Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Air pollution is really making us pay through the nose.


interests / rec.games.chess.misc / Re: Lasker

SubjectAuthor
* Re: LaskerEli Kesef
+- Re: LaskerWilliam Hyde
`* Re: LaskerEli Kesef
 `- Re: LaskerWilliam Hyde

1
Re: Lasker

<ac9f6550-cf3f-4231-b4fb-1d8b877ce607n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=891&group=rec.games.chess.misc#891

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1203:b0:6ff:7cbe:36df with SMTP id u3-20020a05620a120300b006ff7cbe36dfmr1472281qkj.659.1674381323189;
Sun, 22 Jan 2023 01:55:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:198a:b0:355:7418:d0f0 with SMTP id
bj10-20020a056808198a00b003557418d0f0mr1004912oib.165.1674381322909; Sun, 22
Jan 2023 01:55:22 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 01:55:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4fd4f4d0-a4f0-4f54-9a5b-6ecdc6410077n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:14f:1f2:7799:4067:4e5e:e275:5da7;
posting-account=dTaS5QoAAADSGk7feFOweMIQFZ8WoL0X
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:14f:1f2:7799:4067:4e5e:e275:5da7
References: <d3c5cbb0-d473-44c0-a2d2-da9b97873e5cn@googlegroups.com>
<be112a89-e111-4c3b-97b9-9a33b6945a34n@googlegroups.com> <4fd4f4d0-a4f0-4f54-9a5b-6ecdc6410077n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ac9f6550-cf3f-4231-b4fb-1d8b877ce607n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lasker
From: nastyhor...@gmail.com (Eli Kesef)
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 09:55:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 7857
 by: Eli Kesef - Sun, 22 Jan 2023 09:55 UTC

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:57:53 PM UTC+2, vtview...@gmail.com wrote:

> Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.

Bs"d

And what an introduction it was!

Emmanuel Lasker, the 27 year world champion chess, was friends with a little known figure named Albert Einstein.
They had long debates about philosophy, physics, and other subjects.
Lasker was good enough versed in physics to attack Einstein’s theory of relativity with strong arguments.
I guess Einstein was not too happy about that, because after Lasker departed from this world, and the biographer Hannak asked Einstein to write the introduction of his biography of Lasker, Einstein used the opportunity to talk shit about both Lasker and the field in which Lasker reached his greatest triumphs; chess.
It was published in the book: Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master, published by Dr. Jacques Hannak in 1952 (written in German in 1942).

I would subscribe the foreword of Einstein as: “A kick from the other side.”

Here is the foreword, it needs no further comment:

Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent.
I am not a chess expert and therefore not in a position to marvel at the force of mind revealed in his greatest intellectual achievement – in the field of chess. I must even confess that the struggle for power and the competitive spirit expressed in the form of an ingenious game have always been repugnant to me.
I met Emanuel Lasker at the house of my old friend, Alexander Moszkowski, and came to know him well in the course of many walks in which we exchanged opinions about the most varied questions. It was a somewhat one-sided exchange, in which I received more that I gave. For it was usually more natural for this eminently productive man to shape his own thoughts than to busy himself with those of another.
To my mind, there was a tragic note in his personality, despite his fundamentally affirmative attitude towards life. The enormous psychological tension, without which nobody can be a chess master, was so deeply interwoven with chess that he could never entirely rid himself of the spirit of the game, even when he was occupied with philosophic and human problems. At the same time, it seemed to me that chess was more a profession for him than the real goal of his life. His real yearning seems to be directed towards scientific understanding and the beauty inherent only in logical creation, a beauty so enchanting that nobody who has once caught a glimpse of it can ever escape it.
Spinoza’s material existence and independence were base on the grinding of lenses; chess had an analogous role in Lasker’s life. But Spinoza was granted a better fate, because his occupation left his mind free and untroubled, while, on the other hand, the chess playing of a master ties him to the game, fetters his mind and shapes it to a certain extent so that his internal freedom and ease, no matter how strong he is, must inevitably be affected. In our conversations and in the reading of his philosophical books, I always had that feeling. Of these books, “The Philosophy of the Unattainable” interested me the most; the book is not only very original, but it also affords a deep insight into Lasker’s entire personality.
Now I must justify myself because I never considered in detail, either in writing or in our conversations, Emanuel Lasker’s critical essay on the theory of relativity. It is indeed necessary for me to say something about it here because even in his biography, which is focused on the purely human aspects, the passage which discusses the essay contains something resembling a slight reproach. Lasker’s keen analytical mind had immediately clearly recognized that the central point of the whole question is that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is a constant. It was evident to him that, if this constancy were admitted, the relative of time could not be avoided. So what was there to do? He tried to do what Alexander, whom historians have dubbed “the Great,” did when he cut the Gordian knot. Lasker’s attempted solution was based on the following idea: “Nobody has any immediate knowledge of how quickly light is transmitted in a complete vacuum, for even in interstellar space there is always a minimal quantity of matter present under all circumstances and what holds there is even more applicable to the most complete vacuum created by man to the best of his ability. Therefore, who has the right to deny that its velocity in a really complete vacuum is infinite?”
To answer this argument can be expressed as follows: “It is, to be sure, true that nobody has experimental knowledge of how light is transmitted in a complete vacuum. But it is as good as impossible to formulate a reasonable theory of light according to which the velocity of light is affected by minimal traces of matter which is very significant but at the same time virtually independent of their density.” Before such a theory, which moreover, must harmonize with the known phenomena of optics in an almost complete vacuum, can be set up, it seems that every physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot – if he is not satisfied with the present solution. Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers.
But I liked Lasker’s immovable independence, a rare human attribute, in which respect almost all, including intelligent people, are mediocrities. And so I let matters stand that way.
I am glad that the reader will be able to get to know this strong and, at the same time, find and lovable personality from his sympathetic biography, but I am thankful for the hours of conversation which this ever striving, independent, simple man granted me.

https://tinyurl.com/Lask-mate-him

Re: Lasker

<31e0d696-6b4e-4e56-8764-6a501a311233n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=894&group=rec.games.chess.misc#894

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:3b89:b0:532:25eb:b20a with SMTP id nf9-20020a0562143b8900b0053225ebb20amr888065qvb.86.1674434405160;
Sun, 22 Jan 2023 16:40:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:9729:b0:14f:bcdb:3061 with SMTP id
n41-20020a056870972900b0014fbcdb3061mr1432976oaq.152.1674434404914; Sun, 22
Jan 2023 16:40:04 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 16:40:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ac9f6550-cf3f-4231-b4fb-1d8b877ce607n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.64.66.242; posting-account=7XHiUgoAAAAQbm3Gyw4A8XioFZ0e9qaq
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.64.66.242
References: <d3c5cbb0-d473-44c0-a2d2-da9b97873e5cn@googlegroups.com>
<be112a89-e111-4c3b-97b9-9a33b6945a34n@googlegroups.com> <4fd4f4d0-a4f0-4f54-9a5b-6ecdc6410077n@googlegroups.com>
<ac9f6550-cf3f-4231-b4fb-1d8b877ce607n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <31e0d696-6b4e-4e56-8764-6a501a311233n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lasker
From: wthyde1...@gmail.com (William Hyde)
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 00:40:05 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2515
 by: William Hyde - Mon, 23 Jan 2023 00:40 UTC

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 4:55:24 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:57:53 PM UTC+2, vtview...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.
> Bs"d
>
> And what an introduction it was!
>
> Emmanuel Lasker, the 27 year world champion chess, was friends with a little known figure named Albert Einstein.
> They had long debates about philosophy, physics, and other subjects.
> Lasker was good enough versed in physics to attack Einstein’s theory of relativity with strong arguments.

