<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: More of the same - its such a shame.
Review: (This is my short review, I may post a longer one on my web site.) I have had this book for over a month now, and I have spent many, many hours reading this book and deeply analyzing the games that are given here. (I should also let you know that I am a chess-master with a fair size library, and that I am fairly well-read when it comes to the stories and the lives of the various World Champions.) I think a comment on my review of the first volume is in order here, as it generated a great deal of e-mail - some of which was clearly negative. First, it is just one man's opinion! Secondly, if you check any of the popular web sites like ChessBase, you will find poking holes in the analysis of the first book has become something of a national sport for some people. (In particular, see the series of on-going articles by GM Karsten Mueller.) When I first received this book, I had anticipated learning a great deal about these players that I did not know. In particular, good books on Euwe's life (in English) are fairly hard to come by. (This volume covers World Champions five through eight, i.e., Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, and Tal.) I particularly enjoyed the chapter on Max Euwe, who was World Champion from 1935 to 1937. I had once read, (in a book by a popular American writer); that "Euwe possessed a rather dry style," and that he was a strategist and a deep thinker. (he was) But here we see a different side of Euwe, he is pictured as a great tactician who was not afraid to enter into complications if the position called for it! (I found the combination against Speyer given on page 15 to be especially pleasing.) Overall, I really enjoyed this chapter ... and the look into the life of a multifaceted man that many call the last amateur World Champion. I already knew a great deal about Botvinnik, but nonetheless enjoyed the chapter on this player immensely. I did not see a lot of new information ... but the chapter made pleasant reading. A slightly sour note was sounded by the discussion of how Kasparov and Botvinnik had ended their personal relationship. (Botvinnik's version of this tale is completely different than the one offered by Kasparov.) The chapter on Smyslov was very entertaining and well presented. Truly the story of Smyslov's life has been a search for harmony ... both on and off the chessboard, and his games reflect this quality. The games themselves also make a good vehicle for this player, I doubt the average player will know many of these game prior to acquiring this book.
(They are all very beautiful!) And finally, we have the chapter on the life of Tal. There is a lot of good and bad in this chapter, I personally (greatly) disagree with Kasparov's statement that Tal's game was about "bluffing" in chess. One cannot become World Champion without being a great player and able to play all phases of the game in at least an adequate manner! In my opinion, Tal returned "dynamics" to chess. With his emphasis on things like a high-intensity struggle, hand-to-hand combat, his willingness to sacrifice at almost any time ... Tal brought these elements back into chess at a time when it needed it the most. (Keres later noted that chess suffered from 'staleness' during this period. He said that it was in danger of dying the death of "the gentleman's draw," and the "win with White - draw with Black" formula. Keres said that Tal's chess was like ... " a breath of fresh air into a stuffy room.") And now down to brass tacks. (Many of the complaints I had about the first volume will re-surface here.) A friend of mine - who is something of a chess historian - complained about the many errors in the names and the dates in this book. (One Harvard professor has put out a 7-volume set of books on the communist leaders of the {former} USSR. On page 161, Zhdanov should probably be rendered "Zhidanov" in English.) Again there is a definite lack of focus. (About half the games in the Botvinnik chapter do NOT involve Botvinnik as one of the principle parties!) And the author promised the readers a definitive account, but skirts many of the thornier issues of chess history. For example: the fact that Keres was probably forced to throw games to Botvinnik. (Indeed, after Stalin died, Keres won like five games in a row off Botvinnik!) The authors touch on this, but do not really delve into this matter in any real or meaningful way. An IM, who was initially very excited about the release of these books, now confides to me that he feels Kasparov had little to do with any of the work done here. A GM told me - on the condition that I did not disclose his name - that he also felt Kasparov did little of the real work involved in this project, and referred to these books as "pot-boilers." And probably the most important fact of all is the chess contained within this book. The web site of the publisher still promises analysis free of errors, in the introduction here the authors' state: many of these games will be "analyzed anew with the help of a computer." (Page # 05.) Yet the number of errors contained within this book that I have already found are nearly too great to count. (In one case I found the authors concluded that White was better, but missed a simple combination that wins a piece. In another case they conclude the position is "nearly equal," but miss a mate in three moves.) One concrete example is the game that begins on page # 416. (Tal - Botvinnik, 1st Match Game.) This game is replete with errors, I found a problem with almost every note I looked at in detail!! (More than 20 mistakes tallied so far.) In closing, I would like to say that these books appear to be well produced, but fall far short of expectations - especially if your name is Garry Kasparov. But on the other hand, any amateur who is looking for a "good read" and some excellent games to look at, might enjoy this book quite a bit. (Just don't check the moves with a strong computer!)
Rating: 
Summary: Superb value for money
Review: A series of books on past world chamipons by Kasparov, is sure to get a lot of attention and it certainly did for the previous volume. There are a lot of reviews available on internet written by more qualified reviewers for both the books. In those reviews you can find a lot of information about the accuracy of historical facts etc. So I would give here just my peronal opinion. If you have read first volume, then chances are your opinion of this book would be slightly better, but not too different. The books are not masterpieces, but they are really very good. The paper quality, binding, printing and diagrams are excellent. But what I like most about these books is their exceptional value for money. There may not be anything new in the material presented here regarding history of chess or the background of a tournament/match. But it's all compiled for you here in a fun-to-read manner. Maybe there is an error in an annotation. But as a player of average strength, I am not likely to notice it. More importantly to me, the annotations are not superficial, yet most of them are easy to follow. Some of these may be from other sources, but again, I get them compiled for me. Moreover, at many places, Kasparov compares different annotations and provides his evaluations. There are ample diagrams that go with this, and it makes the book a good read for an average player. There are many insights about how a player contributed to development of chess, e.g. Bronstein's contribution to KID. Kasparov also discusses how a player and his games had an effect on him. It gave the book a personal touch. On numerous occassions, you get some juicy stuff regarding a game or a particular move. One fabulous example of this is how Botvinnik did not tell Flohr (his second), what move he sealed against Bronstein (the famous 23rd match game) even though Flohr kept on researching a different move till the last moment. To sum it up. Almost 150 games, presented in a historical context, of 7 exceptionally strong players - with lots of diagrams and friendly annotations, explaining their styles and contributions to chess in general. I would say, that's value for money.
