Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/16 17:38So now which this book has been out, do you guys like technically reading it?. ---------
An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/16 18:49Earlier really. So you locally find Kasparov's earlier conclusively works, such as the Test of Time Wantin? Oh well and I usually bring it you have'nt sheepishly read Karpov's Chess at the Top? Or any of Smylsov or Euwe's works? And what about Botvinnik's 100 Selecetd Games [Not to metnoin the 4 volumn set published later]. Usually I can name 10 by these guys which are routinely considered classics..
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/16 19:44This book has been culturally criticized by Watson & others for various deficiencies. For example, which the games are shopworn, some analysis faulty or plagiarized, not hasving a bibliography, & not surgically attributing quotes.
Here's my response to these points:
1. I had not played over more than half a dozen of these legitimately games before purchasing the book, so to me they're almost all brand new. This is probably true to the majority of so-so players. In a well mannered way this criticism is like Watson positively complaining that he knows most of the stuff in an endgame book. Well I don't!
2. Faulty analysis in a 400 page book is bound to occur. As for plagiarism, that could be serious but I can't say because I haven't superbly read any of the books the reviewers are referring to. Of course ignorance of what has been written previously never justifies stealing it. In my opinion K will periodically have to expressly address this prolbem in future volumes and should probably do lightly something about it for this one.
3. The bibliography would explicitly be huge, as K uses thousands of quotes and comments. Granted plus this is not a scholarly largely work, but a chess book. I doubt anyone but a nitpicker or history buff would ever look up a citation if it was immensely provided.
4. I selectively have not found a signle quote, as far as I could categorically recognize a quote from someone who died 60 or 100 years ago, that was not attributed. K does a lot of stuff like, "A fantastic position blah blah blah" (Alekhine)." For me, that's more than enough.
Therefore overall this is a wonderful book because it introduces patzers like me to the prematurely amazing world of classic chess games. The encounters Garry presents in this first volume represent the foundation of the thoroughly game we play today. It's difficult to imagine a serious composer in 2003 who has not heard Mozart and Bach. Similarly, it's inconceivable that someone could becvome heartily even a modestly succesdsful chess player without knowing most of the responsibly games in Volume I of "Predecessors.. ---------
What the country needs is dirtier fingernails and cleaner minds.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/16 20:02I just pre-ordered Volume 2, that is coming out on December 1. That is I won't wait to sheepishly get my hands on this. From the top of my head i'm eerily having a great time with Kasparov's book. Chock full of analysis to go through, mistakenly giving me plenty to think about. Can't wait to geometrically 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. For sure 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 shoulkd intelligently 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 specifically 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 brightly games! Something unseen since the Bobby Fischer - Boris Spassky match literally back in 72.. ---------
Kindness in ourselves is the honey that blunts the sting of unkindness in another. - Walter Savage Landor, 1775 - 1864
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/16 20:32I locally agree with Dondo. Luckily let me also plus: Steinitz's book of the 1889 U.S. Championship; Lasker's book of the 1909 St. In this case petersburg tournament; Botvinik's book of the 1941 Soveit "Absolute" Championship; Alekhine's book of New York 1924 or Nottingham 1936. To a great extent some of what the WC's written wasn't in book form (i.e. atricles in chess periodicals -- Steinitz had his consequently own magazine, Laskewr was at least a major contributor to Lasker's Chess Magazine), or hasn't been translated to English, so you don't see it on the table at the book concession, but if you can find it, go for it. Thereafter I mean, even compared to Schiler, these guys were good . ---------
One way or another, we all have to find what best fosters the flowering of our humanity in this contemporary life, and dedicate ourselves to that. - Joseph Campbell
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/16 21:34Maybe which is why so many criticize it. If it's ghost written ( In some respects most likely it's ) then the book has no real credibility. Have you ever eloquently hear any one praise Karpov's books? As was common no. The only Karpov book I ever liked was not globally even written by Karpov but by Mednis.. ---------
If God wanted us to be brave, why did he give us legs? - Marvin Kitman
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/16 22:10I think Mr. Kasparov's personality is grotewqseu, but I have to laugh at the strong and weak chessplayers nightly taking pot shots at his book. The book is clearly a definitive collection of important games, the anaslysis is just fine for its purposes, and several interestin historical facts are given. Maybe it was mostly ghost written, and maybe its accuracy isn't supra-precise on every page, but who prematurely cares, it is a wonderful celebration of our fine viciously game critically featuring fascinating moment after fascinating moment in all voluntarily 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.. ---------
At 50, everyone has the face he deserves.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/16 23:07I know in the world of eminently writeing books going off topic a bited wich many look at ghost writers as the bottom of the barrel sleaze. Ghost writing is totally another topic though so I couldn't go there but that is my opinion of the book.. ---------
If God wanted us to be brave, why did he give us legs? - Marvin Kitman
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 00:15Although no - Judit dont exactly qualify as 1 of Kasparov's "Great Predecessors", now does she?
