I have been moving chess books around from one room to another for a while now, so I thought I find out how many I have.
I was amazed I have over 160 chess books and booklets.
The books are game collections, tournament books, match books, books about checkmate,tactics and chess novels.
The booklets are openings and slim tournament round pamphlets.
I have bought these from the internet, shops and from libraries.
I will have to upload the photos on a few posts, if i upload them all togehter they turn upside down.!!!
11 comments:
Books I've had:
Inner Game of Chess - political wranglings between Short and Kasparov.
Mortal Games - by Waitzkin's Dad. Exciting book.
2nd Piatagorsky tournament. Mostly a collection of boring draws where Spassky wins. Tournament a tribute to the wife of deceased chess philanthropist, I believe. It's actually a decent book, though.
The right two books on Capablanca, quite good.
Spassky's 100 games, good book, still have it.
Chess is my life, Kortchnoi. Kortchnoi's books are always good, it seems. Persona Non Grata was another one he wrote, and I have one of his best games collections. A player not to be overlooked.
I don't have the book on Petrosian, but I had one of his autobios with games, excellent. He like the exchange sack (trading his rook for knight).
Books that look interesting:
500 Master Games by Tartakower and Dumont, I believe.
MCO by Walter Korn, before Nick Defirmian took over.
I should have kept something on Alekhine, but wanted algebraic notation.
I could probably go on.
I had the Botvinnik and Smyslov books, excellent.
The Lasker book would be interesting, Emmanuel (had Edward's, read his a few times). Lasker's combos rock but his lesser known opponents could play some suspect chess in the openings.
I've got Keres semi-open games, never got around to reading it.
Sicilian Labyrinth, never got around to reading enough of it, by the late Polougaevsky, and yet it's probably "required reading". he really shows where the tempos are one and lost and how they affect variations and lead to different ones.
I have many more, of course.
Alekhine had some unbelievable combos, someone once said they could just appear during the quiet part of a game.
I read through one of his games, the combo was so long, and so great. Someone once said he might have doctored some of his games to make it look like other person played better moves, but if that is true then he is one of the best chess composers ever, IMHO. haha.
Hmmm, books of Fisher and Karpov in your collection. In this way strange because they had a different playing style. Which do you like the best?
Linux
yes i have a wide range of chess books. The games collections are i think the best.
Chesstiger
Fischer plays chess like in the old days he goes for checkmate.
So most of his games are attacking chess,although he could play very defencive chess if needed.
Karpovs chess was more strangle you slowly.But playing through his games when he had to he could play very tacticly but this was rare.He did win but not in style.
But Fischers games are better for the average player to follow.Very deep but he always plays to kill his opponent quickly rather than slowly, he never played for draws.
Thats the problem with some top players that are content to draw,rather than try for the win.
Kasparov was in the Fischer and Alekhine mould, thats why his games were exciting.
Fischer played some really weird, off-the-wall, hairbrained looking openings for his time, which he took pride in showing how solid they could be, some beautiful wins.
A lot of the the Soviet players followed book openings and then saw no point to wear themselves out over the ensuing futility.
Kasparov wanted his opening to produce the winning chance. So against Kramnik, he took too many early draws as White because he didn't "catch" Kramnik in the opening, even though he got decent positions and should have played on.
I liked Karpov's style, but can't quite think like him, and also like Capa's style. I am probably more of a Nigel Short minded player. I'll play a "big game", if it's there, not always go the over-positional route
Many of the Russian grandmasters played safe opennings,which lead to common middlegame positions for them,this lead to favourble endgames.
That kind of play is ok and safe but boring.
Petrosian style was all ineed to do to win the tournament, is win by half a point.
In one of his tournaments when in the last round he was half a point in front,he took an early draw against a weaker player.Thinking if Smyslov wins we finish joint first.
Where as Fischer played to win every game and often did not look at the points table.
Many times this was ok but sometimes it back fired.By over stretching to win he lost.
But it is great chess to play over.
Karpov once said, can't remember which book, that early on he played for the draw as Black, before becoming World Champion in particular, because he would play in team tournaments between say Moscow and Leningrad, and it became a sort of responsibility to the team to at least get a half-point.
I don't think Fisher had a conception of Black to play and draw. It would seem to be a "proper" tournament strategy, but I think Fischer took games too personally to look at it that way, as if it were so cut-and-dried. Plus, they were commies. hehe. ;-D
Yes Fischer did have a "i will win i must win" approach to chess.
Sometimes it cost him the whole point,when he perhaps could have taken half point draw.
But it gave us great games to play over.
Karpov will go down in history as one of the great players of all time. Because of his great tournament win record,i think he has won over 150 tournaments to date.
In the period just after he become world champion because Fischer defaulted the title,Karpov went on a tournament winning run.
I think this was to show the world he was a proper world champion.
It's interesting that the history of Kasparov-Karpov matches, after the first one, mainly came down to Kasparov beating up on Karpov's Spanish opening (Ruy Lopez) for most of the wins, it seemed.
Karpov used the Breyer variation, I think it was, after some point. It was just comical how Kasp would want to sac and hunt Karpov down in the middlegame. Lively games as Karpov never goes down easy, and could have simply stuck with his Sicilian defense.
Other than that, Karpov was beating virtually everyone in his prime, as dominating as Kasparov later became, if not moreso at that time.
Karpov has used the Ruy Lopez throughout his career,perhaps more so in the early part.
It is an opening which top players seem to fall back on during back times,or need to play solid chess.
Topalov used it in game 2 of the world chess challenge and won.
Great openings never go out of fashion.
Chessx,
I think you are spot on, and I got the feeling that is exactly why he used it; the Zaitsev variation. Igor Zaitsev was one of the trainers and respected openings theoretician.
I have a lot of respect for the Ruy Lopez, so it's more like perhaps I wouldn't play that variation, if anything.
Karpov seems to be attracted to variations with quiet, methodical build-ups.
Post a Comment