Actually, no, he wasn't.

Einstein was polite to Lasker, and respected him, and as he says, his intellectual independence (which served him very well
in chess, as we know).

> I guess Einstein was not too happy about that, because after Lasker departed from this world, and the biographer Hannak asked Einstein to write the introduction of his biography of Lasker, Einstein used the opportunity to talk shit about both Lasker

I have read that, and no, he did not.

William Hyde

Re: Lasker

<5f9cb2c7-d419-4ec1-b570-916a0de6fbd6n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=895&group=rec.games.chess.misc#895

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4b5a:0:b0:3b6:32fa:23e3 with SMTP id e26-20020ac84b5a000000b003b632fa23e3mr577811qts.132.1674457711662;
Sun, 22 Jan 2023 23:08:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:e2d5:b0:14e:9c17:1804 with SMTP id
w21-20020a056870e2d500b0014e9c171804mr2230917oad.186.1674457711036; Sun, 22
Jan 2023 23:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 23:08:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ac9f6550-cf3f-4231-b4fb-1d8b877ce607n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:14f:1f2:7799:b379:9df2:300a:a0f9;
posting-account=dTaS5QoAAADSGk7feFOweMIQFZ8WoL0X
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:14f:1f2:7799:b379:9df2:300a:a0f9
References: <d3c5cbb0-d473-44c0-a2d2-da9b97873e5cn@googlegroups.com>
<be112a89-e111-4c3b-97b9-9a33b6945a34n@googlegroups.com> <4fd4f4d0-a4f0-4f54-9a5b-6ecdc6410077n@googlegroups.com>
<ac9f6550-cf3f-4231-b4fb-1d8b877ce607n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5f9cb2c7-d419-4ec1-b570-916a0de6fbd6n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lasker
From: nastyhor...@gmail.com (Eli Kesef)
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 07:08:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 9331
 by: Eli Kesef - Mon, 23 Jan 2023 07:08 UTC

