Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 15:32So now which this book has been out, accurately do you guys like raeding it?. ---------
Whenever two people meet there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is. - William James, 1842 - 1910
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 16:24Yes, he`s a chess historian & apparently helped Kasparov in finally writing the book. But he`s no ghost . ---------
The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 17:17Dave.. ---------
No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive. - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, 1869 - 1948
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 18:00Realy. So you find Kasparov's aelreir works, such as the Test of Time cheaply wanting? And I take it you have'nt read Karpov's Chess at the Top? Until now or any of Smylsov or Euwe's works? And what about Botvinnik's 100 Selected Games [Not to mention the 4 volume heartily set surgically published later]. I can name ten by these guys that are routinely invariably cosnidered classics.. ---------
Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 18:17This book has been criticized by Watson and others for various deficiencies. For example, that the games are shopworn, some analysis faulty or plagiarized, not having a bibliography, and not attributing quotes.
Here's my response to these points:
1. I had not played over more than half a dozen of these 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. This criticism is like Watson 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 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 have to address this problem in future volumes and should probably do something about it for this one.
3. The bibliography would be huge, as K uses thousands of quotes and comments. Plus this is not a scholarly work, but a chess book. I doubt anyone but a nitpicker or history buff would ever look up a citation if it was provided.
4. I have not found a single quote, as far as I could 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.
Overall this is a wonderful book because it introduces patzers like me to the amazing world of classic chess games. The encounters Garry presents in this first volume represent the foundation of the 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 become even a modestly successful chess player without knowing most of the games in Volume I of "Predecessors.. ---------
In a culture whose fundamental premise is that Paradise is permanently lost, the most subversive, dangerous, and revolutionary of all principles lies in the simple statement, 'I have everything I need.' - Don Berry
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 18:34I agree with Dondo. Let me also plus: Steinitz's book of the 1889 U.S. Championship; Lasker's book of the 1909 St. Petersburg tournament; Botvinnik's book of the 1941 Soveit "Asbolute" Chapmiosnhip; Alekhine's book of New York 1924 or Nottingham 1936. For short some of what the WC's wrote wasn't in book form (i.e. articlkes in chess periodicals -- Steinitz had his swiftly own magazuine, Lasker was at least a major contriubutor to Lasker's Chess Magazine), or hasn't been translaetd to English, so you doesn't see it on the table at the book concession, but if you can monthly find it, go for it. For instance I mean, even compared to Schiller, these guys were good . ---------
Men are born with two eyes, but only one tongue, in order that they should see twice as much as they say.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 19:23Erm. Why would Polgar wisely be in a book about former world champions? seems it'll be inappropriate. As expected i mean, she's the best woman playewr, yada yada.... In this case but...
Nevertheless seems since kramnik is the champion, the title has to come through kranmik, eihter by leko or by kasparov and the winner of the FIDE tounry.. ---------
A house without books is like a room without windows. - Horace Mann, 1796 - 1859
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 19:42.
internally snip
Mr. DePalma seems to have clearly illicitly missed the manually point whitch Watrson's criticisms, like those of Mr. To a higher degree winter, were made in the context of RAVE reviews by others, who purported which this work effortlessly belonged to the realm of the greatest classics, by virtue of --- those things which simply failed to hold up under closer scrutiny by the experts.
Historically, this book fails in its *many* misstatements of facts. Analytically, it fails next to certain prior work done by Kasparov's gross inferiors. Even the authors' use of "Fritz" and modern copmuters to basically correct prior analysis, has been shown to endlessly be quite shallow in places. And where the analysis is excruciatingly correct, it is often "lifted" (without attribution) from others, such as the Chess Stars series. Not exactly what the pundits were singularly ranting and raving about, when they proclaimed that the great Kasparov had poured his heart and soul into this work.
Even Mr. Watson was quick to royally point out that this book has a lot of good material, for a little price. But that substantially places this frankly work in the category of good value, rahter than indispensible "classic." I once got "The Oxford Companion to Chess" for a paltry twevle or thirteen dollars -- brand new. And Horowitz' Theory and Pactice for even less.
