Lasker quotes

http://www.chessquotes.com/player-lasker

"When you see a good move, look for a better one."

Translation: Why settle for a clear positional advantage when you have a combination that wins a piece or head into a superior endgame when you can force mate for example. 

"The hardest game to win is a won game."

Translation: Study technique, you'll kick yourself later for throwing away won games.

"The laws of chess do not permit a free choice: you have to move whether you like it or not."

Translation: Being in zugzwang like totally blows.

"I have added these principles to the law: get the Knights into action before both bishops are developed."

Translation: Don't play the Nimzo-Larsen Attack, seriously black obtains easy equality after 1.b3,e5 2.Bb2,Nc6 3.e3,d5 4.Bb5

On a serious note it's the principle of the least active piece since your bishop already controls some squares from f1 whereas the knight being short ranged doesn't, and therefore influences the center after 1.e4 2.Nf3 and keeps bishops flexible.

"By what right does White, in an absolutely even position, such as after move one, when both sides have advanced 1. e4, sacrifice a pawn, whose recapture is quite uncertain, and open up his kingside to attack? And then follow up this policy by leaving the check of the black queen open? None whatever !  -  on the King's Gambit"

Translation: Why would white employ a gimmick where he has to fight hard and calculate accurately to obtain the draw wherefore black has more leeway? 

"Show me three variations in the leading handbook on the openings, and I will show you two of those three that are defective."

Translation: Yeah turn of the century opening analysis was kind of weak.  Di Firmian, a modern opening author, noted that the Evans Gambit was unsound and took back his statement in the MCO edition after that one.  The pin variation of the Paulsen and Latvian Gambit for example may have been considered "sound" in Lasker's day, but today we know the refutation.

"The process of making pieces in Chess do something useful (whatever it may be) has received a special name: it is called the attack. The attack is that process by means of which you remove obstructions."

Translation: Be aggressive and let the other guy make concessions.  Attack the king so you obtain some nice positional compensation when you can.

"I believe in magic ... There is magic in the creative faculty such as great poets and philosophers conspicuously possess, and equally in the creative chessmaster."

Translation: The guy lived before the advent of modern neuroscience, so cut him some slack.

I'm not so sure of the first Lasker quote, "When you see a good move, look for a better one."

According to Harold Rutherford James Murray, Damiano in the 16th century wrote (translated), "when you have a good move look for a better.’"

"By what right does White, in an absolutely even position, such as after move one, when both sides have advanced 1. e4, sacrifice a pawn, whose recapture is quite uncertain, and open up his kingside to attack? And then follow up this policy by leaving the check of the black queen open? None whatever !  -  on the King's Gambit"

This one cannot be quite correct. Lasker would have used descriptive notation.

Here the actual quote from "Lasker's Common Sense in Chess."

Ironically the king's gambit sounds like it'd fit his style of play since he was known to be provocative.  Ruy Lopez and Scotch Game theory back then wasn't as developed so those systems had plenty of opportunities for trailblazing. The KG probably isn't a forced win for black but a very tough to obtain draw for white and relatively easy one for black with best play. 

Actually he was talking about the King's Bishop's Gambit specifically.

Here are more of his statements (with some updated notation)

    Gentlemen: According to the request you made to me last Monday,
          we shall consider today the King's Bishop's gambit, which, as you all
          know, is constituted by these moves:- 1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4.
               If I remind you of Rule III ("Bring your Kts out before developing
          the Bishops, especially the QB"), you will admit that the development
          of the B is not in accordance with our fundamental principles. 
          Actually the move of the KKt to B3 (Nf3) would be far stronger,
          as it leads to a fairly even game, while the KB gambit should be
          lost to the first player.
          ... We must therefore come to the conclusion that the KB gambit
          is unsound.  I will not pretend that there is any right and wrong in
          Chess from an ethical standpoint, but by what right should White,
          in an absolutely even position, such as after move 1, when both sides
          have advanced P-K4, sacrifice a Pawn, whose recpture is quite
          uncertain, and open up his K side to attack?  And then follow up this
          policy by leaving the check of the Black Queen open? 
             None whatsoever! 
             The idea of the gambit, if it has any justification, can only be to
          allure Black into the too violent and hasty pursuit of attack.  If,
          therefore, we can obtain by sound and consistant play the superiority
          of position, common sense triumphs over trickery, and rightly so.