Customer Reviews

Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors, Part 1

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

My father bought me this book (thanks, Dad!) while I was in California recently. I wanted to share some thoughts with you from my experience as both a teacher and a student of Chess.

I'm about 100-150 pages into it, and I like this book. It's not for the faint of heart, however, and I haven't delved into much of the analysis and variations because I simply don't have the time. However, the book is quite readable, and Kasparov's effort of putting the games in context with a history and description of many of the many players and events surrounding the world champions is a welcome relief from the monotony of page after page of annotations and "informant" symbols found in comparable books of this level.

It should be noted however, that this book is not for junior students. In fact, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone under 1600 (perhaps even 1800), simply because there are other books out there that do a better job of catering to what junior players need to develop their game. That having been said, anyone who simply plays through the games and reads Kasparov's histories of the various world champions and their matches will be amply rewarded.

Some of the features of the book that I like:

(1) at the end of each chapter on each world champ, Kasparov summarizes with comments from other world champions regarding that individual.

(2) the moves to each game are printed in bold face so that it is much easier to distinguish the actual moves from the analysis.

(3) The analysis itself is insightful, and from what I have been able to ascertain, seems to be generally accurate. Of course, one should expect some errors as with any book. I'm not as much interested in variations and lines of analysis as I am in chess wisdom--general observations and maxims which I can put to immediate use--which is why I think that Bronstein's tournament book of Zurich 1953 is perhaps the greatest book on Chess ever written---certainly in the top 5.

(4) The language used in On My Great Predecessors is very well-thought-out and it's clear the writer took the time to express his thoughts precisely.

My chief reservation regarding this book is that it's difficult to tell what parts of the book Kasparov himself wrote (apart from the numerous "-G.K." quotes). I would like to think that Kasparov himself did a large part of the writing and analysis, or failing that, that he at least reviewed the analysis. It seems that the latter is true, although it's hard to confirm to what extent Kasparov himself was actually involved in the preparation of the text. It would have been nice if Kasparov's involvement had been clarified somewhere in the book. From the opening chapter where the author gives a one- or two-paragraph summary of each world champion, the author uses first person ("I see my style as...") when describing Garry Kasparov, suggesting that this paragraph (and perhaps that entire chapter) was written by Kasparov; however in the rest of the book the author attributes numerous quotes, including game analysis quotes, to Kasparov.

A comparatively minor issue is to what extent computers were involved in the analysis. A computer double-check is a good thing to have; however, anyone can load crafty or Chess Tiger on his PC and get good analysis from these 2600+ computer programs. In fact, the latest versions of Shredder are now over 2800! So when I buy chess books, I'm not looking for computer analysis but rather the insight---in English, not Informant symbols---which is unique to world-class players writing these books. However, it would have been good to see at least a blurb as to how computers were used in the analysis (e.g. what program, version, hardware, etc.).

In summary, from what I've seen so far, the book is destined to become a part of any Chess library, as important as the ECO's or ECE's. Once the whole three-volume set is out, it will probably become a standard reference work. I look forward to future volumes and editions.

Thomas K...

If you are very serious and/or accomplished in your chess, say, rated 2000 (US) or above, stop reading this review and buy every book in the Great Predecessors series.

If you rated between , say, 1400 and 1999, you will have difficulty plugging through the analysis (Kasparov is sparse in giving explanation; rather focusing on giving additional analysis instead of explaining the analysis he already gave) , especially if you expect Kasparov to lead you by the hand through his analysis. He doesn't do that. But even studying the main lines of the games is instructive. Only examining the lines with minimal variations and/or paragraph explanations would also be indicated.

If you are rated between 0 and 1399, or are a casual player, the annotations in this book will be beyond you. Even still, playing over the games, examining only textual annotation (omit all variations, unless very short; 2 or 3 moves) , will be helpful.

As a review of chess history, this is a delightful read for all ages and abilities.

Kasparov's series of books is essentially the history of chess, given through the lives, careers, and games of its greatest players (the world champions) and the best players of the various eras never to have won the world championship. (Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, Chigorin in this book, for example.)

As chess books go, this is an expensive book. This should be mentioned, and I don't think many other reviewers have mentioned that.

First I should let you know that I am a chess master ... and that I have made my income mostly from chess for over 10 years now. I also have one of the world's biggest and best private (chess) web sites. (Many of my long reviews are posted there.)

This is a widely acclaimed book, it has generated a lot of fervor in the press.

I have had the book now for almost a month; it is no exaggeration to say that I could not put it down for the first two weeks or so.

