Lasker - I still don't get it

Somebody left a box full of chess books to the local Chess Club, and among them was the full set of Kasparov's My Great Predecessors.  I decided to delve into the first volume, hoping to gain some insights, particularly about Lasker, the second world champion.  His games in particular have always confounded me, and apparently, I'm not alone in this.

Where Kasparov delves into other players games (I'm about halfway through the chapter on Capablanca), his analysis is very clear, you can tell exactly what the player is doing, and why it works.  But with Lasker's games, it is different - even Kasparov can't seem to pinpoint where Lasker's opponent went wrong, only that the tipping point on said games was earlier than first believed, and his opponents' play was even less imperfect than first appeared.

The only thing I think I get is that Lasker was a nightmare for anyone who played in a style or system - he would be able to find the exceptions to every rule of material preference or positional play, and artfully craft a game situation where the only solutions were counter-intuitive.  Kasparov calls this "psychological play", but I'm not really sure that's what it is.  When Lasker talks psychology, I get the sense that it's a smokescreen - Lasker just wanted to win, so, unlike other players, he wasn't about to explain his thought processes.  All the better if no one else could figure it out.

Maybe I'm not supposed to get it (the quote from Capa at the end of the Lasker chapter seems to imply exactly that), but even when the analysis is as detailed as can be, you simply wade through 10-15 moves of dubious-looking play (at least positionally speaking), in which Lasker's opponent makes no obvious errors, at the end of which Lasker is either winning outright or at such advantage that the opponent needs to find a precise and exotic line just to save the draw.

Does anyone out there get it?  Because I still don't, and the more I read about it, the more it seems like no one really does.

You are far from the first player to have trouble understanding Lasker. Looking through his games, it’s obvious that he was a great tactician, who could find his way through even the most confusing complications. And Capablanca, for one, considered Lasker to be true master of the endgame. But it can be very tricky to pin down the essentials of his “style.” John Nunn’s “Chess Course” seems to draw many examples from Lasker’s games, so that might be a place to look for insight, and Andrew Solis wrote a book called “Why Lasker Matters.”

Perhaps also consider: Lasker Move by Move

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7886.pdf

"Misunderstood Genius" - title of a chapter in a 2014 book about Lasker's games by GM John Nunn

That's pretty  cool.  However, for the casual OTB player that's not particularly helpful.  Because we don't face  the same OTB opponents often enough, nor are we even skilled enough, to develop positions and to make moves that confound and bother our OTB opponents psychologically. 

Of course people don't "get" Lasker. He was on a level higher than anyone else ever.

"The greatest of champions was, of course, Lasker." -- Tal

Lasker was a great chess player, but grew up when chess was still in the romantic era. Lasker was the main reason that the romantic era died. But in any event, Lasker would have still played somewhat in tye style of the romantic era.

The romantic era was famous for players risking games on what nowadays would be considered outlandish attacks and gambits, with a preference for complications: players wanted their opponent to be off balance, so they would choose tactics that had the most confusing continuations.

Since Lasker was a chess genius, he could easily out calculate his opponents.

It was in the 1890's when the romantic era died. Perhapa it was Lasker, but some chess genius realized he would lose a lot less games if he stopped the tradition of always accepting a sacrifice.

That is, for about 20 years or more in chess, it was considered ungentleman like to not accept a sacrifice piece, which set up all sorts of outlandish gambits that the average "C" player would scoff at taking.

"... Steinitz ... started out as an all-out attacking player, as it was common at the time, but then went on to change his approach toward chess and became very positional. Positional, at that time, was very shocking to the rest of the chessplayers, and they actually considered his new way - his new style of playing as cowardly and controversial. It was only, later, his successor on the world champion's throne, Emanuel Lasker, who acknowledged the influence and the impact of the concepts Steinitz introduced. ..." - IM Anna Rudolf (2018)

https://www.chess.com/video/player/games-that-changed-chess-history-part-4

"... The analytical work of Steinitz extends over thirty years and is very valuable. In the Field, in the Tribune, in his publication International Chess Magazine and in his book Modern Chess Instructor, one may find his penetrating and profound analysis. The world did not comprehend how much Steinitz had given it ... the chess world did not understand Steinitz, neither his manner of play nor his written word which treated of his 'Modern School.' ... Now let us turn back to Steinitz and demonstrate his revolutionary achievement from his history and from his writings. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)

@Caesar49bc, Lasker didn't just bury the Romantics (though Spielman carried on that torch for quite a while), he buried the Tarrasch and Nimzowitch schools with equally decisive results!  He stayed at the top of the chess world for about 40 years (even after losing the title to Capablanca, he still won nearly all the tournaments they both played for another 13 years!).

Lasker managed to hold the title longer than anyone, and it was at a time where the game itself was evolving and improving more rapidly than at any other time - every master was a theorist, each with a radically different style and strategic method of thinking, and yet, Lasker managed to defeat them all, time and time again, knowing he was their principal target.

As for your average "C" player, most of the ones I know play gambits and play them quite well.  The Breyer gambit is particularly fun to play.

Thanks to all for the input.  I feel a little better about this.  It's not that I think that there's nothing to learn from Lasker, it's just clear that I need to reach a far higher level than I'm currently at before I can grasp it.  The Steinitz lesson is already clear as day to me, so I should consider that to be progress.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=54111

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79202

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79245

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79326

"... In 1925, he came 2nd at Moscow ... There followed a long hiatus from chess caused by his intention to retire from the game, but he re-emerged in top-class chess in 1934, placing 5th in Zurich …"

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=19149

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79454

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79233

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params=191105SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params=191605SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params=192105SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params=193405SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100

Lasker's "psychological play" means that he played moves, it doesn't matter if it was a bad move, just to make his opponents feel uncomfortable. 

"... Another myth for which there seems no real evidence is that Lasker deliberately played bad moves in order to unsettle his opponents. Certainly Lasker played bad moves, as all chess-players do from time to time, ... his winning efforts hardly ever crossed the boundary into recklessness; in almost evey case, he played moves that appeared provocative but were no worse than the alternatives, with the important difference that they were more likely to induce a mistake. …" - GM John Nunn (2014)

Nunn's words seem to jive with Kasparov's analysis - the way he broke open positions was never demonstrably unsound.  Sometimes inaccuracies in the opening (remember this was before extensive theory existed beyond the Ruy Lopez and QGD openings) left him worse for a time, and he had to complicate things to create counterplay, but the sequences are so laden with pitfalls for his opponent that finding a way through those complications - if one even exists in the first place - is a herculean task.