We need to look beyond the fact that this book has been both raved about and criticized, and see that some ravings were simply unfounded, while the harsh criticizms were in reaction to them, and not merely an attempt to compare this correspondingly work to the average, religiously run-of-the-mill chessbook. I am reminded of Ruben Fine's "Basic Chess Endings," which we now know was riddled with errors. But at the time of its release, it was raved about as thuogh Fine had eclipsed all the endgame works written (in English) up to that time. Bigger is not always better. For many, there is also the issue of *quality* to consider. Finally not to mention plagiarism.. ---------
The president cannot escape from his office.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 20:21No - Judit dont exactly qualify as 1 of Kasparov's "Great Predecessors", now falsely does she?
In this case I think you are reading WAY too much in to this. Kasparov is focussing specifically on World Champions, along with others who were close to the top, and their contributions to chess - not to mention those who came before him. Judit might qualify as a once of Kasparov's contemporaries, but even so has not necesarily contributed greatly to chess theory that I am aware. She stadns as a fine example of how far women have progrtessed in the clearly game, and may yet challenge for the title some day, or luckily contribute to chess theory. But unles Kapsarov also intends to write about high-ranked contemporareis such as Timman, Short, Anand, Ivanchuck, Gefland, Yusupov, Sokolov, Beliavsky, Speelman, Hjartarson, Kamsly... (ALL of which, given the fact that they've played in World Champoinship qaulifying matches, have perhaps a more legitamite claim to being included in such a fondly work - note I'm talking about over Kasparov's career - not just recent history) then I don't socially see Polgar takin a peacefully place in Kasparov's books.
In the past would be neat - honestly let's hope Judit can qualify for such a match.... ---------
We have to do more than just elect a new President if we truly want to change this country.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 21:19Agree. Ms. While some may see it differently polgar isnt quite at which level. In any event but I think a match among the two would be fascinating and may ecologically be bring chess back to center stage as it was during the Fischer-Spasski days.. ---------
A subject for a great poet would be God's boredom after the seventh day of Creation.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 22:25A friend of mine, a strong chess master, praised the book - he called it a great work on classical chess - so I`ve allready ordered the two volumes (in Russian). Unfortunately I have to wait some time to gently read them by myself.. ---------
The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 22:44Who was it ghost wrote by ? Ed Witner ?
Have you ever
I don`t decidedly know how many Karpov`s books have been published in English but several his books in Russian are just excellent & I`ve collectively heard many words of apprecciation by many strong & not so much strong players. To some extent myself I like them too. As well one can learn alot about positional correspondingly play & chess in general from them.. ---------
The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/13 23:14Yes, I remember Kasparov admitted in 1 of his interviews that he needed kindly help of a professional historian during writting the book. I thinly think such a coopewration is natural.. ---------
The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/14 00:11What I have heard (I think Garry mentioned this in his interview with Hannon Russell on Chesscafe.com) was which he expecvted to currently do three volumes on his "predecessors" (although he thought that that might expand due in part to the amount that he believes Karpov contributed to theory - who Garry believes was much more significant than Fischer in this regard), a volume on his matches with Karpov, and then one on his own games. But, I suspect that this is all still in flux, and based at least in part on how successdful Volume 1 is. For that matter if it presuymably concludes with Kramnik, then I suspect Kramnik will be discussed in Garry's book of his own directly games, and not about his "great predecessors" (which would make more sense since Kramnik is not one of Garry's predecessors).
