chess is a surprisingly good book. The book is well-written and presents some of the fundamental classical chess principles in a very accessible way. Also, the examples are clear and well selected. And the book is very compact, so it has a high amount of content per page.
Who should read this book?
I think this book is best suited for players who have learned the basic rules but need some structure to their games. So if you are a post-beginner, with a playing strength of about 1200-1600, this might be a good book for you. The book is also a must read for anyone interested in chess history and the classic publications of the old masters. It is well worth the read.About this book
| Author: | Emanuel Lasker |
| Title: | Common sense in chess |
| Type of book: | Middlegame |
| Level: | Beginner/Intermediate |
Guest review by Boll.
Comments
Post a Comment