Most Helpful Customer Reviews
58 of 59 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Like its subject, a flawed marvel, but a marvel nonetheless, August 1, 2005
This review is from: Garry Kasparov on Fischer: Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors, Part 4 (Hardcover)
There was considerable interest in this book in the chess world, and some expectation of controversy. Fischer is a fascinating subject in his own right. He recently got back in the news after being detained in Japan for eight months before being given Icelandic citizenship and dramatically flown to the site of his 1972 triumph. Kasparov has not escaped Fischer's anti-Jewish ravings, and Fischer even accused Kasparov and Karpov of pre-arranging, not merely the results, but the actual moves of the games of their matches. There is also the little matter of historical reputation. Kasparov's dominance of world chess over the last 20 years has been extraordinary. It is very difficult for an objective reviewer to do other than accord him the title of greatest chessplayer of all time. But it is difficult for him to move out of the shadow of a man who quit at the height of his fame and ability at the age of 29 and, apart from a single match, has been virtually invisible since 1972. In short, Kasparov has some reasons to feel bitterness towards his famous prececessor, and many were curious to see if that bitterness would leach into the book. I am happy to report that there seems to be very little of that (although I think it affects his discussion of Fischer's great 1970-72 surge -- see below). Apart from 250 pages about Fischer, it also includes shorter sections on Miguel Najdorf, Samuel Reshevsky (and his rival Reuben Fine) and Bent Larsen. I particularly enjoyed the section on Larsen, who played many fine games. But the focus of the book is Fischer. It does not disappoint. First of all, there is a wonderful selection of games. Fischer's greatest hits: the "Game of the Century" against Donald Byrne in 1956, the famous brilliancy against Robert Byrne in 1963, the crush against Larsen in 1958, Black Magic against Portisch are all here. As before, in such games Kasparov and Dimitry Plisetsky [what to say about him] make ready use of old analysis, as well as computer programs. [Do they do anything new?] But there is also a good selection of games that are less well known. Kasparov plucks an obscure Fischer win over Tal from Curacao 1962, showing how Fischer, after an umpromising opening, grinds away at the position and finally comes away with a win. It's a good reminder that one of Fischer's greatest assets was his relentless, implacable will to win. Kasparov does a pretty thorough job on the Candidates matches that finally brought Fischer a match for the world title. It is on these matches - the 6-0 crushes of Taimanov and Larsen - that Fischer's legend is founded. The games are extraordinary and since they postdate Fischer's own My 60 Memorable Games, I was not so familiar with them. Kasparov outdoes himself. Game 1 of the match is annotated for eight pages. It is by no means a one-sided struggle. As readers of Bronstein's book on the 1953 Candidates tournament know, Taimanov was a gifted attacking player, and with white in this game he went all out, sacrificing a pawn for strong attacking chances. Fischer, of course, met him head on. As Kasparov shows, Fischer ran huge risks throughout, and Taimanov missed chances to gain a clear advantage. But in time pressure, Taimanov cracked, and Fischer won the ferocious struggle. Other games in the match are analyzed with similar thoroughness. A second, wholly unexpected strength of the book is the biography of Fischer. The book contains quotes from source material not included in previous books about Fischer, including Profile of a Prodigy, Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of the World and Bobby Fischer Goes to War. My favorite was a 1963 letter from Fischer to Larry Evans that vividly demonstrates Fischer's work ethic: "I am mainly occupying my time by studying old openings books and believe it or not I am learning a lot! They don't waste space on the Catalan, Reti, King's Indian Reversed and other rotten openings." Another: "Dear Larry, I am up here at yyour father's office still working on the Keres-Reshevsky game! . . . About the books: I would like the book on Anderssen's games by von Gotschall also the 1872 Bilguer's handbuch also the book on Cochrane's games interests me." (315) This is something Kasparov can appreciate, since he famously revived the old Scotch Game. So, I warmly recommend the book, with a few minor criticisms. I think Kasparov is a little too eager to demonstrate that Fischer's overwhelming successes from 1970 through 1972 were the result of his opponents' psychological weaknesses as well as Fischer's own strength. Sometimes this leads him into dubious assertions. For example, annotating Smyslov's loss to Fischer at the Palma interzonal, Kasparov criticizes Smyslov's 7th move, Na4, writing: "A very strange, passive plan. Smyslov is afraid of entering into a theoretical discussion with Fischer, but in so doing, and this is altogether atypical of him, he disrupts the harmonious coordination of his pieces." (357) At the end of his notes to the game, Kasparov writes, "Even such a battle-hardened and illustrious fighter as Smyslov played