ADecember 31 1928
The Guardian, London, Greater London, England, Monday, December 31, 1928
Letters To The Editor
Capablanca's Chess Proposals.
Dr. Lasker's Criticism.
[Dr. Lasker, who sends us the following criticism of Señor Capablanca's proposed alterations in the game of chess, won the championship of the world from Steinitz in 1894 and held it for the next 27 years. He is by general consent one of the greatest players that the game has ever known. In 1902 he was an assistant lecturer in mathematics at Manchester University.]
To the Editor of the Manchester Guardian.
Sir,—In considering Señor Capablanca's proposals it is well to distinguish between three points which the Cuban master does not clearly differentiate from each other. They are (1) the question of the draw; (2) its consequences; (3) the means of forestalling them.
Though Señor Capablanca does not mention it, it was an essay of mine which appeared in the Hungarian chess magazine “Sak Villag” about ten years ago that opened the discussion on the question of the draw. I there explained that chess is menaced by what I called “the death of the draw.” Not that this danger is imminent. When this menace will become effective can only be a matter for conjecture, but, that it is a reality cannot be doubted. The game of chess lives by the secret that surrounds its problems. The full light of truth would kill the fervour of the player who feels himself as a discoverer, and who loves the venture and adventure that goes with the search for the unknown truth. On the other hand, chess, unlike a science or an art, is finite. At some time, therefore, the inventive mind of the masters will succeed, at least during a progressive epoch, in unraveling the last mysteries of the game, and in that moment the example of the masters will educate the world of chess amateurs to a full understanding of the game and bring its evolution to an end.
This argument is a purely theoretical one. It applies to any game. History gives us enough instances of games once popular that have completely faded away. One must not mix it up with arguments concerning the masters of this period whether they refer to Alekhine, Capablanca, Bogoljubov, or others. The style and faculties of living masters can only be surmised; they are an unfit argument in a question which can be settled by deduction. As conjecture I should venture to say that the young masters of this period, before all Alekhine and Bogoljubov, embody such a spirit of search and invention as would guarantee the game of chess a full and healthy life for another generation.
But even if the danger of “the death of the draw” were imminent the proposals of Señor Capablanca would be inadequate. If chess, to gain another spell of vitality, has to change its rules that change has to observe the utmost economy. Señor Capablanca's proposition is arbitrary and clumsy. The ancient board need not be enlarged, nor need new pieces be added to attain the purpose of adding new problems to the game. Perhaps the abolition of castling would be a step in the right direction, and I rather think it would; castling was unknown to the ancient game, which had a deep wisdom that was, perhaps, underrated by the Italian masters who introduced castling in comparatively recent times. The chess world will have to decide. But there is no doubt that Señor Capablanca's proposition is cheap and inartistic.—Yours,&c,
Emanuel Lasker.
Berlin, December 26.