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 11:55:24 AM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:57:53 PM UTC+2, vtview...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.
> Bs"d
>
> And what an introduction it was!
>
> Emmanuel Lasker, the 27 year world champion chess, was friends with a little known figure named Albert Einstein.
> They had long debates about philosophy, physics, and other subjects.
> Lasker was good enough versed in physics to attack Einstein’s theory of relativity with strong arguments.
> I guess Einstein was not too happy about that, because after Lasker departed from this world, and the biographer Hannak asked Einstein to write the introduction of his biography of Lasker, Einstein used the opportunity to talk shit about both Lasker and the field in which Lasker reached his greatest triumphs; chess.
> It was published in the book: Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master, published by Dr. Jacques Hannak in 1952 (written in German in 1942).
>
> I would subscribe the foreword of Einstein as: “A kick from the other side.”
>
> Here is the foreword, it needs no further comment:
>
> Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent.
> I am not a chess expert and therefore not in a position to marvel at the force of mind revealed in his greatest intellectual achievement – in the field of chess. I must even confess that the struggle for power and the competitive spirit expressed in the form of an ingenious game have always been repugnant to me.
> I met Emanuel Lasker at the house of my old friend, Alexander Moszkowski, and came to know him well in the course of many walks in which we exchanged opinions about the most varied questions. It was a somewhat one-sided exchange, in which I received more that I gave. For it was usually more natural for this eminently productive man to shape his own thoughts than to busy himself with those of another.
> To my mind, there was a tragic note in his personality, despite his fundamentally affirmative attitude towards life. The enormous psychological tension, without which nobody can be a chess master, was so deeply interwoven with chess that he could never entirely rid himself of the spirit of the game, even when he was occupied with philosophic and human problems. At the same time, it seemed to me that chess was more a profession for him than the real goal of his life. His real yearning seems to be directed towards scientific understanding and the beauty inherent only in logical creation, a beauty so enchanting that nobody who has once caught a glimpse of it can ever escape it.
> Spinoza’s material existence and independence were base on the grinding of lenses; chess had an analogous role in Lasker’s life. But Spinoza was granted a better fate, because his occupation left his mind free and untroubled, while, on the other hand, the chess playing of a master ties him to the game, fetters his mind and shapes it to a certain extent so that his internal freedom and ease, no matter how strong he is, must inevitably be affected. In our conversations and in the reading of his philosophical books, I always had that feeling. Of these books, “The Philosophy of the Unattainable” interested me the most; the book is not only very original, but it also affords a deep insight into Lasker’s entire personality.
> Now I must justify myself because I never considered in detail, either in writing or in our conversations, Emanuel Lasker’s critical essay on the theory of relativity. It is indeed necessary for me to say something about it here because even in his biography, which is focused on the purely human aspects, the passage which discusses the essay contains something resembling a slight reproach. Lasker’s keen analytical mind had immediately clearly recognized that the central point of the whole question is that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is a constant. It was evident to him that, if this constancy were admitted, the relative of time could not be avoided. So what was there to do? He tried to do what Alexander, whom historians have dubbed “the Great,” did when he cut the Gordian knot. Lasker’s attempted solution was based on the following idea: “Nobody has any immediate knowledge of how quickly light is transmitted in a complete vacuum, for even in interstellar space there is always a minimal quantity of matter present under all circumstances and what holds there is even more applicable to the most complete vacuum created by man to the best of his ability. Therefore, who has the right to deny that its velocity in a really complete vacuum is infinite?”
> To answer this argument can be expressed as follows: “It is, to be sure, true that nobody has experimental knowledge of how light is transmitted in a complete vacuum. But it is as good as impossible to formulate a reasonable theory of light according to which the velocity of light is affected by minimal traces of matter which is very significant but at the same time virtually independent of their density.” Before such a theory, which moreover, must harmonize with the known phenomena of optics in an almost complete vacuum, can be set up, it seems that every physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot – if he is not satisfied with the present solution. Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers.
> But I liked Lasker’s immovable independence, a rare human attribute, in which respect almost all, including intelligent people, are mediocrities. And so I let matters stand that way.
> I am glad that the reader will be able to get to know this strong and, at the same time, find and lovable personality from his sympathetic biography, but I am thankful for the hours of conversation which this ever striving, independent, simple man granted me.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/Lask-mate-him

Bs"d

When writing a foreword to a biography of a dead man, you going to spend almost half of it on arguing physics??

And then burning down the purely intellectual field in which that person was a world champion for 27 years??

And then calling him "a simple man"??

Sounds to me Albert had an ax to grind with Lasker.

And then this one: "Spinoza’s material existence and independence were based on the grinding of lenses; chess had an analogous role in Lasker’s life. But Spinoza was granted a better fate, because his occupation left his mind free and untroubled, while, on the other hand, the chess playing of a master ties him to the game, fetters his mind and shapes it to a certain extent so that his internal freedom and ease, no matter how strong he is, must inevitably be affected."

So Spinoza was granted a "better fate" because he didn't play chess?

Spinoza grinded lenses, and inhaled all day glass dust. This gave him a lung disease which killed him.

According to Albert, slowly choking to death is a lot better then playing chess.

??????????????

We shouldn't take Albert too seriously.

He was clearly jealous of Lasker.