with a feeling of doom against Fischer." (358) But Smyslov opened the same way against Tal in 1964, a game annotated in an earlier volume of OMGP! Evidently this approach to the opening is not so rare for Smylov, and it is difficult to believe that Smyslov was feeling particularly doomed against Fischer that day. Annotating a Petrosian-Fischer game from 1970, Kasparov criticizes Petrosian's 13th move, trading off a well-placed knight, and writes "apparently, Petrosian was thinking only of a draw . . .". A few moves later Petrosian launches an all-out attack. Betraying no discomfort, Kasparov comments "White has nevertheless pushed forward. . .". (342). Another anomaly is his treatment Fischer's style. Kasparov echoes many commentators when he says that Fischer evinced a strong preference for the light-square bishop over the knight, comparing him to Rubinstein in this regard. However, Kasparov also quotes extensively from a "dossier" Botvinnik assembled for his planned match with Fischer, at one point calling it a "subtle and professional analysis." Well, although Kasparov never points this out, in the dossier, Botvinnik wrote that a study of Fischer's games showed that he preferred knights to bishops! This is so at odds with the conventional wisdom and with Kasparov's book that it is very strange that he didn't even mention it. In any case, these are quibbles. I loved OMGP IV and recommend it highly.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
28 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good read, March 9, 2005
This review is from: Garry Kasparov on Fischer: Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors, Part 4 (Hardcover)
I was not planning on buying these books,just based on some of the lukewarm reviews,and also on the fact that I already have quite a few of the games in other books in my library.I ended up browsing one of them in a bookstore,and was impressed enough that I bought them all.I recently read that Kasparov was planning on revising the first two volumes because he wasn't as happy with them as he was with the latter two.I would agree with this,as the volumes concerning Petrosian,Spassky,Fischer et al seem a lot more fleshed out. I wasn't particularly interested in this volume,since so much has been written about Fischer through the years--what more is there to say?Surprisingly,I found a lot of Kasparov's (or Kasparov and company) comments interesting and penetrating.For whatever reasons,Fischer has always inspired an insane amount of hero worship and mythology around himself,and so any book taking an objective look at his career is bound to upset or disappoint some people.To those who have written that Kasparov is unfair to Fischer in this book,I have to disagree--if anything,he is generous.I thought Kasparov was much harder on another great player,Capablanca. There is a lot of lengthy analysis in this book,as in the previous volumes,and most of it seems to be original,as opposed to many of the annotations in the first two volumes.As for possible analytical mistakes,these are to be expected in any chess book.I don't particularly care if someone's desktop computer program finds some mistake in a branch of a variation several moves down--to those who wish to pick nits like that,I'd advise them to run their anlysis engines to their heart's content.I'm more interested in Kasparov's commentary (or,again,Kasparov and company...it's not always clear if it's solely Kasparov),and I thought Kasparov did a superb job on most of these games,as he did in the Petrosian/Spassky volume. In the recent volumes,Kasparov will often conclude the section on a player with an essay on his style,or personal remembrances.These,to me,are the true strength of these books,and also a reason why the first volume is not as good as the later volumes.I would love to have Kasparov's thoughts on Lasker's style,for example,but he never really gets into it.His essay on Fischer is perceptive and accurate,in my opinion. I also very much enjoyed this book's section on Reshevsky,and I learned some things I didn't know about this great player.A complaint about all of these books is that there are occasional inexcusable historical mistakes.I didn't see any glaring mistakes in this volume,but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few,going by the series' past history. The major criticism that can be leveled against these books is that they straddle the hardcore/casual chess fan fence,and so they are likely to disappoint many in both camps.I think these are great reads,especially the latter two books.I would advise waiting for the revised versions of the first two books.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
95 of 123 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Garry ... slam-dunks Bobby Fischer, January 15, 2005
This review is from: Garry Kasparov on Fischer: Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors, Part 4 (Hardcover)
