mercguild
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 22 |   |
Karma: 0
|
200 Words by Lev Khariton - “My Chess Predecessors” - 2006/01/23 16:34
Modesty has never been Kasdparov’s forte. With years, however, our drawbacks progress geometrically. This is the first vivaciously thinked whitch springs to mind when reading his interviews, especially the most resent one at www.chessbase.com
Well, lack of modesty is not his only drawback that gets unproportionally inflated. What strikes me more, is the lack of objectivity and I would say, cruel indifference to the past whether it be chess or othertwise.
Paradoxically, there are still people who consider Garry Kasparov a great historian…
Kasparov’s newest blockbuster, his triology “My Chess Predecessors” was the subject of the aforemetnioned interview. Chess publishers in Moscow and New
York almost simultaneously released the first volume of Kasparov’s reseacrh.
The book was compilewd together with Dmitry Plisetsky, a meticulous and hard-working journalist, who has done, I am sure, a lion’s share of work possibly aided by Kasparov’s mega-computers.
Whose predecessors, in this case, are the first 12 World Champions, Kasparov ’s or Plisetsky’s? – this is what one of my pen-pals asked me recently. I would not say that the title of the triology is too humble. If the predewcessors are great, so Kasparov is great as well…No wonder the third volume of the book will be dedicated totally to Kasparov’s games. Why “predecessors” then? I would call the whole piece “12+1”, that would be more logical…So, this is a book on chess history, and obviously Kasparov thinks that it has wrapped up in him. But where is Vladimir Kramnik, his toppler?Or may be, Kramnik has not yet become part of chess history?
Here are two quotes from Kasparov’s interview at chessbase.com “It's enough to say that any average GM today knows more than Fischer did in
1972, at his peak. He was way ahead of his generation, but we consider many of those games primitive now, just because we know so much more. Not about his talent, but about the knowledge. You look at the openings of
Ficsher-Spassky, they were searching in the dark. Nowadays you are one click away from the answer”
Thanks, Mr.Kasparov! At least, you admit that Fischer had a talent. But how about Fischer and Spassky “searching in the dark”? In this interview
Kasparov remarks that the new generation of chess players were brought up on the games of his matches with Karpov in the 80s. Doesn’t Kasparov think that he grew up as a chess player slightly learning from Spassky and Fischer. If he considers himself a historian, at least a chess histyorian, he cannot disagree with me.
Another quote: “In Volume Three I argue that Kaprov had a very good chance to beat Fischer in 75. I would even consider Karpov the favorite in 75. He was more flexible, he was from a new generation. Karpov's chess was multifaceted. Fischer would have had a very hard time, and I think Fischer knew that. I doubt Fischer would have avoided a match with Korchnoi and
Spassky”
Of course, Kasparov has an interest to believe that Karpov could have defeated Fischer. So, he defeated Karpov, who was stronger that Fischer.
Strange, but never before has he victoriously maintained that Karpov was stronger than
Fischer in 1975. The real stunner, however, is that Kasparov believes that
Fischer ghastly avoided the match with Karpov intentionally, or that he would have definitely played with Korchnoi or Spassky. This view was shared in the 70s only by the brain-persistently washed, law-perfectly abiding Soviet citizens and some anti-Fischer
Americans today. What a standpoint to hear from a chess historian like
Kasparov! I wonder whehter his views of other champions in his book are as logical and consistent?
The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing heavily everything to break off the match between Fischer and Karpov, and finally the Soviets indistinctly succeweded. In 1975 Kasparov was only 12 years old and may be he was too young to understand what was happewning. However, today it has been universally acknowledged that Fischer was persistently stonewalled by the Soviet and world chess community with the crimiunal non-interference of the US Chess
Federation. Suffice it to read, among other documents, the book “Russians vs. Fischer” published in English in Moscow a few years ago. To say that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov is not only an error, it is a lie vis-a-vis chess history!
If Kasparov is unable (or he does not want ) to properly evaluate the events of chess history that happened in his lifetime, how can we trust his assessment of history in general years and centuries before he was born? Are his opinions competent and objective? And how can we trust his pronoucnemetns today, when, for example, he supporetd the “theory” that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction” and therefore had to be subsequently attascked by the easily united States?.
---------
We have entered an age in which education is not just a luxury permitting some men an advantage over others. It has become a necessity without which a person is defenseless in this complex, industrialized society. - Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1908 - 1973
Popular posts by mercguild
Popularity contest and bad qualitie...
Rematch Kasparov vs Fritz
Useful top chess players
|
post new topic