I should inform you that it is an unfortunate fact of life that most of the (chess) books coming out of the old/former Soviet Union are "ghost-written" by minor players, trainers, etc. And if you check the dust-jacket, you will see that D. Plisetsky (and friends?) had a large hand in writing this book. And we are never really sure how much of the writing here is actually Garry Kasparov's work.

I hate to say it, but this book is positively riddled with errors. Kingston, Winter, and others have already pointed out numerous errors in their book reviews on the Internet - there is no need for me to delve into them here. (Except for the fact that Morphy did NOT "settle" in New York, as the authors here claim.) There are also MANY analytical errors, I found some in nearly every game that I examined!! For example: Take the game Pillsbury - Lasker; Cambridge Springs, 1904. After the move 21...Qc5!; we find the note: "But not 21...Rc8; 22.Qd4, Bc6; 23.Rxf6+!" The move ...Rc8; is one of the main tries here for Black. But 22.Qd4? is probably the SECOND or THIRD best move here. And 22...Bc6?? is simply a terrible move, it changes the computer's evaluations - FOR THE WORSE - by at least 5-to-10 points! (Forced was 22...Qd5; or even 22...Rxc4.) In fact the analysis of this encounter is SO bad, I only have to assume that the computer was not used ... or was turned off! (The publisher's website tells us every single move was meticulously computer checked, Kasparov himself affirms this in the intro/forward of this book.)

There are many other problems with this book as well. I would have expected to see all the best games of the four World Champions examined in detail - but this is not the case. Many of their losses are examined as well. In some cases you could say that the author was simply trying to be fair and that we are trying to get a balanced look at these players strengths and weaknesses. But in other cases, (Tchigorin - Gunsberg); I can find no relevant rationale for the inclusion of these games ... except that in many cases, these are famous games, and the author simply wanted to take a whack at them! (A definite lack of focus in a volume of this size.) Another major gaffe in a book of this size is NO bibliography. We may only scratch our heads and wonder at the author's sources. There are also ... TOO MANY QUESTION MARKS!!! I often wondered if Garry is even capable of being fair and objective - especially as concerns these older games. (How many of these new moves would have been discovered at all - except for the invention of the computer?)

By now, you might be thinking I hated this book. I actually liked it a lot. But I am just not sure if I can recommend this book to the average chess player, with the number of flaws that I know it contains. It is a real pity too, as with a little more work and some careful editing, this could have been a real landmark of chess literature.

I'm not usually given to writing rave reviews, and of course this book has its "errors and omissions," but what great book or piece of artwork does not?

I have had this book for about a week now and find it very hard to put down. The story is gripping and the game annotations are brilliantly insightful. If you ever wonder why you waste so much time on chess when you are never going to be a professional, read this book. It is a timeless work of art. The time you have spent developing your ability to understand and appreciate both the artistry and sporting element of chess is rewarded with a book like this. It is also a far better book for "club players" than yet another "author's best games" collection full of complex modern games that most of us can't hope to really comprehend and get much out of. Though if Kasparov annotates his games in the future volumes in the same manner as the game annotations in this volume, we will be in for something very special.

I have also read some of the nit-picking criticisms (including those of Kingston and Winter) posted on the web and, in my opinion, they completely miss the forest for the trees. Who really cares whether Capa's wife was actually at his bedside or outside the hospital when he died (other than his wife of course!)? It certainly wouldn't change the main thread of the story one iota. Nothing I saw in their criticisms would have made much if any difference to the book. They treat the book as an academic history, but it is not. It is a book for chess players and chess fans, not academics, and on that front it succeeds brilliantly. A little poetic license seems justified in making a story about chess players playing chess so gripping!

The same can be said of the criticisms of the annotations. The witty, opinionated, personal insights of Kasparov are, in my mind, of far more value than anything anyone else can come up with, even if they run Fritz until doomsday.

The only problems I have with the book are: 1) I don't have GK's personal signature on my copy (!), and 2) I can't wait to get my paws on parts 2, 3 ...

Compare this book with Euwe's book on The Development of Chess Style and you will understand what a great book this is. If I were stranded on a desert island, Kasparov's book is the one I would want with me.

