Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors, part 2: Part 2

This is Volume Two of the five-volume set of My Great Predecessors. I had to do a lot of shopping around to find each volume at a price I could afford, but if you are serious about developing an understanding of chess strategy, this set is an excellent resource. The books cover the history of great chessmasters, detailing many of their games. I don't start at page one and read through them sequentially; rather, I look up a particular strategy and lay out the game on my chessboard to move through it. One game usually leads to another, and I can spend hours going through the volumes this way. [NOTE that this review is authored by my 19-year-old son.]

Really insightful.

Great condition! Great Price!

I reviewed book 1 and book 4 of this series so i'll keep it short. This book was just as entertaining as the others. The games selected are great, and it's one of the few chess books where you look forward to reading the words, not just the games. The description of chess history, and the biographies of the players is captivating. Let me say too that I find the price very reasonable, considering some books half the size (and soft covered) are the same price or more. For entertainment purposes, this book ranks up there with the best I've ever read (I'd say "Bright Side of Chess" was the best ever). I'm not going to quarrel with the people who find analysis errors, but I say, it's irrelevant to someone looking at chess as enjoyment. If chess is your profession, maybe an error 8 moves deep in analysis is important to you. For this 2000 player, it isn't. As for the possibility that Kasparov didn't write it, like i wrote elsewhere, I don't care if his maid wrote it, the book is just as good. I don't see how a chessplayer can go without buying this series of books. The enjoyment of them is everlasting. I give it 5 stars, and I'd give it more if they had more

In 1988 I had the opportunity to meet Tal and Smyslov, and to make short interviews with the two. I asked Smyslov for his opinion about chess of the 70's and the 80's, and especially about the young champions (then) Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. Smyslov answered, that niether of them brought something new to chess. In fact, he included all the champions of his days in the list, including himself. "I don't see a progress since the days of Capablanca and Alekhine, and I still recommend to learn first of all from the two", he said. "What about Fischer or Kasparov?", I asked. "They had'nt brought some thing new to chess", he answered. I find it interesting, because Kasprov himself tells in the book, that Botvinik demanded from him to play "like Capablanca". Both sayings can tell us something about the Soviet School spirit, that put Capablanca as the ideal chess player. But isn't there any progressat all, since the 30's? Kasparov himself, claims, naturally, for a major progress since then. I wonder. I asked Tal, about computers, that won't be fooled by his unique style and sacs. Tal, that looked very bad (I didn't recognise him by the old pictures I had), smiled and said: "Let me play against a computer. It will blow up within a minute, BOOM!". Unfortunately I don't share this thought of the late champion, but Kasparov surprised me, by telling in the book, that even today with computers, the majority of Tal famous combinations are not totally proved to be wrong.Reading this book gave me a very good idea about history of the game from the mid 30's to the early 60's. Euwe, for example, was allways seemed to get the crown by an accident that happened to the drunk Alekhine. Kasparov shows that Alekhine played bad even before the 1935 match and Euwe deserved to be a champion. Also it's interesting to read about Botvinik and the Soviet party, and about the poor Astonian Paul Keres, that did'nt have a chance in the USSR. Witnesses of talks, memories and stories from these days are brought, including the personal "black list" of Botvinik. All the years I thought of the Soviet school as a united devision, but now I read that Botvinik hated all the challengers of his time, and the champions to come.So the book is read also as a "regular" book with a plot, not only as a chess book. The games are illustrated by many diagrams, and this is not a technical comment. You can "read" the games also without the need of a board. The collection of games is very good and represents the players.I don't care if Kasparov actually wrote the book alone or just gave it his name. It's clear that he would'nt put his signature of a bad product or something that he does'nt agree with. Maybe there are mistakes in the book, but read all the classics of chess, including Fischer's "My 60 memorable games" and Botvinik's book about USSR championship of 1941. Read all of them, and find errors...Still, they remain classic, and the 2 first parts of "My great predecessors" will join them very soon.

I have a major issue with the books notational format. All 40 of my other chess books have the main line as a new paragraph, in bold type, so as to separate it from non-main-line analysis.This book often, and "randomly", imbeds the main line, albeit in bold, inside a paragraph analyzing alternative lines. I don't know the motive for this break with tradition, maybe to save space, but in any case it makes the game extremely difficult to follow especially when you have several different books open and playing the same historic game.As an example, on page 242, a single paragraph starts with a single main line move, then two rows of alternatives, then 3 main line moves, then two more rows of alternatives, followed by a single main line move. And this is all contained in one single paragraph.My 3 rating is based solely on the books new, non-traditional, notational format.

This is a very good book in an excellent series. Kasparov not only provides a thorough analysis of each player's style but also provides insight into the often neglected human aspects of chess. Not a book for beginners but for anyone seriously interested in chess a must read. I have only two adverse comments - Kasparov's sociopolitical comments add nothing to the book and will annoy some readers and he repeatedly uses the word tabiya without explaining it - even Russians of my acquaintance could not explain it to me - from context I think it is a term for a place where chess theory ends. My rating of 4 stars is not from any failing in the book but from a feeling one needs to be more seriously into chess than I am to really get full value from it.

Beautifully presented series. Well-written and what does it matter how much is written by Kasparov or if some of the annotations are flawed. These books are a complete library to keep a keen chess player engrossed for years. The games can be played over and over and never lose their appeal. I can't wait to finish purchasing the whole series - "My Great Predecessors", "Kasparov vs Karpov" and Kasparov on Kasparov". Great entertainment, good value if purchased from Amazon marketplace for half the RRP and highly recommended.

great series

I didn't know what to expect when ordering the first two books in this series, but being in awe of Kasparov, I had no choice but to buy the books. I was very satisfied when the books arrived to see that they are massive, averaging about 450 pages, and not that far off of A4 size. The pages are presented in dual columns as is typical in chess books, and everything is laid out very aesthetically. The writing is of a high standard and the book, (multi-volume book, though this is based mainly on the first book because that's the one I have been reading, though the layout is the same in both), contains fascinating information weaving a history of chess.There is some ambiguity about the relative parts played by Kasparov and Plisetsky in the book's writing, and I think that the following quote from Kasparov on the official website for the book should clarify things somewhat:"I look at the key games in a player's career, then analyze them, reach a first draft on the computer. Then I dictate my conclusions into a tape and send it to Plisetsky. He makes corrections on dates, facts, adds anecdotes, etc. and sends it back to me. It's a complex procedure... Fischer I did last year, more than 50 games. I did some work on this trip to the USA. I do it anywhere. I little analysis here and there. It's ongoing, you can't stop. It's always expanding. At some point I could see this on a DVD or online, so as not to be limited by book size."Kasparov has been working on these books for about six years, so he has obviously been keeping the project quiet for a long time, and now we are suddenly inundated with an exciting publishing event that will itself be a part of chess history. The analysis in this book is deeper than in any other chess books that I have, meaning it takes me something like one hour to work through just one page if I aim to understand and absorb all of the analysis, though I'm certain to become a far stronger player as a result, and I think that working through this gigantic history of chess would make most players much stronger and also give them a deeper interest in the game. This is what Nigel Short said about the books: "It is probably the most enjoyable chess book I have ever read." That is saying something considering he is a super grandmaster. This book really is amazing.

Très intéressant.

Great book and a great service ! Thanks