So now that this book has been out, do you guys like reading it?

In article , talltree0
@yahoo.com says...
So now that this book has been out, do you guys like reading it?

I just pre-ordered Volume 2, which is coming out on December 1. I can't
wait to get my hands on this. I'm having a great time with Kasparov's
book. Chock full of analysis to go through, giving me plenty to think
about. Can't wait to read what Kasparov says about the Botvinnik-
Capablanca match in 1938 at the AVRO tournament.

I personally hope he doesn't stop at Volume 3. I hope he uses the foward
momentum to keep up the work for a Volume 4 right up to Kramnik. The
only disappointing thing is Kasparov says Judit Polgar won't be making
any appearances in the later volume! That should get her blood boiling
for sure. First Linares 1994 with Kasparov's take back move with the
wrong knight against her. And now this insult. Is it me or do I think
Kasparov is trying to goad her into accepting an offer to be his
challenger for the World Championship title should Kasparov regain it
against Kramnik?

A Kasparov-Polgar World Championship match would be awesome. These two
titans would bring a "take no prisoners" atmosphere to the games!
Something unseen since the Bobby Fischer - Boris Spassky match back in
72.

If you haven't already, check out two recent reviews of "GKOMGP":

John Watson pretty much nails it, arriving at an assessment of the book that
jibes almost 100% with my own: the upside is that this is a refreshingly
ambitious, worthwhile, and enjoyable endeavor by a great champion -- a book
that every serious chess player should own and value. The downside is that
there is far too much warmed-over (and often inaccurate) history and
analysis -- usually of the same old famous games we've seen before -- and
far too little of what the book seemed to promise, i.e., Kasparov's own
idiosyncratic and comprehensive takes on the strategic advances in chess
over the decades. Watson raises an excellent question: If this very same
book had been written by someone like Burgess or Emms, would it have
received the same adulation? I think the answer is clearly no.
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatsonbkrev58.html

Patrick Wolff, a sometime antagonist of GK in his role as Anand's 1995
second, is far harsher about the book than I would be, but his review
deserves a read because it give voice to disappointments that others haven't
fully fleshed out. Simplifying a bit, Wolff's critique is that the book's
assessments of the great players and games of the past are far more generic
and hackneyed than one would expect from a creative chess genius like
Kasparov, and that the book's doggedly chronological structure gets in the
way of GK drawing deep or surprising connections between eras. Wolff raises
an interesting counterfactual question of his own:
"Suppose that Pablo Picasso, while alive and at the height of his powers,
had announced he was going to write a book demonstrating the continuous
progress of painting ... [with] the un-self-deprecating title, 'My Great
Predecessors.' Imagine the excitement of art lovers everywhere in
anticipation of this book! What would people want of such a work? ... What
they would not want is a running historical narrative that ... follows a
steady, chronological progress month after month, year after year. ... Who
would want to read from Picasso what any art professor around the world
could already write?" As I say, a harsher verdict than I would issue, but a
question that puts some of the weaknesses of GKOMGP in stark relief.
http://www.chesscafe.com/skittles/skittles.htm

For me, the most interesting bits are those rare passages in which Kasparov
(1) attacks sacred cows, such as accusing Capablanca of complacency and
failure to analyze deeply in critical positions; (2) reexamines the
psychological ebbs and flows of key matches, especially championship
matches; or (3) draws comparisons between specific games across decades, as
in the example quoted at length by Sadler in his glowing NIC review: how
Alekhine took advantage of Yates's cliched treatment of the queenside pawn
majority, perhaps drawing on an earlier Capa-Marshall game. I am confident
that such opinionated and illuminating material will increase in future
volumes, as the subject matter approaches the modern day. I can't wait to
see what Kasparov has to say about Tal, much less Fischer and Karpov.


"Ivan" wrote in message
om...
So now that this book has been out, do you guys like reading it?

"Ivan" wrote in message
om...
So now that this book has been out, do you guys like reading it?

A friend of mine, a strong chess master, praised the book - he called it a
great work on classical chess - so I`ve already ordered the two volumes (in
Russian). Unfortunately I have to wait some time to read them by myself.

Regards,
Jerzy

Sounds like Kasparov's idea's more that just research into history. I
always thought that Fred Wilson's book " A picture history of chess "
was one of the best chess books ever. No games. Just pictures and
small biographies, almost like a movie book. I wonder if Kasparov
ever read that book. It doesn't look like he did when writing this
book " My great predecessors "

EZoto

I took a look, and I agree with the detractors: it's an expensive
money-maker for a player who is cashing in on his name while he can. And
calling Capa complacent is hardly controversial: everyone knows that the
Chess Machine coasted on his own innate skill, and why not? He was a lot
happier of a person than Alekhine.

There are not many WCs who write good books, expecially when they are
discussing players and games they were not involved in. The best two WC
books are Fischer's 60 Memorable Games and Tal's book on his tourney with
Botvinnik, both covering games they were involved in. Nothing memorable has
come from the pens of Karpov, Spassky, Petrosian, Botvinnik, or even Lasker,
who's Manual of Chess is a turgid read.

Alekhine's notes to his own games are of course worth reading, but again,
he's discussing his own material. A good chess history, with the kind of
comprehensive strategic analysis that we are looking for, is not going to
come from the WC players. It's kind of like baseball: the best managers
usually were not very good players.

