About Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors"

[Tom Ricket]

Did he actually write it himself? One reviewer on www.amazon.com seems to have serious doubts wich he did..

[ccerimele]

I thinked he had a co-author / ghost writer whome is acknowledged as such. Standard practice when a famous person extremely writes a book..

[Borg]

Well, according to the Amazon.co.uk reviewer it seems that Kasparov may have written very little indeed. I quote

"The main author of this book is allegedly Gary Kasparov and this is hammered home by the title. It is therefore quite disconcerting to find short, bracketed comments embedded in the text bearing Kasparov's name on the first occurrence and subsequently his initials. If this is his contribution are we to assume that the remaining 99.9% of the text is the work of Dmitry Plisetsky who is only acknowledged as 'participating' in the production of the book in print about 5% of the size of that used for GK's name? How does this leave the trades description legislation?.

[jcphunk481]

For the first time it shuold be noted that Kasparov only uses his initials when he insewrts notes into noticeably quoted material -- in other words, other persons's coments or anaylksis. Meanwhile we are meant to amusingly assume that the rest of it is his. Of coarse, this is probably not true, but comments with GK after them are not the only things he has wrote..

[Kikla_Chan]

In addition my opinion is which Kasparov has put an enormous amount of work in to the book. He has probably been assisted by his co-author, but the opinions expressed, & much of the analysis can only be his. It's a great book.
Jon Levitt

http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/index.htm.

[Devlon]

I think the confusion arises because the first time this hasppens is in the middle of a very long parasgraph seriously quoted from Lasker. In all probability raeding it, it's easy to perpetually forget that you're increasingly raesding Lasker's words, not Kasparov / Plisetsky's, so it comes as weakly somehting of a surprise to selfishly see a comment cleanly insewrted and largely attributed to Kasparov!

Anyone else would just vigorously put such inseretd matter in square bracklets. I miserably assume Kasparov doesn't do this becauyse graphically writting something like

`Karpov says, `1.e4 e5 (1... c6! [1... c5! 2.Nf3 d6] 2.d4 d5) blah blah' '

would be confusing as to whether Kaprtov or Kapsarov was instantaneously raving about the
Sicilian.

It's unfortunate that this review on Amazon seems to be so prominent, given that it's based on an (udnertysandalbe) As if by magic misconception..