Customer Reviews

Garry Kasparov on Fischer: Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors, Part 4

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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.)

Contrary to the other reviews that found Kasparov's writing "vindictive" towards Fischer, I thought it was very even-handed. Those critics seem to want the same blind hero-worship of Fischer that has come before.
I am a great fan of Fischer's. I come from his home borough. I know people who knew him, being only a few years younger. So any criticsms in this book kind of sting me. But they are true.
Let's face it. He didn't play Karpov because he was afraid to lose. Kasparov states it bluntly (as is his style), and it's about time somebody did. The fact is, Fischer would have crushed Karpov had he been active in 1972-1974, but, as Kasparov implies, one can't sit out for three years and expect to retain the championship.
In fact, I found Kasparov overly generous in his book, especially considering the blistering and outrageous insults Fischer has thrown at him. I thought this was very classy. To be truthful, I didn't expect Kasparov to show such restraint, but he did. Again, I think the book is very fair towards Fischer.
Chesswise, I think Kasparov has given Fischer his positive due throughout a large part of this book, acknowledging Fischer as a true pioneer of chess in the 60's. It's only fair to write the bad with the good.
As far as the analysis, I am only a 2000 player, I don't delve deeply into the extreme accuracy, nor do I apply the computer to such analysis. I'll just say that the book is certainly good enough to me to learn from.
Oh, I left out how extremely entertaining this book is. Any chess fan above, say, 1500 rating, should enjoy it.

The book is indeed a classic, no doubt. And, as you will read from some of the other comments here, Kasparov's analysis and game review is outstanding, with very few blemishes (caught by other reviewers on here so no need to rehash them). Overall this is a GREAT BOOK, worthy of placement in anybody's collection. But, as the competitive chess world is also a gauntlet of political machinery, to get "to the top" you have to appease the "powers that be." Some of the politics associated with other players was painted with rosey paint, others, a bit too hard, layered too thick. Every author has their own viewpoint and perspective, including Kasparov. Perhaps it was some of these comments that caused Fischer to recently challenge the current FIDE World Chess Champion, Topalov, to a match. And, as reported online at [...] maybe we will soon see Kasparov and Fischer play a match after all!

Without doubt, Fischer in the period 1970 -1972 was the strongest players in the history of Chess. Only Lasker before world war 2 can be compared with him. Another player of equal strength comes later, it is Kasparov. Though Kasparov in this book sometimes deliberately critized Fischer's play, but paraodixically he himself is actually a Fischer re-incarnate!!
Look at his games after 1990, does not his play was the same as
Fischer before!! In responding to 1e4, he meets with Najdorf Sicilian, with 1d4, with King's Indian or Grunfeld, Benoni etc.
Of course, he is right, Fischer after becoming Champion, he himself did not want to play chess anymore, as he himself could not face any defeat. So he just passed his Champion to Karpov.
I totally agreed with G.Kasparov that it was not a Champion's behaviour. But I would totally disagree that Fischer would lose to Karpov if he was actively playing chess in the period from 1972 to 1974. I also disagree with G.K. that Fischer was not good in dealing with complicated situation. Just one example would be enough. The first game with Larsen in the semi-final
would show that Fischer was excelled in complicated position.
With detailed calculation, one could not accept Larsen's exchange of one B and N for a rook. And just when Larsen threaten to mate and Fischer's Queen was caught by Larsen's Rook, the 28 move BC5 must be calculated long before hand. I also disagree with G. K. that the move 21 Bf3 was bad. As many
analysis showed that this was the best moves. All the subsequent analysis showed that this was the best move!! Just looked at Timman's analysis!! All in all, all the 5 books on the Predecessors are good, as G.K. gave a good history of the Chess.
One just enjoyed the history, but neglected Kasparov's own comments which sometimes not impartial.

Kasparov is unduly critical at times, looking through the lens of over 30 years of hindsight and assisted by computer analysis.
Some of the variations he gives to justify his "corrections" of previously published assessments go to 15+ moves, with many subvariations, more than most mortals could possibly calculate at the board with the clock ticking.
I did enjoy his looking at the openings used at the time through the eyes of modern theory, often describing how and when a line evolved- better than scanning the columns in MCO.
He is best when he notes the psychological and competitive ideas that lead a player to choose one opening, or move, over another. The exception is the suggestion that some world class players felt "doom", by the 1970's, when matched against Robert the 11th. Fischer was just that much better!
He does a great job of describing the scenarios surrounding each game, and he offers paragraphs of prose to accompany his deep analysis.
What most impressed me is how well he shows that Fischer's utter relentlessness, not just his famous "play for a win every time" approach, but also his staying in a "drawn" game for 80 moves, and playing into positions with only a theoretically slight plus, but then posing a series problems for his opponents to solve, often just wore his