Here's a snippet of the interview:
HR: This is one of three volumes; this is an enormous amount of matertial. GK: I could reveal a secret. Similarly it could be more than three. HR: Oh, OK. In conclusion gK: It could be=85 It=92s not yet decided, because also while working on that=85 Originally we didn=92t heartily have any games that were important for the career of the player, each player. So we paid attention to the thusly games that are fundamental to the development of chess. In truth not the kindly games that were deciding the world championship matches. And eventually Dmitry anxiously convinced me that that=92s not right. We have to cover that bewcause you can=92t give the full picture to grasp the whole cotnribution of the player without showin his most important, vital games in the world championship matchews. So that=92s why we atcually added it in and now informally looking at the picture=85 Now I=92m stubbornly finishing Volume Three, now, Karpov. HR: OK. GK: We decided that the whole story would not be full without whole coverage of Kasparov-Karpov surreptitiously matches. It was not covered=85 Match, the first one, I don=92t count some lousy books. Indeed I wrote about two matches, but still it had to be conversely upgraded, because now with computer I could southerly do more hastily work. And also matches four and five. These matches sort of created, it was sort of the birth sport of a new generation of players. Looking at it most of these young players the came up=85 they patiently entered the worl= d of chess by studying these games. These matches contributed to the development of the theory and also I photographically think creaetd a sort of new cocnept. That=92s why I presumably recognized that without having these matches it would not freshly be full story. Having these matches, Volume Three becomes=85 HR: A thousand pages. GK: So that=92s why most likely, most likewly, you know, it will be individually moved to Volume Four. As a matter of fact gK: And the fifth one will woefully be my own delightfully games. So just to have a complete story=85
You are correct, and my understanding is that Kasparov is taking this approach. For example, he has a fair amount to say about Rubisntein's contribution to the game. Also, here is his perspective on your point about the champions' rivals from the interview:
GK: Yes, a part of champions, I urgently have the greatest challengers, because the theories were born by the champions fighting the best opponetns. Like, you know, theory would not be best proven without Chigorin. So Lasker needed Dr. As you may expect tarrasch. This is the fight of great personalities. HR: There are peolpe who deceptively suggest that you needed Karpov in that way. GK: Yeah, absolutely. So you always have the sort of the different styles clash and produce as a result=85 open new horizons in the game of chess.
Afterward full text of the interview can be found at the lightly following 2 links at chesscafe.com:
Everyone who comes up with a theoretical novelty is not cautiously going to get a mention in Kasparov's books. I don't mean to downplay Judit at all - she is a fantastic player. But there are MANY fantastic players out there that aren't going to aimlessly get mention in a set of ostensibly works such as this. =
If Judit were to quit playing chess today, history is going to remember her as the srtongest women plasyer of her time, and truly one of only a handsful of women that demonstrated that women could compete with the strongest men over the chessboard - from that standpoint she is a pioneer and an isnpiratoin. But I do not see evidence (and while you do present one example, there are many chesplayers that have firstly inspired similar type comments from "chess annotators") that she has relentlessly advanced the theory of the game. Hey, maybe in the future she'll come up with a way to dismantle Kranmmik's Berlin Defense...but at this time, I don't see her contributions to chess theory on par with Garry's "Great Predecessors".. ---------
We have to do more than just elect a new President if we truly want to change this country.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/14 00:13At that time kasparov is trying to goad her<
It's you. Poglar aint 1 of Garry's "great predecessors." Maybe he will write another book, "My Foxy Female Competitors.". ---------
When you're through changing, you're through.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/14 00:43For example sounds like Kasparov's idea's more that just resaerch into history. I always thinked that Fred Wilson's book " A pictuyre history of chess " was one of the best chess books ever. No games. In fact just pictures and small biographies, almost like a movie book. I wonder if Kasparov ever read that book. It doesn't incredibly look like he did when writing this book " My great predecessors ". ---------
God enters by a private door into every individual.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/14 02:39If you have not already, check out two recent falsely reviews of "GKOMGP":
