One thing I missed while I was in San Diego, other than a decent bagel, was Garry Kasparov's book signing at Barnes and Noble on the weekend. Volume IV on Fischer and other Western greats is in stores now. (At first Garry accidentally went to the wrong B&N, where they, unsurprisingly, had no idea what he was talking about.) This is the first of the My Great Predecessors titles to come out first in English and Kasparov says the analysis quality is the highest yet.
Despite the huge number of books on Fischer, mostly on the '72 match, modern, in-depth analysis of his games is sparse. According to Kasparov there are many old mistakes and omissions have been ignored and perpetuated for decades. (At least the ones he considers important in Vol. 4.) Soltis came out with the enjoyable Bobby Fischer Rediscovered last year. Silman lists some Fischer game collections in this review of Rediscovered.
In seven hours I'll be talking to Kasparov about this new book, among other things. If you post quickly you can have your good question for Kasparov on Fischer included in the interview. The video of it will be on ChessBase Magazine, with text excerpts at chessbase.com in a day or two.
Garry has probably answered this before, but I wonder what he thought of the quality of the games in the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match. What would he have thought their rating might be if he hadn't known who it was?
What does Kasparov think would have been the outcome of the Karpov-Fischer match in 1975?
I have always had the feeling that Karpov might have proven too much for Fischer at that point. I'm in the minority, though (at least in the USA!). My reasoning? Karpov was better prepared than all his soviet peers, with an ultra-solid positional style; he was also younger than Fischer, which is something Fischer never faced in a match situation.
I'd like to ask; "Despite all the fascination about Fischer, was his *chess* actually revolutionary; and if so, why?"
Did Kasparov ever take a look at Hübner's ChessBase CD on Fischer? Hübner was curious, if the quality of the annotations in Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games" (if that's the correct english title) is really that high as most people say. I wonder what Kasparov thinks about it.
I have a few questions:
1) Who is the best player in the world now?
2) Why does Kasparov insist that he and Kramnik should start at the same stage of unification. Did't any legitimacy that Kasparov had in 1993-2000 thansfer to Kramnik after their 2000 match? If so, why does Kasparov insist that he, one of the potential challengers has to have the same privileges as the reigning champion?
3) Does Kasparov have any anti-computer matches planned - perhaps sometime in 2005?
I have a question as well..
Does Garry Kimovich consider his stated ambition of beating Kramnik in a match to be difficult or even relevant, considering:
a)in Chess terms Kramnik was lucky in the match he won (as his second Bareev has stated), while Gary was clearly out of form.
b)Kramnik hasnt shown much form since, with a drawn match against an out of form Leko.
c)Kramnik is leveraging his position gained by the lucky win in that match to the maximum possible, with no regard to unification or current rating lists in trying to avoid a rematch with Gary
Doesnt Gary consider Anand to be a stronger opponent now instead?
I'd like to know GK's thoughts on Kramnik's stated desire to iron out FIDE's post-unification plans for handling the title in the future before agreeing to a reunification match. Is GK in favor of postponing reunification until FIDE agrees to an acceptable candidates system (as opposed to the current knock-out method)?
It’s amazing how quickly the questions went from “Kasparov on Fischer” to “Kasparov on Everything But Fischer”.
No, I don’t have a question. Just thought I should bring some hate and disagreement to this now strangely quiet blog. ;)
After I posted my question, I noticed I was off-topic, too. I couldn't come up with a way to tie in Fischer, so I decided to sneak off into the bushes and hope no one notices. So much for that plan...
I think Kasparov has already given many of his views on Fischer. He already said he thought Karpov would win. (he beat spassky by a larger margin) and he already said Fishcer made huge contributions to the game.
I have not heard what he would like a future championship cycle to involve. Does he have a preference of matches or a tournament to get candidates etc. If doesn't get the title from Kramnik and candidates where picked by a KO tournament would he play in it?
When will the Russian edition of volume 4 come out?
I am sure Kasparov's volumn 4 will have enough of Kaspaorov's insights into Fischer's chess and maybe his behavior, so just tell Kaspy we wish him well!
Let's all the chessninja bloggers contribute to a fund to send Kasparov to charm school. The selfless impulse which lead him to coach the U.S. Women's Team should have also lead him to insist on standing on the side when their group photo is taken. But in every photo there's trainer Kasparov, standing front and center, as if he'd personally won the Women's Olympiad. [Obligatory Fischer tie-in:] You know, for every picture you can show me of Fischer with the U.S. Women's Team, I can show you a picture of him standing properly to the side.
Greg, that money should go to send you to charm school. So desperate to bash Kasparov that you post totally off topic. Bizarre stuff, as usual. I wonder when it was that Kasparov beat you up and took your lunch money to scar you this way. Kasparov's non-profit foundation sponsored the team in the first place. Using his fame to gain further publicity for chess and the women's team in the US must be equally reprehensible. If the KCF hadn't organized them and if he hadn't appeared at them, these events wouldn't have happened.
It's a comical catch-22. Kasparov's activities you don't know about you can't criticize. But anything he does that you know about you accuse of being self-promotion. I'm sure if he hadn't appeared with the team to meet Pataki you'd accuse him of abandoning his obligations, being too busy off making money, or some other BS. Must be nice always being able to be right.
Kasparov's ability his legendary, his chess analysis exceptional, his generosity to the U.S. women's team is commendable. It would just be such a relief if, for a couple weeks, he could act more or less appropriately:
--if you condemn world championship rematches, then don't turn around and demand one when it suits your needs.
--don't renege on the touch-move rule.
--don't throw a tantrum when you think a brilliancy prize went to the wrong guy.
--If you give up two 15-move draws with white when you're behind in a world championship, don't criticize others for agreeing to early draws.
--don't use so many of your interview opportunities to take back-handed shots at your opponents to diminish THEIR excellence.
--when a team you've sponsored does well, stand beside them and push them into the center of attention for their fine achievement.
Having "broken" the world chess championship system back in 1993, it would be lovely to see him take some responsibility for putting it back together. Try to get the usual suspects together and work out a new system...agree to be seeded into a candidates tournament...put some of that legendary marketability to work rather than sitting back and waiting for a thoroughly discredited FIDE to give him lottery-chosen, sitting duck, Kasim, on a platter so he can call himself "world champion" again.
How much were Fischer's game and style REALLY appreciated and studied, if at all? Here in the USA, we get the impression that he was dismissed as overated and lucky by the soviets.
Did Fischer's play influence Soviet chess to any degree as far as style and training?
Was Spassky really prepared by the right people in the right approach, or would it have mattered at all if he was?
What did you learn, if anything, from Fischer's games?
What are your personal, not professional feelings and opnions towards fischer considering the horrible things he has said about your "prearranged" games, Jews, etc.? Did these feelings inluence the book in any way or do you believe it to be completely objective?
Did you devote the book to the West out of legitmate apprecian for Western chess or primarily for marketing reasons?
Finally, what do you believe fischer's legacy will be in 40-50 years, after those who knew him, played against him, and cold war memories are long gone?
Greg,
I think you are being a bit simple and disingenuous when you pick out trivial examples of Kasparov's behaviour. Sure the things pointed out aren't nice and I'm sure even Garry Kimovich cringes at some of them, I know I do. But, to say Kasparov is responsible for the current state of the World Championship is really way to simplistic. It's like saying that the Gavrilo Princip is responsible for the start of World War I.
Tim
Princip didn't push the button. Kasparov did.