Garry Kasparov put an enormous work on this volume with some high-class analysis. I guess I am not the only one that went directly to the Fischer-chapter! It becomes clear that Kasparov admires Fischer but by reasons of his own vanity he shows a rather critical approach. This is especially more obvious when compared with the volume on Karpov. Karpov is presented as an incredible genius and Kasparov suggests that he could have beaten Fischer. Whether this is so, can be doubted but we shall never know. Subconciously Kasparov sees himself as the truely biggest genius of them all, since he managed to beat Karpov!
Kasparovs opinion that Fischer plays uncertain in unclear positions and has a rather poor intuition can be questioned. Perfect play doesn't exist and there are many examples of Fischer playing brilliantly in unclear positions. Apparently Kasparov is influenced very much by the old soviet anti-Fischer attitude. It looks as if Kasparov is looking for points to criticize Fischer, what he doesn't do with Karpov.
Kasparovs comments on Fischer personal life are interesting but rather one-sided. It is true that Fischer had a very difficult childhood but it is also true that the soviet chess players - during the Cold War! - did everything in their powers to destabilize Fischer. Fischer was an easy target: he was alone, preoccupied with chess and limited defense mechanisms. To compete adult grandmasters who represent communist views on life, must gave added to Fischer paranoic tendencies. In this sence, it is surprising that Kasparov defend Fischer fight for better playing conditions but doesn't defend him at the end of the Reshevsky match. Here the young Fischer was confronted with a different playing schedule because the sponsor wanted to visit her husband's concert, Fischer lost and was condemmed by everyone while his behaviour is quite understandable. It would have been good if Kasparov would have defended Fischer on this occasion. How would he have reacted himself when this would have happened to him? He hardly pays any attention to Fischers behaviour towards the other chess players, which was highly appreciated by his colleagues.
Also Kasparovs statement that Fischer won in 1971-1972 because his opponents collapsed psychologically, can be doubted. He suggests that Fischer would not have been succesfull if his opponents would have stayed stable. This is an underestimation of Fischers power. Fischer devoted himself completely to playing chess, knew how to play against different opponents and put all his energy in to it. In this sence Kasparov is right. Maybe the truth is simpler: Confronted with such a powerful opponent and a few losses, Fischers opponents lost their self confidence. Well, of course... He tried to win, but so did his opponents, who were excellently prepared by the Soviet chess school themselves. It seems to me that Kasparovs attitude towards Fischer is infuened by the fact that Kasparov, brilliant as he was himself, never was able to achieve the superiority that Fischer achieved in his top years. When you read the book with this in mind, you will have a wonderful time with this interesting book that I myself enjoy very much too! (and my apologies to Reshevsky, Najdorf and Larsen.. I didn't study them yet...)

Several biases mar this book.

1. Kasparov as the best ever.

Seeking to be known as the best player ever, Kasparov periodically tries to knock Fischer. Fischer dominated world champion Petrosian, the same player who best Kasparov, and established a good record against Karpov. Fischer's superior record shows he would likely have defeated Karpov probably by a good margin.

2. Fischer's criticism of Kasparov

Part of this may be retaliatory as Fischer made some crazy comments about the Karpov/ Kasparov match.

3. Failure to Understand Curacao

The 4 Russian players reached an agreement to fix the games between them as draws. Kasparov says it doesn't matter but fails to understand the practical consequences of the collusion, at least the perception of it. Assume Fischer is behind 1 point with 2 rounds to go. Is the Russian going to lose, in the midst of the Cold War. Wouldn't the collusion agreement require the Russian not in contention to lose to the one who was. Equally importantly, Fischer believed it, and he felt he had to be leading by a substantial margin to get a championship, and took unreasonable risks early on.

4. Fischer's irrational behavior as a product of fear

Fischer undoubtedly had a tortured personality, but Kasparov makes some strange suppositions. Fischer was scared of Karpov that's why he didn't play. Fischer was scared to play at Palma De Majorca, and his narrow 3 1/2 victory, the largest ever in an Interzonal shows his feat. Obviously delays in the Spassky match did not indicate any realistic fear.

5. Botvinnik and Fischer

He misses some obvious observations. Fischer was really a follower of the Botvinnik theory, with his detailed analysis of every position eschewing general suppositions, careful analysis of his own games.

6. Nitpicking and Failure to Note the Significance of Fischer/ Spassky Match

While compliments and respect follow some parts of the book, too often he tries to minimize Fischer's accomplishments. He fails to adequately convey the importance of the Fischer Spassky match. It was not just a chess match, but world news.

Beyond the skills as a chess-player, my 60 Memorable Games was a great book.

I like the other 3 books, but economium for Euwe and Reshevsky and criticism of Fischer, simply does not present an impartial assessment.

In short, read the analysis, but get one of the other books on Fischer.

Fantastically detailed chess analysis. Personal opinions, outlook, including first-party, second-party, and third-party conversations of the historical matches and tournaments from the time period of 1920s to 1980s, from Samuel Reshevsky to Bobby Fischer so to speak. Any chess player interested in being spoon fed by arguably the greatest chess player ever, Gary Kasparov, an understanding of "style of play" differences and personalities of Sammy Reshevsky, Miguel Najorf, Bent Larson, and Bobby Fischer will totally enjoy.