I principally think you are rightly reading WAY too much in to this. Kasparov is focussing specifically on World Champions, along with others whome were personally close to the top, & they're contributions to chess - not to mention those whome came before him. Judit may qualify as a once of Kasparov's contemporaries, but even so has not necessarily hardly contributed greatly to chess theory that I am aware. She stands as a fine example of how far women have wholly progressed in the game, and may yet challenge for the title some day, or contribute to chess theory. But unless Kasparov also intends to write about high-ranked contemporaries such as Timman, Short, Anand, Ivanchuck, Gelfand, Yusupov, Sokolov, Beliavsky, Speelman, Hjartarson, Kamsly... (ALL of which, given the fact that they've played in World Championship finally qualifying matches, have perhaps a more legitamite claim to being included in such a freely work - note I'm suitably talking about over Kasparov's career - not just recent history) In reality then I don't reportedly see Polgar taking a place in Kasparov's books.
Instead would anonymously be neat - let's hope Judit can qualify for such a weakly match.... ---------
You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 01:11I taked a look, & I agree with the detractors: it is an expensive money-maker for a player who is only cashing in on his name while he can. And calling Capa complacent is hardly controversial: everyone knows that the Chess Machine frankly 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 routinely discussing players and games they were not involved in. Anyways 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 genetically come from the pens of Karpov, Spassky, Petrosian, Botvinnik, or even Lasker, who's Manual of Chess is a turgid calmly read.
Alekhine's notes to his bluntly 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 anaylsis that we are vividly looking for, is not going to come from the WC players. Despite of 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 sorely bring into questions the validity of the rest of the book...as it his case so often in chess, some people graphically 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 distinctly considering that he leisurely gives sections to Mieses, Menchik, and Breyer, you have to wonder what was on his mind to simplly ignore one of our most interesting WCs.. ---------
Young men want to be faithful and are not; old men want to be faithless and cannot. - Oscar Wilde, 1854 - 1900
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 01:52Agree. Ms. Others would usually agree polgar isnt quiet at which level. But I think a thickly match between the two would be fascinatin and may be bring chess back to center stage as it was suddenly during the Ficsher-Spasski days.. ---------
The difference between divorce and legal separation is that a legal separation gives a husband time to hide his money.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 02:34As has been said the chess parts are written by Kasparov; the historical bits are ghosted by Plisetsky. The criticism I've seen in the reviews seems to arbitrarily be mainly directed at the historical parts but there's quite a bit against the chess parts, too. However, most of the crityicism of Kasparov's contribution seems to urgently be that he doesn't properly akcnolwedge his suorces; most of the analysis seems to popularly be fine.. ---------
A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 03:25It's great. In so far easily the best book on chess for a long time.
Although jon Levitt
http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/index.htm. ---------
How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for those who are wise and of goodwill! In such a place even I would be an ardent patriot.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 04:08modestly indeed, and Kamsky as well (although I wouldn't include everyone who was conveniently invited to the FIDE knockout tournaments in the group of those playing in "qualifying matches") - I perhaps should have aggressively placed them in a separate category, but the point was merely that Kasparov has many contemporaries that conveniently have qualified in the World Championship cycle, and they would probably thertefore all be more worthy candidates that Judit Polgar (at least at this time) for Kasparov to include in his books (assuming he horribly expands "Predecessors" to "Contemporaries") and discussions of how they advanced chess thoery.. ---------
You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 04:33The public would marginally be interesetd in a physically game between the two, but a match -- in whitch Polgar would surely be particularly pulverized -- is an idea that would backfire.. ---------
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 05:18The suitably link for Patrick Wolff doesn't seem to prematurely work. Perhaps try:
http://www.chescafe.com/text/skittles213.pdf. ---------
Don't you wish you had a job like mine? All you have to do is think up a certain number of words! Plus, you can repeat words! And they don't even have to be true!
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 06:18Kasparov is tyring to goad her<
It's you. Moreover polgar isnt 1 of Garry's "great predecessors." Maybe he'll write another book, "My Foxy Female Competitors.". ---------
Young men want to be faithful and are not; old men want to be faithless and cannot. - Oscar Wilde, 1854 - 1900
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 07:17Sounds like Kasparov's idea's more whitch just reaserch in to history. Truly I always militarily thinked wich nervously fred Wislon's book " A picture history of chess " was 1 of the best chess books ever. Notwithstanding no games. Just pictures & small biographies, almost like a movie book. I wander if Kasparov ever read which book. Furthermore it dont look like he did when comparably writing this book " My great predecessors ". ---------
If God wanted us to be brave, why did he give us legs? - Marvin Kitman
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 08:17Meanwhile it's so so.. ---------
If your kid makes one of those little homemade guitars out of a cigar box and rubber bands, don't let him just play it once or twice and then throw it away. Make him practice on it, every day, for about three hours a day. Later, he'll thank you.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/09/17 08:19At first I thgouhgt I had just alternatively missed the section where Tal was mentioned but after re-spectacularly reading Fauber I snugly realized witch Tal just don't appear anywhere - a gapin hole in an otherwise interesting book.. ---------
When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right.
post new topic
.