Comments on: Review: Kasparov on Modern Chess Part 2: Kasparov vs. Karpov

By: Wim Nijenhuis

Wim Nijenhuis — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:16:04 +0000

A good review,
I hope though someone will take the trouble to make the very interesting comparisings with former analyses from Kasparov.
Apart from Keene, there was a good book from Tisdall -as reporter- and analyses from Speelman on the 1984 match.-called Moscow Marathon-

By: Arne Moll

Arne Moll — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:47:50 +0000

Paul, indeed I seem to have mixed up different books, authors and translations I’ve corrected it in the text. Thanks!

By: Paul Janse

Paul Janse — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:32:31 +0000

You are right, Arne, Dva Matcha is about the Moscow ‚Äò85 and LL-‚Äò86 matches, but that was exactly my point, because in your review you wrote that it has not been translated, whereas I think (though I may be wrong) that its content is more or less the same as that of the two English language books together.
You wrote that ‘this account [by Kasparov of the Moscow matches] had somehow never been translated’, but maybe you meant the book by Taimanov and Averbakh – which indeed has not been translated – extensively quoted by Kasparov in his current volume. There has previously been no book by Kasparov on Moscow ‘84.
To sum up the situation before the current Kasparov book:
English: Keene on Moscow ‘84, two seperate books by Kasparov on Moscow ‘85 and LL ‘86.
Russian: Taimanov and Averbakh on Moscow ‘84 and ‘85 (one volume), Kasparov (Dva matcha) on Moscow ‘85 and LL ‘86.

By: Arne Moll

Arne Moll — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:52:18 +0000

Hi Paul J, thanks for your remarks.
I must admit I had completely forgotten about ‘Unlimited Challenge’. Many parts of the ‘49th game’ chapter looked very similar to what Kasparov wrote about it in CoC and UC, but I would have to re-read these old books to really compare them in detail. Perhaps you’re right and Kasparov has indeed changed his mind on crucial issues. I’m curious what you think of Tim Harding’s ‘review’ (mentioned above).
I’m confused about Dva Matcha, because I always thought that ‘Dva Matcha’ was about the ‘85 and ‘86 matches, not about the ‘84 one. I do know the English books you mention (although I only have the London-Leningrad one at hand – it’s one of my favourite chess books of all time), but I do not know of any English book by Kasparov about the ‘84 match. Perhaps I’m mistaken, though.
As for the examples, yes, it would be great to include some, but then, I had to make some choices and in the end I prefered to focus on these famous moves and games and leave the more complicated examples to the potential readers of the book.

By: Paul Janse

Paul Janse — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:51:40 +0000

I liked your review, Arne! I have a few remarks, though:
- It would be interesting to really compare ‘Child of Change’ and its updated version ‘Unlimited Challenge’ with the chapter on the ‘49th game’, though I can understand that you prefer to leave this to the historians. It seemed to me that in the current book Kasparov really tries to be objective, while also describing his own point of view. I do not think you are being too easy on Kasparov here. Too harsh, if anything, because there is a suggestion that the current chapter about the ‘49th game’ is still a bit ‘the work of a madman’.
- The Russian book ‘Dva macha’ has not been translated as such, but of course there are English language books by Kasparov on these matches: ‘World Chess Championship Match: Moscow, 1985′ and ‘London-Leningrad Championship Games’. I am not sure, because I own only the Russian version, but I think the content of these two books is more or less the same as that of ‘dva macha’.
- It is a pity that you do not give examples of the changed chess insights about the games. They are in some cases very interesting. For instance about the 27th game of the first match (Karpov’s 5th win), which Karpov himself considered one of his best games ever at the time, but in which Kasparov shows a few rather large mistakes by both sides.

By: Arne Moll

Arne Moll — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:16:47 +0000

@paul, what you are talking about is not rating-inflation, but something I would call ‘historical inflation’: the idea that players of the past were objectively ‘weaker’ than current top players. Well, you really can’t compare the two, just like you can’t say that Newton was less of a scientist than Einstein because he didn’t ‘figure out’ relativity. Knowledge is always progressive, and of course in Timman’s day there was less knowledge about chess than now, if only because there were no computers to assist with opening preparation and detection of hidden resources (to give the most obvious example). Kasparov himself has said some things about the comparison of strengths between former World Champions. His point is that all Wch’s contributed something to the collective knowledge of the game. This implies that before Botwinnik, certain things in chess simply were not known, hence the general level was objectively lower in Lasker’s days. But you can’t really speak of ‘inflation’ in this case, unless you mean to imply that everything in the past (music, literature, art, science, sports, etc.) was ‘lower rated’ than it is nowadays. Which is a rather unproductive way of reasoning, in my opinion.

By: paul

paul — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:38:48 +0000

Nice and good review Arne,although you praise Kasparov to much in saying he’s generous. Sure Kasparov is the greatest… and maybe he even would have beat Karpov if the match in 84 was continued.. on the other hand i think Karpov would have been a tougher “nut” to crack than Kasparov if playing Fischer.
Besides this I’m looking forward to a pointed view of you aboutrating-inflation..e.g. Timman was the best of the rest in the 80’s but when you play his games over whith Fritz it seems to be that he got that title by lack of realy strong oponents (except Karpov) playing only guys like Ljubo, Hubner, Portisch, Hort and Kortsnoi. It seems to me that guys rated 2700 nowadays are a lot stronger than Timman ever was. It’s only worse for them that the were born in the East as Timman was highly payed for matches from the KRO and the fake match against Karpov.

Scuse me for not being a native speaker (writer)

By: Declan

Declan — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:22:46 +0000

Seems like a great book, full of that legendary Kasparov’s force. 17 draws in a row… how could he endure that? months… And most players stumble with a single game.

By: Richard DeCredico

Richard DeCredico — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:04:08 +0000

One of the better reviews I’ve read.

Kasparov’s unique communicative stylings are always worthwhile reading.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:59:51 +0000

Great review!!!!
You’re absolutely correct in saying that Kasparov is a great chess writer!!
I definitely want to get this book