I take it from the tone of his writing that Lev Khariton has a "thing" about
Kasparov. I wonder what it it? Maybe he got pushed around the school yard as
a kid by a bully named Garry?
Leopold

"tomic" wrote in message
...

Modesty has never been Kasparov's forte. With years, however, our
drawbacks
progress geometrically. This is the first thought that springs to mind
when
reading his interviews, especially the most recent one at
www.chessbase.com
Well, lack of modesty is not his only drawback that gets unproportionally
inflated. What strikes me more, is the lack of objectivity and I would
say,
cruel indifference to the past whether it be chess or otherwise.
Paradoxically, there are still people who consider Garry Kasparov a great
historian.
Kasparov's newest blockbuster, his triology "My Chess Predecessors" was
the
subject of the aforementioned interview. Chess publishers in Moscow and
New
York almost simultaneously released the first volume of Kasparov's
research.
The book was compiled together with Dmitry Plisetsky, a meticulous and
hard-working journalist, who has done, I am sure, a lion's share of work
aided by Kasparov's mega-computers.
Whose predecessors, in this case, are the first 12 World Champions,
Kasparov
's or Plisetsky's? - this is what one of my pen-pals asked me recently. I
would not say that the title of the triology is too humble. If the
predecessors are great, so Kasparov is great as well.No wonder the third
volume of the book will be dedicated totally to Kasparov's games. Why
"predecessors" then? I would call the whole piece "12+1", that would be
more logical.So, this is a book on chess history, and obviously Kasparov
thinks that it has wrapped up in him. But where is Vladimir Kramnik, his
toppler?Or may be, Kramnik has not yet become part of chess history?
Here are two quotes from Kasparov's interview at chessbase.com
"It's enough to say that any average GM today knows more than Fischer did
in
1972, at his peak. He was way ahead of his generation, but we consider
many
of those games primitive now, just because we know so much more. Not about
his talent, but about the knowledge. You look at the openings of
Fischer-Spassky, they were searching in the dark. Nowadays you are one
click
away from the answer"
Thanks, Mr.Kasparov! At least, you admit that Fischer had a talent. But
how
about Fischer and Spassky "searching in the dark"? In this interview
Kasparov remarks that the new generation of chess players were brought up
on
the games of his matches with Karpov in the 80s. Doesn't Kasparov think
that
he grew up as a chess player learning from Spassky and Fischer. If he
considers himself a historian, at least a chess historian, he cannot
disagree with me.
Another quote: "In Volume Three I argue that Karpov had a very good
chance
to beat Fischer in 75. I would even consider Karpov the favorite in 75. He
was more flexible, he was from a new generation. Karpov's chess was
multifaceted. Fischer would have had a very hard time, and I think Fischer
knew that. I doubt Fischer would have avoided a match with Korchnoi and
Spassky"
Of course, Kasparov has an interest to believe that Karpov could have
defeated Fischer. So, he defeated Karpov, who was stronger that Fischer.
Strange, but never before has he maintained that Karpov was stronger than
Fischer in 1975. The real stunner, however, is that Kasparov believes that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov intentionally, or that he would
have
definitely played with Korchnoi or Spassky. This view was shared in the
70s
only by the brain-washed, law-abiding Soviet citizens and some
anti-Fischer
Americans today. What a standpoint to hear from a chess historian like
Kasparov! I wonder whether his views of other champions in his book are
as
logical and consistent?
The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing everything to

break off the match between Fischer and Karpov, and finally the Soviets
succeeded. In 1975 Kasparov was only 12 years old and may be he was too
young to understand what was happening. However, today it has been
universally acknowledged that Fischer was stonewalled by the Soviet and
world chess community with the criminal non-interference of the US Chess
Federation. Suffice it to read, among other documents, the book "Russians
vs. Fischer" published in English in Moscow a few years ago. To say that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov is not only an error, it is a lie
vis-a-vis chess history!
If Kasparov is unable (or he does not want ) to properly evaluate the
events
of chess history that happened in his lifetime, how can we trust his
assessment of history in general years and centuries before he was born?
Are
his opinions competent and objective? And how can we trust his
pronouncements today, when, for example, he supported the "theory" that
Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction" and therefore had to be attacked by
the United States?

LEV KHARITON