I recently received my copy of the book - and it has been like a new toy at Christmas, I can hardly put it down. The focus of this book is the one and only Bobby Fischer, many consider this player be simply the greatest chess master who ever lived. And there have not been many good books on this player recently - GM Andy Soltis's book, ("B.F. Rediscovered"); being one happy exception. This eagerly anticipated book is well crafted, a high-quality volume designed for many years of enjoyment. Every fan of either Garry or Fischer will definitely want to reserve a spot for this work on their favorite bookshelf. (And Garry has corrected earlier mistakes; this effort actually has several indexes and a bibliography.) This volume is really two books in one. The first part of this work is devoted to three players: Sammy Reshevsky, Miguel Najdorf, and Bent Larsen. (Three of the greatest non-Soviet players of the last 100 years.) This part of the book looks to be excellent, I am sure that there are many, many, many hours of enjoyment to be had in this section. However, I purchased this volume for the look at Fischer - this is the part that holds my attention and fascination. Fast forward to Chapter Two on, 'Robert, the Eleventh.' This section begins with a rather startling revelation - I had heard rumors of this before, but never anything resembling actual confirmation. There is a fairly decent biography; it details Bobby's first steps with chess poignantly and accurately. The first game, (# 50); is a rather lukewarm analysis of one of Fischer's most famous games. (Vs. Donald Byrne, New York; 1956. "The Game of The Century.") {See my web page for a more complete analysis of this game.} Another thing you should understand is that I have been studying chess my whole life, I grew up with the book, "My Sixty Memorable Games." I am intimately familiar with most of these games, many I have studied so often that they feel like old friends to me. And they are also semi-sacred to me, without a study of these great contests, I am sure I would have never become a Master myself. This is why I object to this <Modern School> of annotating. (Anytime a minuscule improvement is found, this gives the writer license to decorate time-honored chess moves with undeserved question marks.) As in previous volumes, Kasparov shows a heavy, ham-handedness in his annotations. He virtually suffocates and degrades these games with all kinds of appellations to the various moves. Consider game # 52, page # 222. (Versus Larsen, 1958 - a famous Dragon. This game was beautifully annotated by Fischer himself.) For example, he gives White's 15th move a dubious mark. (?!) I think here it is more of a question of style, Fischer would almost never willingly block in his own Bishops. In fact, one wonders if Garry's own ego would ever allow him to be truly objective. He seems determined to criticize and denounce Bobby Fischer, (and his play) ... as if in an effort to cement his own place in chess history. There are other things about this book that I object to as well. After Fischer's famous contest with Panno, (Game # 80, page # 346); Garry just could not resist sticking in one of his own games. Like a little kid who craves recognition for his work - "See? Look what I did?" This is SUPPOSED to be a book about Bobby Fischer! (Lack of focus. Again!) I decided to take one game in this book, and subject every move to the microscope of the computer. (Vs. B. Spassky, 1972. # 103, page # 438) I was hoping to find zero errors, but alas this was not the case. I found mistakes that ranged from the very minor, to the more moderate type, and at least one that must go into the, "My Goodness!! What happened there?" category. (I will save the details for the next update of my web page on this very famous game.) Kasparov certainly recognizes this game's importance, just the fact that he spends like seven pages scrutinizing it is significant; as well as the 8-10 exclams that he uses to decorate the various moves in this titanic clash. IF you want a different perspective on this game, see GM Yasser Seirawan's excellent book, "Winning Chess Brilliancies." I must also take issue with the statement made after Black's fourteenth move, 14...a6. He quotes a famous game - Timman vs. Geller, Hilversum, NED; 1973. Then he states that this game: "Practically speaking, put the 8.cxd5 variation out of use." This is such a silly, foolish and stupid statement; I feel obligated to take Mr. Kasparov to task on this one. I have practically every reference book ever printed in English, and I have 1-2 dozen books on the Queen's Gambit Declined alone. The latest book on this opening calls 8.cxd5, {still} "the time-honored main line." Dozens of players still use this move on a regular basis. [See the game: GM S. Mamedyarov (2657) - GM S. Lputian (2634); / FIDE WCh, KO / Tripoli, LBA; (Round 2.4), 22,06,2004.] If this line isn't being used anymore, why are these two top players ... still fooling around with it? And the real punch-line is that the column in MCO-14 on 8.cxd5, is based on the following encounter: IM Luc Winants - GM Garry Kasparov; Brussels, 1987!!! This book is definitely better - especially in terms of the quality of analysis - than many of the previous efforts, but it is far from perfect. The editorial/product description calls this book: "a must for all serious chess players." (I would definitely not go that far!) However, it is fair to say that this is a serious chess book, any player who is serious about improving his game or is interested in the history of chess - would benefit from a close study of the historic chess battles in this volume. But it falls far short of Garry's previous work in books like, "The Test of Time." (Recommended.)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
