Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #308126 in Books
• Published on: 2003-05-24
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 464 pages

Customer Reviews

Could become the greatest chess book ever.
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."

Simply a worthwhile buy
A landmark publication, worth the purchase price. At my level, the occasional questionable bit of analysis is likely to go unnoticed, and besides, I bought this to enjoy the games, not to disect the variations with Fritz in the hope of catching the author out.....
It's a great store of games and information on the early champions. I also briefly wondered about the extent of GK's involvement but concluded the same thing that the other reviewer here did, that the 'GK' references are only noted within the quoted analysis of another, and are not the sole input that Kasparov had throughout the book, meaning that theoretically all the remaining analysis could be his. Yes, I'm sure he did have an awful lot of help from his co-writer, who may indeed have written most of it, but as I said at the start, that isn't a big issue for me, and probably shouldn't be for most club-level players. The book is still an outstanding historical document and a feast of great chess. Looking forward to the subsequent volumes...

An instant classic
This is a great book... and a must for any chess fan. It makes one impatient for the next 2 (query 3, query 4?) volumes. It will be fascinating to hear Gary's views on, in particular, Fischer and Karpov (there is, apparently, going to be a really substantial section on Karpov). And some time, probably towards the end of this decade, we will hear Kasparov's views on his own contribution to chess history: I am sure we can expect his usual self-effacing modesty!

This volume has been criticized for (i) some erroneous historical details (which are likely only to trouble the more serious readers); and (ii) for (a) not attributing some previously discovered (i.e. not Kasparov's) lines of analysis and (b) not taking into account some previously discovered lines of analysis. The latter is a fairly serious criticism, and I don't know the extent to which it is true, but, for me, there was some attraction in Kasparov citing, in the main, either (i) the players' own analysis or (ii) modern (or computer) analysis including a lot of his own, because you get a good impression of the distance between (or sometimes the surprising closeness) historical and contemporary views of the game.

By the way, in response to 'a reader's' review above, my understanding is that where GK appears in the text, this is used to signify Kasparov's own analysis where it is inserted in analysis quoted from another player e.g. "d4 Nf6 c4 (e4!? G.K.)" (Alekhine) (that's a made-up example - (nonsensical). So the fear that Gary is not responsible for 99.5% of the book is, I hope, misplaced.