Rating:
Summary: Not as bad as people make out
Review: Buy this for the games not for the annotations which are apparently flawed.
Still, you get the games of Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov and Tal.
The games of these grandmasters are often difficult to locate in algebraic notation, as for instance Smyslov's best book, My Best Games 1935-1957 was written in descriptive notation (Dover books, 1971), and the games of Botvinnik are also difficult to locate in algebraic notation as his algebraic books are either impossible-to-find eastern European production affairs, or his Dover books are in descriptive notation.
So this book is a great source for readable games. No doubt about it- Kasparov is now a hack writer, pure and simple, and his chess playing stinks compared to the level he obtained in his Karpov matches bewteen 1985-1990. Since then he has become a huge pretender, only scraping by because his opponents have also eschewed classical principles and play in a random haphazard manner that defies logic- yes, the level of chess has sunk to new lows compared to the days of Botvinnik- now under the pretence of "professionalism" you have something akin to what happened to boxing when the system splintered into a hundred different money making organizations each claiming championship status. What a joke chess has become, and the players now these days are too rude to contemplate- you can take modern chess and shuve it! Bunch of money hungry selfish pigs like Short and Kasporov- and yes the FIDE organization was totally corrupt also- their president (not Euwe but the bum who came after him!) was a total conniving fraud.
Rating: 
Summary: An important book about the post Alekhine era
Review: In 1988 I had the opportunity to meet Tal and Smyslov, and to make short interviews with the two.
I asked Smyslov for his opinion about chess of the 70's and the 80's, and especially about the young champions (then) Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. Smyslov answered, that niether of them brought something new to chess.
In fact, he included all the champions of his days in the list, including himself. "I don't see a progress since the days of Capablanca and Alekhine, and I still recommend to learn first of all from the two", he said.
"What about Fischer or Kasparov?", I asked.
"They had'nt brought some thing new to chess", he answered.
I find it interesting, because Kasprov himself tells in the book, that Botvinik demanded from him to play "like Capablanca". Both sayings can tell us something about the Soviet School spirit, that put Capablanca as the ideal chess player.
But isn't there any progressat all, since the 30's? Kasparov himself, claims, naturally, for a major progress since then. I wonder.
I asked Tal, about computers, that won't be fooled by his unique style and sacs. Tal, that looked very bad (I didn't recognise him by the old pictures I had), smiled and said: "Let me play against a computer. It will blow up within a minute, BOOM!".
Unfortunately I don't share this thought of the late champion, but Kasparov surprised me, by telling in the book, that even today with computers, the majority of Tal famous combinations are not totally proved to be wrong.
Reading this book gave me a very good idea about history of the game from the mid 30's to the early 60's. Euwe, for example, was allways seemed to get the crown by an accident that happened to the drunk Alekhine. Kasparov shows that Alekhine played bad even before the 1935 match and Euwe deserved to be a champion.
Also it's interesting to read about Botvinik and the Soviet party, and about the poor Astonian Paul Keres, that did'nt have a chance in the USSR. Witnesses of talks, memories and stories from these days are brought, including the personal "black list" of Botvinik. All the years I thought of the Soviet school as a united devision, but now I read that Botvinik hated all the challengers of his time, and the champions to come.
So the book is read also as a "regular" book with a plot, not only as a chess book. The games are illustrated by many diagrams, and this is not a technical comment. You can "read" the games also without the need of a board. The collection of games is very good and represents the players.
I don't care if Kasparov actually wrote the book alone or just gave it his name. It's clear that he would'nt put his signature of a bad product or something that he does'nt agree with. Maybe there are mistakes in the book, but read all the classics of chess, including Fischer's "My 60 memorable games" and Botvinik's book about USSR championship of 1941. Read all of them, and find errors...Still, they remain classic, and the 2 first parts of "My great predecessors" will join them very soon.
Rating:
Summary: Not as bad as people make out
Review: Like the first book, this one is well produced, and has some good games and annotations. This one covers Euwe to Tal, as well as some sections on Keres, Bronstein and Geller. Unlike the first book, there were some extensive personal touches to his chapters on these champs who overlapped his own lifetime. That's why I gave it an extra star. All the same, the problems that have been widely noted with the first one apply to this one as well. We really expect far more from such a great player.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting read, but still flawed
Review: Like the first book, this one is well produced, and has some good games and annotations. This one covers Euwe to Tal, as well as some sections on Keres, Bronstein and Geller. Unlike the first book, there were some extensive personal touches to his chapters on these champs who overlapped his own lifetime. That's why I gave it an extra star. All the same, the problems that have been widely noted with the first one apply to this one as well. We really expect far more from such a great player.
<< 1 >>
| 