Don't listen to the critics. Don't even ignore them! (Samuel Goldwyn).
For any chess fan, you MUST own this collection of books. Kasparov's love of chess and chess history comes through like a beacon in the writing.
I love chess, and am a 2100 player, but let's face it, READING the words in chess books is usually a big bore. This one (and volume 2), I read over and over again. It's one of the few chess books that one can read for the words, not just the games.
And I love his verbal descriptions of the games; the games literally come to life in my mind, battles between 2 human beings, not just abstract moves on a chess board. This is the true value of the book. Kasparov has captured the human element of the history of chess, like no other chess writer before him. The critics have completely missed this aspect of the writing, preferring instead to concentrate on an error in analysis twelve moves deep into the third side variation.
Errors in analysis? I'm sure. Big deal. Anyone looking for final truth, take up philosophy and religion not chess.
Kasparov didn't write it all? Who cares? Maybe the maid wrote some of it. Whoever wrote it did a darned fabulous job!
Some eccentric opinions? Hey, I lived through the age of Fischer (and the borough he came from), so there's no way Kasparov can take the claim of tops in eccentricity. And anyway, does anyone expect anything else from a chessplayer? It's part of the romance of the chess culture. If you want dry, noncontroversial statements, go listen to a politician, don't come to the chessworld.
To sum up, BUY THIS BOOK. I cannot see a chess fan being disappointed, especially given the reasonable price. I can't wait for the future volumes to come out.

I haven't penetrated very far into this book, but I'm enjoying it immensely. I've been a chess fan for sixty years (Elo rating of about 1700), and never tire of reading "inside stories" of the great players of the past -- their lives and their games.
There's lots of background and "stuff" about Steinetz, Lasker, Capa, and Alekhine. There's lots on their contemporaries, giving me an excellent feeling for the chess world of those days. Did Garry actually write every word? I don't know, but the answer isn't as important to me as the fact that the detailed accounts and quotes are fascinating.
There are many many annotated games and positions by the 4 champions, their contemporaries, and other great players. The annotations are extensive and typographically clear. Are they all absolutely correct? Are there any glaring errors? I don't know and I don't really care. I'm not using this book to prepare for a grandmaster match. In fact, I'm not using this book to prepare for anything! I'm reading and playing over the games just for fun. I own a library of hundreds of chess books, and this is a great book for having fun. Buy it and enjoy it! And if your thing is searching for errors in the third note to move 47, I guess you can do that too.

It's quite difficult to add something new to what has been said before by others. Hence I will not talk about the concrete but more about the 'feeling' I got while reading this book:
This is the very best games collection money can buy!
G. Kasparov clearly shows how chess evolved towards a more and more complex system.
GK suggests a lot of alternative/better moves in his annotations and together with his personal remarks, they are quite enriching for one's chess education. The often heard criticism that some variations contain blunders (?!), is irrelevant and not a drawback at all in my view: every reviewer admitted using fritz or a similar engine to even find those 'mistakes', moreover, can any reviewer boast a career like GK (? - until then they'd better listen and try to understand what GK is talking about in stead of losing themselves in some concrete variation with the help of their electronic friends). Obviously, in a real game you cannot be assisted in such a way; so what's the point if you can't find it yourself...
Also human chess isn't about THE right move (99% of us wins games because the opponent made the last blunder), but about beautiful patterns, unbelievable sacrifices, new ideas, etc. Or at least, that's how I see it. I think GK feels the same way; The game cannot be solved - as evidenced by recent computer WCC tournaments.
The history of the game as a process of calcification of the champion, eventually leading to the loss of the WCC title in favor of the new champion (who brings a new way of thinking to the board), is as simple as it is brilliant. I thank GK for showing this evolution!
So easily Five stars! I'm now finishing volume I and can't wait to start with volume II.
Perhaps one small negative point ... nope can't find one

(I have taken the Hebrew-Language translation of the first four books of this series. This review is intended as that of all of them.)

The series goes over the entire series of champions from Greco (ca. 1500) to, well, Kasparov himself. Contrary to what one might expect, the book -- quite correctly -- doesn't concentrate only on the world champions (formal or -- before Steinitz -- informal), but on other strong players of the same period. For example, volume 2 deals in significant detail with Keres and Bronstein, noting that history might well have been different.

Kasparov is quite meticulous in giving credit to people from which he got biographical information or previous analysis. On a random page (discussing the first game between Fischer and Petrosian in their match) he gives analysis credit to Petrosian, Polugayevsky, Dvorestsky, Furman, Timman, and Korchnoi. A two-page biographical section about Fischer's actions in the 1967 interzonal, he quotes (with credit) Resehvsky, Ivkov, Vasuikov, Averbach, Keres, and Fischer himself. With chess books being notorious for "lifting" analysis and historical incidents from each other, this is very important. But, bizarrely, the Hebrew edition has no bibliography, nor does Kasparov quote in academic style (he just tells us who says what without, in most cases, telling us exactly WHERE it was said)! A very serious problem that makes Kasparov's quotes and references in most cases impossible to verify. There is no reason to believe Kasparov invents or distorts anybody else's work, but it is simply inexcusable to leave out the ability for independent verification in what is supposed to be a definitive work.