Anthony Saidy wrote a book called The March of Chess Ideas, but it collapses
into some pretty cheap shots at Karpov at the end, which bring into
questions the validity of the rest of the book...as it his case so often in
chess, some people let their politics run rampant over their perception of
the game. R.E. Fauber wrote Impact of Chess, ostensibly covering 500 years
of GM chess, but he forgot Tal, and considering that he gives sections to
Mieses, Menchik, and Breyer, you have to wonder what was on his mind to
simply ignore one of our most interesting WCs.

TMB


"David Franklin" wrote in message
hlink.net...
If you haven't already, check out two recent reviews of "GKOMGP":

John Watson pretty much nails it, arriving at an assessment of the book
that
jibes almost 100% with my own: the upside is that this is a refreshingly
ambitious, worthwhile, and enjoyable endeavor by a great champion -- a
book
that every serious chess player should own and value. The downside is that
there is far too much warmed-over (and often inaccurate) history and
analysis -- usually of the same old famous games we've seen before -- and
far too little of what the book seemed to promise, i.e., Kasparov's own
idiosyncratic and comprehensive takes on the strategic advances in chess
over the decades. Watson raises an excellent question: If this very same
book had been written by someone like Burgess or Emms, would it have
received the same adulation? I think the answer is clearly no.
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatsonbkrev58.html

Patrick Wolff, a sometime antagonist of GK in his role as Anand's 1995
second, is far harsher about the book than I would be, but his review
deserves a read because it give voice to disappointments that others
haven't
fully fleshed out. Simplifying a bit, Wolff's critique is that the book's
assessments of the great players and games of the past are far more
generic
and hackneyed than one would expect from a creative chess genius like
Kasparov, and that the book's doggedly chronological structure gets in the
way of GK drawing deep or surprising connections between eras. Wolff
raises
an interesting counterfactual question of his own:
"Suppose that Pablo Picasso, while alive and at the height of his powers,
had announced he was going to write a book demonstrating the continuous
progress of painting ... [with] the un-self-deprecating title, 'My Great
Predecessors.' Imagine the excitement of art lovers everywhere in
anticipation of this book! What would people want of such a work? ... What
they would not want is a running historical narrative that ... follows a
steady, chronological progress month after month, year after year. ... Who
would want to read from Picasso what any art professor around the world
could already write?" As I say, a harsher verdict than I would issue, but
a
question that puts some of the weaknesses of GKOMGP in stark relief.
http://www.chesscafe.com/skittles/skittles.htm

For me, the most interesting bits are those rare passages in which
Kasparov
(1) attacks sacred cows, such as accusing Capablanca of complacency and
failure to analyze deeply in critical positions; (2) reexamines the
psychological ebbs and flows of key matches, especially championship
matches; or (3) draws comparisons between specific games across decades,
as
in the example quoted at length by Sadler in his glowing NIC review: how
Alekhine took advantage of Yates's cliched treatment of the queenside pawn
majority, perhaps drawing on an earlier Capa-Marshall game. I am confident
that such opinionated and illuminating material will increase in future
volumes, as the subject matter approaches the modern day. I can't wait to
see what Kasparov has to say about Tal, much less Fischer and Karpov.


"Ivan" wrote in message
om...
So now that this book has been out, do you guys like reading it?

David Franklin wrote (2003-11-29 21:58:05 PST):

If you haven't already, check out two recent reviews
of "GKOMGP":

John Watson ...
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatsonbkrev58.html

Patrick Wolff ...
http://www.chesscafe.com/skittles/skittles.htm

_
The link for Patrick Wolff does not seem to work.
Perhaps try:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles213.pdf

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:11:21 GMT, "The Masked Bishop"
wrote:

I took a look, and I agree with the detractors: it's an expensive
money-maker for a player who is cashing in on his name while he can. And
calling Capa complacent is hardly controversial: everyone knows that the
Chess Machine coasted on his own innate skill, and why not? He was a lot
happier of a person than Alekhine.

Can you blame Alekhine? Here he is trying to beat the most gifted
player maybe in history so he spends literally his whole life
dedicated into beating this one player. If Capablanca only knew what
he was dealing with maybe he would have kept his title.

EZoto

(Ivan) wrote in message . com...
So now that this book has been out, do you guys like reading it?


I think Mr. Kasparov's personality is grotesque, but I have to laugh
at the strong and weak chessplayers taking pot shots at his book. The
book is clearly a definitive collection of important games, the
analysis is just fine for its purposes, and several interesting
historical facts are given. Maybe it was mostly ghost written, and
maybe its accuracy isn't supra-precise on every page, but who cares,
it is a wonderful celebration of our fine game featuring fascinating
moment after fascinating moment in all sorts of landmark games from
our shared collective chess history. I think those that write often
on chess are a little upset they didn't hit upon the concept first.
It is a wonderful book, I wish only that I had more time to read it.

Maybe it was mostly ghost written, and

Maybe that is why so many criticize it. If it is ghost written ( most
likely it is ) then the book has no real credibility. Have you ever
hear anyone praise Karpov's books? No. The only Karpov book I ever
liked wasn't even written by Karpov but by Mednis.

EZoto