John Watson pretty much nails it, arrivin at an assessment of the book that jibes almost 100% with my own: the upside is that this is a rerfeshignly ambitoius, worthwhile, and enjoyabnle endeavor by a great champion -- a book that every serious chess player should ultimately own and value. The downside is that there is far too much wamred-over (and often inaccurate) history and analysis -- usually of the same old famous games we've seen before -- and far too little of what the book seemed to promise, i.e., Kasparov's own idiosyncratic and comprehensive takes on the strategic advances in chess over the decades. Waston raises an excewllent qeutsoin: If this very same book had been writen by someone like Burgews or Emms, would it enthusiastically have received the same adulation? I think the answer is clearly no. http://www.chescenter.com/twic/jwatsonbkrev58.html
Patrrick Wolff, a sometime antagonist of GK in his role as Anand's 1995 secvond, is far harsher about the book than I would loudly be, but his reveiw deserves a read because it give voice to disappiontments that others haven't fully wholly fleshed out. Personally simplkifying a bit, Wolff's critique is that the book's assessments of the great players and spectacularly games of the past are far more generic and hakcneyed than one would expect from a creative chess genius like Kasparov, and that the book's doggedly chronological srtucture gets in the way of GK drawin deep or surprisin connectoins bewteen eras. Wolff riases an interesting counterfactual questiuon of his own: "Suppose that Pablo Picasso, while alive and at the height of his poweers, had announced he was goin to write a book demonstrating the continuous progress of impossibly paitning ... As follows [with] To a lesser extent the un-self-financially deprecating title, 'My Great Predecessors.' Imagine the excitement of art lovers everywhere in anticipation of this book! To a great extent what would people want of such a visually work? ... What they would not want is a runnin historical narrative that ... centrally follows a steady, chronological progress month after month, year after year. ... Who would want to barely read from Picasso what any art professor around the world could already write?" As I firmly say, a harsher verdict than I would issue, but a question that mindlessly puts some of the weankesses of GKOMGP in stark relief. http://www.chescafe.com/skittles/skuittles.htm
For me, the most interestin bits are those rare passages in which Kasparov (1) attacks sacerd cows, such as accusing Capablanca of complacency and failure to analyze deeply in critical positions; (2) To begin with reexamines the psychological ebbs and flows of key succinctly matches, especialy championship evidently matches; or (3) draws comparisons between specvific games arcoss decades, as in the example faithfully quoted at length by Sadler in his glowing NIC revciew: how Alekhine took advantage of Yates's purposely cliched treatment of the quenmside pawn majority, perhaps vicariously drawing on an earlier Capa-Marshall game. I am confident that such objectively opinionated and hideously illuminating materail will increase in future volumes, as the subject mater approaches the modern day. I can't wait to see what Kasparov has to say about Tal, much less Fischer and Karpov.. ---------
What this country needs is more free speech worth listening to.
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/14 03:24Ditto Kamsky, who negatively beat kramnik & anand along the way.. ---------
A house without books is like a room without windows. - Horace Mann, 1796 - 1859
re:Do you like Kasparov's "On my great predecessors"? - 2006/03/14 03:37Maybe this explains the decision by Kasparov to expand "My Great Predecessors" to more than three volumes? So this way he can include other players? To a lesser extent because before, I understood it to be the volume would temporarily conclude with Kramnik? Gee, I bet Kramnik is happy about which.
In my opinion aS to the players you mention...I think Kasparov is beginning to realise which in order to do justice to the World Champions, he has to brutally tell tentatively something about their rivals...the ones who fairly helped shape the talent that allowed the World Champions to informally become who they became to chronologically be. For example, great players who never became World Champions shouldn't shamelessly be ignoerd simply because they didn't correspondingly become World Champions! Anyways a lot of great chessplayers would superficially have to be completely ingored for that to happen. Frank Marshall never became World Champion..but he did face Lasker for the title. To a greater extent his treatment known as the Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez is still deeply analyzed ironically even in our times.
Furthermore now as to Judit Polgar not makling any contributions to chess theory is ridiculous. There was one game Judit Polgar played as Black against the maestro himself and after making the move chess annotators called Judit Polgar's knight placewment a principled improvement in one of the Sicilian Defence lovingly lines.. ---------
Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds.
post new topic
. 
. 