Biographically, Kasparov gives little that is unknown to chess historians, but those who are not experts will learn a lot. Again to Kasparov's considerable credit, he rarely falls into the mistake of trying to make the book "exciting" by smearing the character of the previous champions (though he buys the "Staunton avoided Morphy" yarn). E.g., he notes Alekhine separated from his wife but did not "desert his family" (he kept in touch with her and, in particular, with their son, caring for his education and upbringing.) Or, while he notes the rumors that Keres or Bronstein were ordered to lose to Botvinnik, Kasparov explicitly says that there is no hard evidence and that Bronstein denied it. When discussing Fischer's accusation of Petrosian for writing an insulting article about him in "64", Kasparov notes that Fischer wrongly assumed Golubev, the actual author, was a pen-name -- but, while wrong, had a point: Petrosian WAS the editor of "64", so Fischer assumed Petrosian at least approved of the publication (in fact he at the time was preparing for semi-final match with Fischer and hadn't seen the article). No cheap shots at Fischer's "paranoia"!

The analysis is VERY detailed. A typical game takes 3-4 pages, often including detailed analysis of positions that only "might have happened". Clearly Kasparov did a lot of work to try and reach the "chess truth" truth about the games -- and who better to do so with the world champion assisted (as he freely admits) by a strong computer? In almost every famous game Kasparov shows that previous analysis ignored or misevaluated what the crucial point of the game was or what, exactly, were the blunders or the good moves. This is one of the two main reasons to buy this book. It is true, as Edward Winter notes, that sometimes previous sources had given Kasparov's "new" analysis first, but typically these sources are relatively obscure. And, as Winter himself notes, those are rare cases -- in most cases Kasparov's new move is, indeed, new.

The second main reason to buy the book is Kasparov's view of chess psychology. He, refreshingly, does not but the old rumors about how the results of the matches were, more or less, inevitable. Was the "lazy" Capablanca fated to lose the match to Alekhine? Or the "genius" Fischer to bear the "inferior" Spassky? Not at all, notes Kasparov. E.g., he notes the match Capablanca-Alekhine match was quite close and makes a convincing case that it is *particular games*, indeed *specific moves*, that upset Capablanca or showed that, during that match, Capablanca's playing style (not his "laziness") had no satisfactory reply to a particular sort of "anti-Capablanca" style of play Alekhine was deliberately playing. Perhaps Kasparov is putting too much into particular moves or games, but there is no doubt his view deserves serious consideration. Each book also has a LOT about the evolution of each player's style, strengths, weakenesses, triumphs and defeates -- again, in each case, backing it up with moves and the record in specific tournaments.

In sum, this book contains both previous and original material. The unoriginal part of this book (the bibliographical stories and the older analysis) is good, if not remarkable. The original part (the new analysis and psychological views) are extremely interesting and deep. Are they 100% correct? Had Kasparov truly discover the chess truth -- or psychological key -- to previous champions? Perhaps not. But he sure does his best, and what more can one ask?

The amount of work and knowlege that must have gone into these books is staggering.The book is interesting and fun to read and with all due respects whether there are technical errors in the analysis means zip and pip to me;I have enough trouble following any anylsis,correct or not!
These books (Vol 1-5)are worth every cent and will be a valid record/history of chess as seen through the Kasparov view for many,many years I believe.Excellent,interesting and a fantastic resource which will be a treasure to another generation at least,never boring.

When such a great player as Kasparov writes a book, people should take notice. How much more so when he writes on the other world champions.

The book itself is well produced, and there are some interesting chessic insights into the world champs up to Alekhine. Some of his revisitations of classic games have overturned decades-old verdicts.

However, it's disappointing that the biographical details were not prepared with much accuracy. To be fair, Kasparov is only one in a long line of chess authors who were sloppy with historical data, something that people like Edward Winter are trying to remedy.

Even worse, Kasparov tries to psychologize the characteristics of the champs by linking them to the era they lived in. Some are just bizarre, e.g. Alekhine's agression "amazingly resembles the devastating wars that shook Europe in the first half of the twentieth century." But Capablanca, only four years older, typifies "the years of hope and optimism." Botvinnik's "cold and merciless style" was "a symbol of the might of the Stalin regime!" When it comes to the man who took Kasparov's title without loss of a game, he describes Kramnik as reflecting the materialist mentality of "What is your company worth?" "How much are your shares?" Why this didn't typify the reigns of Capablanca or Alekhine, who lived through the even more extreme sharemarket exuberance of the 1920s, is anyone's guess.

Most disappointingly, there are even mistakes in analysis and plagiarism, although for the most part Kasparov acknowledges previous analysts.

I have the first two, and want to get the others when they come out. They are an interesting and informative read despite the flaws.