Good point. I made this mistake once and regretted ever since - took a loss to a lower rated player too hard and was too demoralized and exhausted to analyze with him and didn't congratulate him properly. It should have been his moment in the sun, and I learned a lot from this mistake. It's part of the game.

i guess i did learn a lot from that book, but whether that was because of pandolfini, or in spite of him, i don't know.

Thank you for having developed Guess The Move !

If anything I was inspired by what other GM's have repeatedly stated to improve your game or Match the Masters from the old Chessmaster CD's.

First, I’ll review the chess content of the main part, then the Kasparov test and the biographical introductions, at last.

Main Part:
The tactics vary in difficulty and themes (from the usual pins and sacrifices up to triangulation) so there’s a wide variety and you’ll learn a lot. I liked the examples and think that they are very helpful (seriously, with tactics from Kasparov’s games you can hardly go wrong). In the Introduction, Pandolfini writes that <theses arcane symbols – together with my own – have been fleshed out and explained, often in detail, so that the reader can follow the logic of these moves, as if he were sitting with Gary Kasparov and discussing the game during the actual course of play.> (p. 8 to 9). For sure, exaggerating a bit is not unusual but this is a bit more than a mere exaggeration. He seldom explains anything but most often presents a short sideline. Instead of explaining the logic behind moves he rather spices the whole analysis up with trash talk (also used to bloat short variations <so that after 1...Qxc7, White can erupt a volcanic discovered check by 2.e7.> (p. 37) or <1....Nd5 permits 2.Qd6!, which is very juicy> (p.49)) like <[...] 5.Kh1 Rf1 still evokes the “dum-dum-de-dum” of Chopin’s funeral march> (p. 94), <Even an attacking phenomenon can overextend himself and get mated. Even giants are slaughtered sometimes.> (p. 103), <Only an earthquake can stop White’s Rook from delivering mate at h3.> (p. 104), <The predator is always keen to the hunt.> (p. 122), <Kasparov pushed Karpov into the night of the living dead with [...]> (p. 177) or a description of what you see in the diagram (<Black, down a piece, could have tried to advance his c-pawn toward promotion. Gary stings him with [...]> (p. 63) or <With all of Black’s fighting force amok to the left, White can prance on the right with [...]> (p. 91), <In this wild and woolly phantasmagoria, Kasparov’s marauding Queen could easily have bitten off too much to chew after 1.QxN(c7)?. The shooting star is [...]> (p. 109), <All looks hunky-dory for White, with his Knight at e3 guarded by the Bishop at b6 and his g-pawn protected by the Knight. But Kasparov insidiously challenges the Bishop with [...]> (p. 113) and <of course 8.Kh2 Rf2+ might have a deleterious effect on White’s health> (p. 86)). These are just a few examples but in general I was disappointed by the superficiality of the comments. Don’t get me wrong, nothing against comments that are livelier than the Informator-style ones but considering that there isn’t much room for comments in the book I didn’t like that it was mainly used for this trash talk. The analysis is not faultless though not bad. What I didn’t like was that alternative solutions were not mentioned (e. g. if there was another way to win from the position in the diagram). I’ll cite one example to show you how it looks like: Diagram and analysis from Kasparov-Hübner, p. 158 to 159. Please note that this is one of the few examples that span two pages (1.5 pages to be exact) – there are only 12 chess tactics with more than one page devoted to them. (additional <> in this example indicate heavy type)

Karpova: Review Part 3

<

click for larger view

<ANALYSIS>: Many chessplayers have recognized a striking similarity between Kasparov and the once world champion Alexander Alekhine, particularly in their imaginative style of attack. One cannot help but remember Spielmann’s comment about Alekhine: “I can see the final combinations as well as Alekhine, but how he obtains such positions is beyond me.” They apply as well to Kasparov. Let’s pick up a Kasparov attack in the early stages. It stars with a pawn advance, <1.h4!>. With <1...Rfd8 2.h5 Ne7 3.Re1!>, White begins to shift his attacking units to the Kingside. If Black should take the d-pawn, 3...Qxd4, then 4.Qg5! is hard to counter. For example, 4...Nf5 (hoping for 5.Rbd1 Qh4!) 5.Bxc6 h6 6.Qf6 and White threatens 7.Qxf7+ followed by 8.Nxg6 mate as well as 7.Bxb5, winning a piece. Black can doubtless improve his own play, but White still builds an impressive attack. So Black doesn’t play Qxd4 but <3...Rd7>, and White spins out the far-reaching <4.Bg4!>.It dissuades Black from moving his Knight to f5, while clearing the third rank for a Rook lift from b1 to b3 to the Kingside. Since taking White’s d-pawn by Qxd4 is risky, Black recentralizes his Knight with <4...Nd5>. Comes a clearing exchange <5.hxg6 hxg6>, and then a Rook maneuver <6.Rb3> threatening 7.Rh3 and 8.Qh6. Back on his heels, Black opens his second rank for defense or escape by <6...f5>. Now the rook at c7 may be able to shield the King. Unfortunately, 6...f5 weakens the pawn skeleton around Black’s King, augmenting White’s chances. White continues <7.Bd1!>, an effective retreat. In the event of 7...Rh7 8.Rg3 Ne7, the Bishop thrusts back into the game by 9.Bb3+. So instead of 7...Rh7, Black issues <7...Rg7>, which leads to <8.Rh3! Qxb4>. Though down a pawn, White is in better shape (see next diagram). 1-0 (39)
>

