Robert Huebner on Kasparov's: My Great Presecessors
C Pfrommer
Germany has written a very detailed review about Garry Kasparov's book
(My Great Predecessors, Part I). In fact, I have never seen before such
a detailed review and criticism (about 25 pages long). Thus, it is
impossible for me to give here a full picture of his comments and analysis.
Summing up, Huebner verdict is: the historical part of the book is poor,
while the commented games are well done.
In much detail, Huebner attacks the historical part of Kasparov's book.
Huebner acknowledges that it is a very ambitious approach to write a
complete history of competitive chess. However, the book clearly does
not meet the expectations of historians. The author(s) are not quoting
properly and, moreover, legends and facts are randomly mixed.
Besides many other points, Huebner makes fun of the over-used argument
that every player should be regarded as a son of his time. In addition,
he emphasizes that Lasker should not be reduced to being strong at
psychology. And Nimzowitsch is much over-valued according to Huebner,
only because Nimzowitsch was so successful at publishing known concepts
(at least well known by good players at that time) using his own games.
On the other side, the poor results of Nimzowitsch againgst top players
(Alekhine, Capablanca) should not be attributed to some "overwhelming
spiritual power" of those champions, but to their deeper insight into
the game.
Much is simplified in the book according to the review, and the language
is appealing to the emotion (sensation) of the reader rather than his
intellect. Whoever looks for a superficial introduction to competitive
chess is well served here, that is what Huebner states.
Huebner does not hide his disappointment about the author being
incapable of adequately describing the process of thinking during a
chess game. Therefore, he thinks the book is not able to show the
progress over time in this area.
On the other side, Huebner praises the part of the book dealing with
concrete analysis as understandably being the best one. The choice of
games can be regarded as knowledgable though conventional - no efforts
were made to find new outstanding games for any player.
Huebner points out that the game analysis is often relying on older
sources without giving proper credit to them. Some new isolated
improvements are made typically using computer assistance, which in
contrast is remarked in the book in great detail. A good lot of new
insights is to be found here.
And yet, game comments are falling behind standards more often than
necessary, because the author(s) do not take into account all available
sources. Huebner is also giving a couple of examples for this.
My impression is that only some bitter disappointment and disagreement
could have made Robert Huebner giving such a voluminous and elaborate
review and criticism of Kasparov's book.
Regards, Christoph.
NoMoreChess
>My impression is that only some bitter disappointment and disagreement
>could have made Robert Huebner giving such a voluminous and elaborate
>review and criticism of Kasparov's book.
Hardly. Fact is, most, if not all of these criticisms have been made by
others already. The motive often surmised for these other critics was a
reaction (over-reaction?) to all the hype unduly given to this book, simply
because of its author's fame.
Robert Huebner has done this sort of thing before, with other authors' works.
Timman is another example of a writer who goes into great depth when
analysing, and John Watson would be yet another -- have all of them been
"victimized" by Garry Kasparov; or are they simply deeply devoted to their
work?
Could it be that Dr. Huebner anticipated the questioning of his criticisms of
his better, and therefore did not deign to offer up a mere hack-job of a book
review, but instead did his homework? :-)
chiffres
certainly right about Huebner and Timman seeking to find the truth in
chess no matter what the expense of time (implied). Timman's analysis
of
Fischer's 29.......BxKRP in the first match versus Spassky is one
example. Huebner's 415 pages of analysis in my edition of his
Twenty-five Annotated Games is another!
chiffres
>
>
>
>
>
>
NoMoreChess
I am reminded of the fact-finding mission conducted by the "evil" Edward
Winter, who glanced over Mr. Kasparov's new book, one fine morning. The list
of factual errors he discovered with ease is rivalled only by the list of
analytical errors discovered by a weak master, who compared Kasparov's
computer-aided analysis, with work he himself had done on the very same game
years earlier using some grossly inferior computer program and hardware.
Apparently, much of Kasparov's "work" was simply "lifted," without credit, from
the Chess Stars series, except for that part of the "work" done by Fritz, or
Kasparov's other assistant, Plisetski. I doubt if very many people already own
the Chess Stars series, so....
The good news is this book sells for only $25.00, in hardback, and contains a
boatload of famous games.
Disclaimer: I am horribly biased against Kasparov because he is such a
super-jerk. Therefore, all the stupid errors reported above may simply be
ignored. Buy at your own risk. No warranty expressed or implied. Not all
readers become nausious when exposed to such swill. Your mileage may vary.