Re: Lasker

<5809b58b-9a13-40e0-80b2-cc12cecc14b0n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=896&group=rec.games.chess.misc#896

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6a0e:0:b0:3a5:8b71:cca3 with SMTP id t14-20020ac86a0e000000b003a58b71cca3mr682682qtr.292.1674518364977;
Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:59:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:c1d0:b0:15f:24bb:cd74 with SMTP id
i16-20020a056870c1d000b0015f24bbcd74mr1635865oad.165.1674518364555; Mon, 23
Jan 2023 15:59:24 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:59:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5f9cb2c7-d419-4ec1-b570-916a0de6fbd6n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.64.66.242; posting-account=7XHiUgoAAAAQbm3Gyw4A8XioFZ0e9qaq
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.64.66.242
References: <d3c5cbb0-d473-44c0-a2d2-da9b97873e5cn@googlegroups.com>
<be112a89-e111-4c3b-97b9-9a33b6945a34n@googlegroups.com> <4fd4f4d0-a4f0-4f54-9a5b-6ecdc6410077n@googlegroups.com>
<ac9f6550-cf3f-4231-b4fb-1d8b877ce607n@googlegroups.com> <5f9cb2c7-d419-4ec1-b570-916a0de6fbd6n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5809b58b-9a13-40e0-80b2-cc12cecc14b0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lasker
From: wthyde1...@gmail.com (William Hyde)
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 23:59:24 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 11297
 by: William Hyde - Mon, 23 Jan 2023 23:59 UTC

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 2:08:32 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 11:55:24 AM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:57:53 PM UTC+2, vtview...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Something of those writings caused a friendship with Einstein, who indeed, wrote the introduction to his posthumous biography.
> > Bs"d
> >
> > And what an introduction it was!
> >
> > Emmanuel Lasker, the 27 year world champion chess, was friends with a little known figure named Albert Einstein.
> > They had long debates about philosophy, physics, and other subjects.
> > Lasker was good enough versed in physics to attack Einstein’s theory of relativity with strong arguments.
> > I guess Einstein was not too happy about that, because after Lasker departed from this world, and the biographer Hannak asked Einstein to write the introduction of his biography of Lasker, Einstein used the opportunity to talk shit about both Lasker and the field in which Lasker reached his greatest triumphs; chess.
> > It was published in the book: Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master, published by Dr. Jacques Hannak in 1952 (written in German in 1942).
> >
> > I would subscribe the foreword of Einstein as: “A kick from the other side.”
> >
> > Here is the foreword, it needs no further comment:
> >
> > Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent.
> > I am not a chess expert and therefore not in a position to marvel at the force of mind revealed in his greatest intellectual achievement – in the field of chess. I must even confess that the struggle for power and the competitive spirit expressed in the form of an ingenious game have always been repugnant to me.
> > I met Emanuel Lasker at the house of my old friend, Alexander Moszkowski, and came to know him well in the course of many walks in which we exchanged opinions about the most varied questions. It was a somewhat one-sided exchange, in which I received more that I gave. For it was usually more natural for this eminently productive man to shape his own thoughts than to busy himself with those of another.
> > To my mind, there was a tragic note in his personality, despite his fundamentally affirmative attitude towards life. The enormous psychological tension, without which nobody can be a chess master, was so deeply interwoven with chess that he could never entirely rid himself of the spirit of the game, even when he was occupied with philosophic and human problems. At the same time, it seemed to me that chess was more a profession for him than the real goal of his life. His real yearning seems to be directed towards scientific understanding and the beauty inherent only in logical creation, a beauty so enchanting that nobody who has once caught a glimpse of it can ever escape it.
> > Spinoza’s material existence and independence were base on the grinding of lenses; chess had an analogous role in Lasker’s life. But Spinoza was granted a better fate, because his occupation left his mind free and untroubled, while, on the other hand, the chess playing of a master ties him to the game, fetters his mind and shapes it to a certain extent so that his internal freedom and ease, no matter how strong he is, must inevitably be affected. In our conversations and in the reading of his philosophical books, I always had that feeling. Of these books, “The Philosophy of the Unattainable” interested me the most; the book is not only very original, but it also affords a deep insight into Lasker’s entire personality.
> > Now I must justify myself because I never considered in detail, either in writing or in our conversations, Emanuel Lasker’s critical essay on the theory of relativity. It is indeed necessary for me to say something about it here because even in his biography, which is focused on the purely human aspects, the passage which discusses the essay contains something resembling a slight reproach. Lasker’s keen analytical mind had immediately clearly recognized that the central point of the whole question is that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is a constant. It was evident to him that, if this constancy were admitted, the relative of time could not be avoided. So what was there to do? He tried to do what Alexander, whom historians have dubbed “the Great,” did when he cut the Gordian knot. Lasker’s attempted solution was based on the following idea: “Nobody has any immediate knowledge of how quickly light is transmitted in a complete vacuum, for even in interstellar space there is always a minimal quantity of matter present under all circumstances and what holds there is even more applicable to the most complete vacuum created by man to the best of his ability. Therefore, who has the right to deny that its velocity in a really complete vacuum is infinite?”
> > To answer this argument can be expressed as follows: “It is, to be sure, true that nobody has experimental knowledge of how light is transmitted in a complete vacuum. But it is as good as impossible to formulate a reasonable theory of light according to which the velocity of light is affected by minimal traces of matter which is very significant but at the same time virtually independent of their density.” Before such a theory, which moreover, must harmonize with the known phenomena of optics in an almost complete vacuum, can be set up, it seems that every physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot – if he is not satisfied with the present solution. Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers.
> > But I liked Lasker’s immovable independence, a rare human attribute, in which respect almost all, including intelligent people, are mediocrities. And so I let matters stand that way.
> > I am glad that the reader will be able to get to know this strong and, at the same time, find and lovable personality from his sympathetic biography, but I am thankful for the hours of conversation which this ever striving, independent, simple man granted me.
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/Lask-mate-him
> Bs"d
>
> When writing a foreword to a biography of a dead man, you going to spend almost half of it on arguing physics??