Pandolfini split the attack in to examples for a mating attack. I will discuss the quotes in the “chess history” section on the biographical parts of the book but I always read a different version of what Spielmann said about Alekhine (does anyone know the source?). Most comments are an obvious description of the next move and unnecessary (If Gary plays 1.h4 it’s pretty obvious that he “starts with a pawn advance”, etc.). The annotations to 3.Re1 are not so good. After 3...Qxd4 4.Qg5 Qd6 looks interesting and in the line Pandolfini follows it would be interesting to know why Black reacts to (3...Qxd4 4.Qg5 Nf5) 5.Bxc6 with the blunder 5...h6 instead of taking the Bishop. What’s White’s compensation after 5...Bxc6 (instead of the blunder 5.Bxc6 White may try 5.Bg4 which really supports the attack)? For sure, White builds an attack that may make a great visual impact but that’s not enough after having sacrificed a piece. White is lost in that sideline. The comment on 4.Bg4 may look like an explanation of the rationale behind that move but since the Rook manoeuvre follows later in the game everyone could have guessed it (I consider comments to be good that, for example shed light on threats that are not being executed but affect the play of the opponent who has to avoid those “invisible” threats). It’s true that 6...f5 was an inaccuracy but it would have been interesting to know if there was an improvement (what about 6...Re7 and if 7.Rh3 Qf6 8.Qh6 (the threats after 6.Rb3 according to Pandolfini). The annotations are so shallow that every amateur could have written them (but Bruce Pandolfini is a <NATIONAL MASTER> according to the book’s cover). It doesn’t make you feel like you were sitting “with Gary Kasparov” since I think he could say more about the game than “And now I move a pawn!” or something like that. Especially if room for annotations is sparse, you should try to use it as economically as possible and not waste it. Some of the examples are strange, e. g. the King-and-pawn endgame against Seirawan (p. 124 and 125, split to two) with no explanation of the rationale behind the triangulation (except for the two sentences on triangulation in the glossary). So the endgame example is quite isolated just like the opening example – Kasparov’s Gruenfeld defense in the first game of the 1986 match (<Karpov chose the stolid [sic] <4.Nf3> to avoid complications. In this first game of his first title defense, Kasparov demonstrates his gladiatorial spirit. Draw (21)> (p. 182) – this example is labelled “counterattack”).

See Edward Winter’s feature article “The Termination” for a more balanced view: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (I highly recommend reading it).

Conclusion:
The criticism was pretty harsh but the book does have many weaknesses. It left me wondering who might be the target audience? Most examples are too complicated for the beginner while Pandolfini’s comments make it look as if he wanted to reach those who would rather watch “Rambo” or “Karate Kid” than play chess. For the serious student most comments won’t prove too useful. Still, I enjoyed going through the book (I always tried to find the best move myself first before looking at the comments. But this is not always possible since sometimes the first move in the diagrammed position is a blunder allowing a tactic) and the chess tactics are instructive – as I already said, you can hardly go wrong with tactics from Kasparov’s games. The “possible positions” are also helpful to reveal an important point about tactics: Tactics are often decisive but not always “visible”. They are hidden in the annotations. Tactical ability is not just measured by statistics about winning sacrifices. They are also used to protect material or force the opponent to positional concessions (e. g. look at how Black makes use of the g-file despite that fact that it’s never opened in J Corzo vs Capablanca, 1913 ). Underestimating or ignoring those hidden tactics lead to a wrong impression of a player’s tactical ability – it’s not just mating attacks but much more. If you find this book in a book store and it’s not too expensive, have a look at it. It’s not a bad book (but better ignore the “chess history” part). I don’t want to recommend (or discourage from) buying it but merely say that I don’t regret going through the book.