Garry Kasparov on Fischer: Garry Kasparov On My Great Predecessors, Part 4

This is Volume Four 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.]

Without doubt, Fischer in the period 1970 -1972 was the strongest players in the history of Chess. Only Lasker before world war 2 can be compared with him. Another player of equal strength comes later, it is Kasparov. Though Kasparov in this book sometimes deliberately critized Fischer's play, but paraodixically he himself is actually a Fischer re-incarnate!!Look at his games after 1990, does not his play was the same asFischer before!! In responding to 1e4, he meets with Najdorf Sicilian, with 1d4, with King's Indian or Grunfeld, Benoni etc.Of course, he is right, Fischer after becoming Champion, he himself did not want to play chess anymore, as he himself could not face any defeat. So he just passed his Champion to Karpov.I totally agreed with G.Kasparov that it was not a Champion's behaviour. But I would totally disagree that Fischer would lose to Karpov if he was actively playing chess in the period from 1972 to 1974. I also disagree with G.K. that Fischer was not good in dealing with complicated situation. Just one example would be enough. The first game with Larsen in the semi-finalwould show that Fischer was excelled in complicated position.With detailed calculation, one could not accept Larsen's exchange of one B and N for a rook. And just when Larsen threaten to mate and Fischer's Queen was caught by Larsen's Rook, the 28 move BC5 must be calculated long before hand. I also disagree with G. K. that the move 21 Bf3 was bad. As manyanalysis showed that this was the best moves. All the subsequent analysis showed that this was the best move!! Just looked at Timman's analysis!! All in all, all the 5 books on the Predecessors are good, as G.K. gave a good history of the Chess.One just enjoyed the history, but neglected Kasparov's own comments which sometimes not impartial.

I was not planning on buying these books, just based on some of the lukewarm reviews, and also on the fact that I already have quite a few of the games in other books in my library. I ended up browsing one of them in a bookstore, and was impressed enough that I bought them all. I recently read that Kasparov was planning on revising the first two volumes because he wasn't as happy with them as he was with the latter two. I would agree with this,as the volumes concerning Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer et al seem a lot more fleshed out.I wasn't particularly interested in this volume, since so much has been written about Fischer through the years -- what more is there to say? Surprisingly, I found a lot of Kasparov's (or Kasparov and company) comments interesting and penetrating. For whatever reasons, Fischer has always inspired an insane amount of hero worship and mythology around himself, and so any book taking an objective look at his career is bound to upset or disappoint some people. To those who have written that Kasparov is unfair to Fischer in this book, I have to disagree -- if anything, he is generous. I thought Kasparov was much harder on another great player, Capablanca.There is a lot of lengthy analysis in this book, as in the previous volumes, and most of it seems to be original, as opposed to many of the annotations in the first two volumes. As for possible analytical mistakes, these are to be expected in any chess book. I don't particularly care if someone's desktop computer program finds some mistake in a branch of a variation several moves down -- to those who wish to pick nits like that, I'd advise them to run their anlysis engines to their heart's content. I'm more interested in Kasparov's commentary (or, again,Kasparov and company...it's not always clear if it's solely Kasparov), and I thought Kasparov did a superb job on most of these games, as he did in the Petrosian/Spassky volume.In the recent volumes, Kasparov will often conclude the section on a player with an essay on his style, or personal remembrances. These,to me,are the true strength of these books, and also a reason why the first volume is not as good as the later volumes. I would love to have Kasparov's thoughts on Lasker's style, for example, but he never really gets into it. His essay on Fischer is perceptive and accurate, in my opinion.I also very much enjoyed this book's section on Reshevsky, and I learned some things I didn't know about this great player. A complaint about all of these books is that there are occasional inexcusable historical mistakes. I didn't see any glaring mistakes in this volume, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few, going by the series' past history.The major criticism that can be leveled against these books is that they straddle the hardcore/casual chess fan fence, and so they are likely to disappoint many in both camps. I think these are great reads,especially the latter two books. I would advise waiting for the revised versions of the first two books.

Garry Kasparov has done a great job of research and writing. Needless to say, he has great knowledge and skill as a world champion chess player. Moreover, in this book he has demonstrated that he has equal ability as a writer. I thoroughly enjoyed his very adequate coverage of the life, career and chess games of Bobby Fischer, of whose chess career I have great admiration.

Excellent book that went in depth into the games and lives of these great players. Fischer's story is most intriguing but you cannot miss Reshevsky, Reuben Fine and how they shaped American chess together. Highly recommend this masterpiece.

...then I'll be monkey's uncle. And I have no tree-born nephews or nieces. I don't think we have to agree with every opinion or speculation in a book to recognize that book's obvious general quality. Kasparov about chess? Please. Would you give Houdini less than five stars for a book about magic? Me neither. All of the books in this series are classics already.

Gary does a fantastic job on all his annotations. If you look at all his books you will understand what I mean . He is a perfectionist over the board moves and also expect the same thing when he writes a chess book. I highly recommend this book.

Mr. Kasparov's achievements and efforts on and off the chess board, as author and freedom fighter are more than enough guarantee that this book holds plenty of revelations about and valuable insights into the life of this brilliant and mostly misunderstood man, who only became an official 'boo-man' because he didn't like a bunch of politicians who wanted to forbid him to play chess for money, in a country they were engaged with through a war for power and greed, something which is quite understandable for everyone who values his or her own personal freedom.I have only read the introduction so far but there is no doubt in my mind that this is chess literature of the finest, such as his other works suggest e.g. 'How Chess Imitates Life'A must read for every chess player who is interested in being captivated by far more than mere chess moves

An excellent take on Fischer and other non-Soviet greats of Chess.The collection of the games and the annotation are superb.Strongly recommended to all chess aficionados.

"My great Predecessors" habe ich jetzt die Bände 1, 3 und 4, alle inEnglisch. Der jetzt erworbene Band 4 gefällt mir am besten, und zwarnicht so sehr wegen der gut kommentierten Partien, sondern wegen derbiographischen Teile, vor allem über Reshevsky, Larsen und natürlichFischer selbst. Besonders interessant ist, dass sich Kasparov (natürlich)bei Fischer vor allem auf russische Quellen stützt, die im Westen nichtso bekannt waren. Viele der Abschnitte und zitierten Kommentare kannteich noch nicht. Sehr empfehlenswert!

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.

A quand l'édition française ? On peut ne pas aimer Kasparov pour son engagement politique, ici il n'en est absolument pas question.Un dieu des échecs parle d'un autre dieu des échecs, de celui qui a initié le mouvement contemporain des échecs. C'est comme si Bill Gates était le biographe de Steve Jobs, schémas technique à l'appui avec toute l'expertise dont il peut se parer. Le tout en étant critique, mais constructif, mais sans être pédant car on ressent bien l'admiration de Kasparov pour Bobby Fischer, celui qui a fait plier l'URSS pour la première fois à lui tout seul.Vivement la traduction en français (que je ne verrais peut-être pas de mon vivant à ce tarif-là).