The forward can only be about his interactions with Lasker (otherwise why rope in Einstein at all?) and the main subject matter
of their discussions were politics and physics. And Lasker's comments on physics demonstrate his independence of mind,
which is Einstein's theme here.
>
> And then burning down the purely intellectual field in which that person was a world champion for 27 years??
>
> And then calling him "a simple man"??
>
> Sounds to me Albert had an ax to grind with Lasker.
>
> And then this one: "Spinoza’s material existence and independence were based on the grinding of lenses; chess had an analogous role in Lasker’s life. But Spinoza was granted a better fate, because his occupation left his mind free and untroubled, while, on the other hand, the chess playing of a master ties him to the game, fetters his mind and shapes it to a certain extent so that his internal freedom and ease, no matter how strong he is, must inevitably be affected."
>
> So Spinoza was granted a "better fate" because he didn't play chess?

From Einstein any reference to Spinoza is praise in a high degree.

But I think Einstein is not correct in this. Lasker didn't spend nearly as much time on chess as Spinoza did on lens making. There
were years in which he played no chess at all. Six world championship matches in twenty seven years is hardly a crowded
schedule.

Edward Lasker wrote that before the match with Tarrasch Emanuel spent a few weeks at a cottage in the countryside near
Berlin. He didn't have a chess set there, or any books. Edward was invited over each day for a game of go to help
Emanuel wile away the time. At the train station on the way to the match he said:

"I think that if I am white in the first game I shall play the Ruy Lopez exchange variation." And that was the extent of his
preparation for a match with his most serious challenger to date.

It is one of the most remarkable aspects of Lasker's genius that once he gained an understanding of chess, he did
not need to keep at it to remain the best in the world. And despite his lack of study, he played better in his
second decade as champion than he did in his first.

Prior to New York 1924, he said to Edward that he probably wouldn't win, as there were all these new hypermodern
openings that he didn't know, and it would take him too long to work out the correct responses over the board. It didn't
turn out that way. In the 1930s, well on in years, and nine years after his last serious event, he turned to the Sicilian, an
opening he had rarely or never played before, and the treatment of which was far different from the Sicilian of his youth.
The games he played with this opening wouldn't have seemed out of place in a tournament in the 1970s.

William Hyde

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor