Has anyone an argument, why Emanuel Lasker is not the greatest world champion of chess until today?

i think that lasker is the best chess player that ever existed; 1) many years as number 1, 2) many talented rivals which he play against, 3) he continue his excellence even in his later years.

just imagine lasker playing in this days with all this information from books and computers where he can study and practice…wow!

i dont like lasker games, they are too boring for me but i have to admit that he was very powerful and consistence.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2409

or

http://www.chessmetrics.com/CM2/FindPlayer.asp

Lasker, did some remarkable mathematics. in 1905 he introduced the notion of a primary ideal, which corresponds to an irreducible variety and plays a role similar to prime powers in the prime decomposition of an integer. He proved the primary decomposition theorem for an ideal of a polynomial ring in terms of primary ideals in a paper Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale published in volume 60 of Mathematische Annalen in 1905. A commutative ring R is now called a 'Lasker ring' if every ideal of R can be represented as an intersection of a finite number of primary ideals. Lasker's conception of life, as expounded in his writings, was that of a fight or struggle and as a chess player he was probably the greatest fighter that the game has seen. Supremely wary and tenacious, he would deliberately involve himself in difficulties to complicate the struggle and give himself chances of outplaying his opponent; and once he had the advantage, he would push it home with relentless vigour and decision. Finally let us comment that Lasker's results on the decomposition of ideals into primary ideals was the foundation on which Emmy Noether built an abstract theory which developed ring theory into a major mathematical topic and provided the foundations of modern algebraic geometry.Emmy Noether’s dealtheorie in Ringbereichen (1921) was of fundamental importance in the development of modern algebra, generalising Lasker's results by giving the decomposition of ideals into intersections of primary ideals in any commutative ring with ascending chain condition.

You

FYI.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

Zukertort relied on combinations, and in that field he was a discoverer, a creative genius. For all that, he was unable to make use of his faculty, the positions yielding no response to his passionate search for combinations. Zukertort, the great discoverer, searched in vain, while Steinitz was able to foresee them. Zukertort could not understand how Steinitz was able to prevent combinations. He tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he never approached its solution by even one step. –– Emanuel Lasker

Another interesting fact was Lasker's rating and the time that he spent as the NUMBER ONE player in the world. This new interest has spurred me to do more work, and to read as much as I possibly could about this great player. Pitirre Said: “I don’t like Lasker games, they are too boring for me but I have to admit that he was very powerful and consistence.” Well, I had always been taught - and read! - that Lasker played bad chess, which he played dull or boring chess, that he excelled at playing inferior lines and dubious positions, etc., etc., etc. (I may {also} have been overly influenced by Bobby Fischer's opinion of Lasker. Bobby called Lasker, . . . “a bad player . . . a > . . . with no knowledge of positional chess.” See the Winter/March issue of 'Chess Life,' 2004.) The truth is that when I began to study his games (again) I appreciated even more the depth and level of his play. (GM Reuben Fine - once a candidate for the World Championship - has often said that Lasker was his favorite player.) His games seemed to be the complete opposites of what I had always thought they were supposed to be. A few of the games I had studied seemed to be brilliancies of unmatched depth and level of play. Some very interesting facts surfaced, such as - that Lasker may have been the best tournament player of all time.

Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later life. –– Albert Einstein

For me, this personality, notwithstanding his fundamentally optimistic attitude, had a tragic note. The enormous mental resilience, without which no chess player can exist, was so much taken up by chess that he could never free his mind of this game, even when he was occupied by philosophical and humanitarian questions. –– Albert Einstein (about Lasker)

A King of chess. –– Emanuel Lasker (his final words on his deathbed)

It seemed the more I found out about Lasker, the more I wanted to know. It has been a fascinating journey, and this web page results from my desire to share these discoveries.

It is too beautiful to spend your life upon. Many times have I managed to break with chess, yet I have always fallen in love with it again. I was too captivated by the conflict between ideas and opinions, attack and defense, life and death. –– Emanuel Lasker

wak