I totally agree with another reader's review title. To me, Lasker is one of the three strongest chess champions in the history. The other two are Fischer and Kasparov. I do not use the word greatest as I think in each generation each Chess Champion were the greatest in their days, otherwise they would not be Champions. But why I specifically mention these three? I think it lay on the fact that all champions are genius, but one point is the degree of stress they can withstand makes the 3 mentioned above to stand apart from the other champions. I always imagine that if the past champions re-incarnate, study current theories, like Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik etc, they would still lose to Fischer and Kasparov. The fact is not their chess knowledge and play are worse than Fischer or Kasparov, but they cannot withstand the enormous pressure from these two. As Korchnoi once commented about his chance against Fischer, he said that he was not afraid of Fischer, but only in one or two games, concerning a match, he said he has no chance to survive. This apply to Kasparov' opponents as well. Only I think Lasker can stand against Fischer or Kasparov. One point or the points most of us neglect is that Lasker, besides being a chess champion, he was also a mathematician and philosopher as well. He knew pschology no less than Fischer or Kasparov, in withstanding severe pressure, I conjecture he might be even better than the two. Though I am a fervent fan of Fischer and Kasparov, I still have to disdain their commments on Lasker. Fischer said Lasker was just a coffeehouse player and Kasparov said that the quality of match of Lasker's was poor. No!!! One cannot use today's standard to comment on the past. Otherwise I can laugh at Newton's concept of absolute space and time!!! In fact when I played through Lasker's games, I find them as interesting as Fischer's and Kasparov's games. Take just two examples, one can found a game as wild as the one between Lasker and Pillsbury in the third round of St. Petesburg 1895/1896 and as stategic as the one from Lasker's famous win over the almost invincible Capablanca in St. Petersburg in 1914 using a drawish opening and in fact he absolutely needed a win paradoxically!!. Andew Soltis, you have done a very good job!!