{"id":3908,"date":"2026-03-19T21:52:48","date_gmt":"2026-03-19T20:52:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skolasachu.com\/?p=3908"},"modified":"2026-03-20T17:45:58","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T16:45:58","slug":"the-last-game-of-world-champion-lasker-or-the-traditional-mistake-in-history","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skolasachu.com\/en\/posledni-partie-mistra-sveta-laskera-aneb-tradicni-omyl-v-dejinach\/","title":{"rendered":"The last game of World Champion Lasker or the traditional mistake in history"},"content":{"rendered":"

On the 105th anniversary of the Capablanca\u2013Lasker match (Havana 1921): In official lists of world champions, we still encounter the claim that Emanuel Lasker reigned from 1894 to 1921, a full 27 years. This figure is repeated so naturally that it has gained the status of an axiom. However, on closer inspection, it is a simplification, if not a factual historical error. Based on contemporary documents, it is convincingly proven that in 1920 Lasker formally resigned in writing in favour of Capablanca<\/strong>. If we accept this act as legitimate, then Lasker\u2019s reign did not end in 1921 after the lost match, but already a year earlier \u2013 after 26 years.<\/p>\n

Prologue: Brilliant psychologist \u2013<\/strong> and master of calculation<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Emanuel Lasker: \u201eOn the chessboard, it is not important to find the best move, but one that the opponent cannot refute.\u201c<\/strong><\/p>\n

This quote not only characterises Lasker\u2019s nature perhaps more than anything else. Personally, I deeply disagree with it \u2013 it goes against my conviction and the maximalist conception of chess. But here it is about something completely different!<\/p>\n

If I read between the lines correctly, this quote shows us how firmly Lasker clung to his title! Why else would Karl Schlechter have to win the match by a full two points in 1910? And why did Siegbert Tarrasch have to wait for \u201ehis match\u201c until 1908, at the age of 46, long past the peak of his strength?<\/p>\n

Lasker got so used to his title that he would have preferred to remain world champion forever. But the crafty psychologist<\/em> did not have it nearly so easy with Capablanca\u2026<\/p>\n

One of the most respected historical chess researchers Edward Winter<\/strong><\/span> (about whom I write more below) quotes Lasker\u2019s letter to Capablanca from June 1920, in which he explicitly states: \u201eI therefore resign the title of the world\u2019s champion in your favour\u2026 You have earned the title\u2026 by your brilliant mastery.\u201c That is: \u201eTherefore I resign the title of world champion in your favour\u2026 You have earned this title by your brilliant chess strength.\u201c<\/strong><\/p>\n

This document cannot be easily bypassed. It is not an indefinite gesture nor a later interpretation, but a direct, explicit expression of the will of the reigning champion. Nevertheless, historical tradition has leaned towards a different interpretation: Capablanca is mostly counted as world champion only from 1921, when he defeated Lasker in Havana. This \u201eretrospective standardisation\u201c simplifies the chronology but at the same time obscures the real complexity of the transitional period of 1920\u20131921.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Emanuel Lasker in an AI-adjusted concept<\/em><\/p>\n

Abdication versus appointment of a successor<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The key to understanding the whole situation is to distinguish two steps that Lasker took:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Abdication<\/strong> \u2013 that is, renouncing the title as such<\/li>\n
  2. Appointment of a successor<\/strong> \u2013 that is, an attempt to pass the title to a specific person<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The first step<\/strong> is unproblematic from both a historical and logical perspective. The reigning world champion undoubtedly had the right to relinquish the title. In this sense, Lasker's decision can be compared to modern cases of voluntary abdication (e.g. Magnus Carlsen in 2022). If Lasker had stopped at this step, his decision would hardly have caused major controversy. Not only children in schools and clubs would have learned that the second world champion reigned from 1894 to 1920.<\/p>\n

    The second step<\/strong> is, however, considerably more problematic. Lasker did not merely attempt to \u201estop being world champion\u201c; he also tried to determine who should be the champion<\/strong>. And this is where he met resistance from the contemporary chess public. As Winter shows, the press and commentators questioned whether the champion had the right to \u201epass on\u201c the title<\/strong>, as if it were personal property<\/strong>. In the eyes of many, it was impossible to bypass the fundamental principle: the world championship title must be decided in a match.<\/p>\n

    It is therefore not surprising that the interpretation prevailed that Capablanca became world champion only after defeating Lasker in 1921. History chose a simpler and institutionally cleaner solution 105 years ago \u2013 even at the cost of suppressing inconvenient facts.<\/p>\n

    If Lasker had written only: \u201eI renounce the world championship title,\u201c he would have changed history!<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    The year 1921: world champion or challenger?<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

    Another remarkable moment that Winter points out is Lasker's attempt in 1921 not to appear as the reigning world champion, but as the challenger<\/strong>. After securing the financial conditions for the match in Havana, Lasker agreed to play it, but insisted that the title already belonged to Capablanca. The Cuban accepted this formulation.<\/p>\n

    This fact is extraordinarily significant. It means that at least from the perspective of both participants in the match, the title had already been transferred before it began. The match would then not have been a defence of the title, but an attempt by the former champion to regain it. However, such an interpretation was not widely accepted and remained more of an episode than a definitive interpretation.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    The 1921 match brought another remarkable circumstance: the defeated challenger received a higher financial reward than the winner. Lasker received 11,000 dollars, while Capablanca only 9,000 \u2013<\/em> and that regardless of the match result. I remember the years (and mostly the results) of all the World Championship matches \u2013<\/em> of course except for the \u201eIlyumzhinov\u201c FIDE matches \u2013<\/em>, but for the defeated challenger to be \u201ecompensated\u201c with a higher amount? I really do not recall that. Well, Lasker was Lasker\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

    I couldn\u2019t resist and let AI \u201erecalculate\u201c Lasker\u2019s reward in 1921 and Gukesh\u2019s in 2024. The current world champion earned approximately \u201eonly\u201c seven times Lasker\u2019s reward back then!<\/em><\/p>\n

    Lasker as a strategist: play beyond the chessboard<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

    And here we finally come to the polemical, but in my opinion justified, interpretation of Lasker\u2019s conduct. Emanuel Lasker was not only a great chess player, but also an exceptionally sharp thinker and psychologist. It is therefore hard to believe that he did not realise the consequences of his \u201etwo-step\u201c decision<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    Several circumstances must be taken into account:<\/p>\n