Lev Khariton- 200 Words
http://www.pakchess.com/

A quote from Kasparov’s interview conducted by Hanon Russell at the
inauguration of his book “My Great Predecessors”: “…My mother told me, “Look
Garry, you did a lot of good things in the world of chess, you played great
games, but you have to leave a sort of legacy behind you. No one will be
able to do it.” And also now we are sort of facing, I wouldn’t say the end
of history, but definitely the classical chess as the game is no longer
carrying the same importance. So to some extent these books, sort of the
milestone that ends a great period of the history of chess.
Modest Kasparov! Great games! Well, it is not enough for him to play great
games, he should declare for the whole world that they are great…And
obviously, it is his mother who decides whether the history of ”classical
chess” has come to a close. Chess people, chess fans, please, wake up to
hear all that abracadabra uttered by the narcissic and provincial former
World Champion! Does anyone believe that his verdict is final, that he
together with his mother crowns the glorious history of chess? Even athletes
running 100 meters, who have seemingly achieved the ceiling of the human’s
physical potential, hope to break the world records. So why should our game
be buried? Only because Kasparov wants to be the last champion?
At www.chesscafe.com Edward Winter accused Kasparov of plagiarism and cited
some examples from his new book. How can then such a book be considered a
“milestone that ends a great period of the history of chess”?

Lev Khariton

It's irrelevant if it's discussed or not. You are not the court, so when you
bring the verdict, the case is over. Well, Mr. Khariton sentence was
correct:
At www.chesscafe.com Edward Winter accused Kasparov of plagiarism and
cited some examples from his new book.

Jerzy wrote:
I don`t know whether it`s a milestone or not but for sure it`s worth
buying
and reading

That's your right. I don't read every mail of some scribomen from this
newsgroup, so I'll not buy these books. By the way, I think that books of
the famous writer Dmitrije Bjelica, titled "The kings of the chess" (13.
books, ended with Kasparov) are unparalleled better that that trilogy. These
evaluations of some WCC which Kasparov signalized in his interview are
enough for me. Who can endure his swank?! Moreover, I don't think that
Kasparov's mother is better expert of chess history and development of the
chess than me. So, I don't need these books.

Regards,
Goran Tomic

"tomic" wrote in message
...
It's irrelevant if it's discussed or not. You are not the court, so when
you
bring the verdict, the case is over. Well, Mr. Khariton sentence was
correct:

Well, it would be much nicer if Khariton presented his views himself on this
forum so we could discuss his opinions directly with him not by a broker
like you.


I don`t know whether it`s a milestone or not but for sure it`s worth
buying
and reading

That's your right. I don't read every mail of some scribomen from this
newsgroup, so I'll not buy these books. By the way, I think that books of
the famous writer Dmitrije Bjelica, titled "The kings of the chess" (13.
books, ended with Kasparov) are unparalleled better that that trilogy.
These
evaluations of some WCC which Kasparov signalized in his interview are
enough for me. Who can endure his swank?! Moreover, I don't think that
Kasparov's mother is better expert of chess history and development of the
chess than me. So, I don't need these books.


If you make such a verdict without having read the book so you are welcome
to the "club of enemies/haters" of Garri Kasparov

Regards,

Jerzy

Everything else you say, fine, but to say "are unparalleled better than that
trilogy" when you haven`t even read it, is a statement completely devoid of
logic or reasoning. It`s impossible to make meaningful judgements on a book
you haven`t read. They may suck, but making comparisons involving something
you haven`t even read (and hasn`t even been finished yet) is not
realistically possible here.

Everything else you say is opinion, but trying to make value comparisons
involving something not even written yet, much less read by you, is
completely nonsensical.

- Joshua B. Lilly




"tomic" wrote in message
...

That's your right. I don't read every mail of some scribomen from this
newsgroup, so I'll not buy these books. By the way, I think that books of
the famous writer Dmitrije Bjelica, titled "The kings of the chess" (13.
books, ended with Kasparov) are unparalleled better that that trilogy.
These
evaluations of some WCC which Kasparov signalized in his interview are
enough for me. Who can endure his swank?! Moreover, I don't think that
Kasparov's mother is better expert of chess history and development of the
chess than me. So, I don't need these books.

Regards,
Goran Tomic

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...


If you make such a verdict without having read the book so you are welcome
to the "club of enemies/haters" of Garri Kasparov

Regards,

Jerzy


I don't understand well, are you fan of Garry Kasparov (not Garri Kasparov)?
I suspect that you are really fan because you didn't write his name
correct...You would know his name at least.

Regards,
Goran Tomic

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message
news:3f1c01e7_2@newsfeed...
Everything else you say, fine, but to say "are unparalleled better than
that
trilogy" when you haven`t even read it, is a statement completely devoid
of
logic or reasoning. It`s impossible to make meaningful judgements on a
book
you haven`t read. They may suck, but making comparisons involving
something
you haven`t even read (and hasn`t even been finished yet) is not
realistically possible here.

Everything else you say is opinion, but trying to make value comparisons
involving something not even written yet, much less read by you, is
completely nonsensical.

- Joshua B. Lilly

I don't need to read that unwritten trilogy. There are two reasons: The
first: That was his mother's decision to write the book, because she don't
think that any chess player except Garry could do it. It's nonsense. There
are many chess players and chess journalists who has done it. The second, I
don't believe that it has any merit. The basic idea of the book is
unreliable. I think that's nonsense to look at the position and say-Alekhine
would play in this position this move and Capablanca that move. I have no
confidence in that methodology. It's the tale of a tub. I cite Alekhine: "By
means of chess I build my character. Chess first of all teaches you to be
objective." - Alexander Alekhine
Obviously, in the Alekhine's time that were some objective values that WCC
could apprehend. And today?

Regards,
Goran Tomic

"tomic" wrote in message
...

I don't understand well, are you fan of Garry Kasparov (not Garri
Kasparov)?
I suspect that you are really fan because you didn't write his name
correct...You would know his name at least.


I have encountered many versions of Kasparov`s first name Garri, Garry,
Harry etc.
You are right that in e.g. Chess Base he is under Garry.
It`s a kind of problem to translate properly names from cyrillic into latin
alphabet.

It doesn`t matter if I am his fan or not. I try to be objective in judging
other people`s works contrary to your attitude...

Regards,

Jerzy

"tomic" wrote in message
...

I have encountered many versions of Kasparov`s first name Garri, Garry,
Harry etc.



I have never heard about Harry Hasparov or Harry Gasparov but Garry
Kasparov. It seems that you use Kasparov's methodology from his unwritten
trilogy: If it's not like this it's like that. This move is like
Rubinstein,
and if not, it's like Bronstein, and if not it's like...Old wives' tales!


I know that you are heavily influenced by other people`s opinions but not by
your own thinking and conlusions.
And I know that your chess experience is not that big to judge Kasparov`s
work properly...

Regards,

Jerzy