On vol 2 of my great predecessors book

[AlanLlewellyn]

The excellent series on the world champions before Kasparov, of which i have read and enjoyed immensely, vol1 on steinitz, lasker, capablanca and alekhine, but the early er of soviet chess is represented in vol 2 which is about euwe, botvinnik, smyslov and tal, i have got to the last few pages of that. incidently vol 3 is petrosian and spassky, vol 4 is fischer and vol 5 is korchnoi and karpov,
the book includes important championship games but also other important games played at other times from the crown holding periods of the players.

[John Sellen]

Alan
I can't quite work out what is the purpose of this post

[MJMcCready]

He seems to be advocating that you should read uncritically.

[AlanLlewellyn]

John and MJMcCready Its a human touch when things go wrong, as elton john said but ill add some chess incase this gets banned. The series has some fantastic games in it and gives an accurate feel for every world champions style.

[AlanLlewellyn]

ps john and MJM a best tip on reading those books is drooling on them damages the pages.

[John Upham]

Alan
I can't quite work out what is the purpose of this post

There isn't a purpose to this and others from the same author.

[AlanLlewellyn]

not a snowballs in hell chance you will read my great predecessors or animal farm for that matter

[AlanLlewellyn]

John John Mjm some people are actually interested in chess not your dribblings why isnt carl acting to stop your naked bullying.

[Paul Heaton]

Alan
I can't quite work out what is the purpose of this post

There isn't a purpose to this and others from the same author.

To be fair, anyone reading Plisetsky’s My Great Predecessors (Processors?) vs just sticking them on the bookshelf to look impressive is worthy of comment. The first must be a small subset of buyers. I understand there is a new edition in Russian with enhanced computer analysis- wonder whether Everyman will publish in English.

[AlanLlewellyn]

Alan
I can't quite work out what is the purpose of this post

There isn't a purpose to this and others from the same author.

To be fair, anyone reading Plisetsky’s My Great Predecessors (Processors?) vs just sticking them on the bookshelf to look impressive is worthy of comment. The first must be a small subset of buyers. I understand there is a new edition in Russian with enhanced computer analysis- wonder whether Everyman will publish in English.

its taken me 5 years to 'read' the first two volumes, i put read in inverted commas because theyre is little text but loads of games and analysis.

[Stephen Westmoreland]

not a snowballs in hell chance you will read my great predecessors or animal farm for that matter

Masterpiece and dramas vol.2 at the moment and a fine book it is. Animal Farm is a great book but not one for these pages

[AlanLlewellyn]

one thing i might say the tal section often attacks tal as playing dubious moves-i am not sure of Kasparovs point here, its only declared dubious(the moves in question) after much analysis using a modern computer.

[Roger Lancaster]

one thing i might say the tal section often attacks tal as playing dubious moves-i am not sure of Kasparovs point here, its only declared dubious(the moves in question) after much analysis using a modern computer.

I think that's the point K is making - that, objectiveIy, the moves are dubious. Think successfuI bIuffing at poker for a comparison!

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Alan,

They have a 'Book Review' section here. Nobody can complain if this was posted there.

viewforum.php?f=49

Think Kasparov could have got all this one book. 12 chapters with his opinion on each player. no games.
We did not need the games, they are all famous enough for any interested reader to find them easily enough.
Kasparov's Fritz backed up analysis is OK, but I've always preferred, if you can, the actual players thoughts and notes.
I've never been fond of people running computers over ancient classics and printing 'their' findings.

It's like going down the wine cellar, dusting off a bottle of Cheval Blanc,
open it, pour it down the drain, fill it up with plonk and relabel it 'corked.'

[AlanLlewellyn]

one thing i might say the tal section often attacks tal as playing dubious moves-i am not sure of Kasparovs point here, its only declared dubious(the moves in question) after much analysis using a modern computer.

I think that's the point K is making - that, objectiveIy, the moves are dubious. Think successfuI bIuffing at poker for a comparison!

the point is it doesnt matter they are dubious unless you like youre chess pure as the driven pee