Chessville Reviews - Garry Kasparov On Modern Chess Part One Revolution in the '70s - by Garry Kasparov - Reviewed by Michael Jeffreys

Chessville
...by Chessplayers, for Chessplayers!

Today is

Site Map

If you have disabled Java for your browser, use the Site Map (linked in the header and footer).

Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints

Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as $25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each.

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

Garry Kasparov On Modern Chess
Part One - Revolution in the '70s
by Garry Kasparov

Reviewed by Michael Jeffreys

Everyman Chess, 2007
ISBN: 9781857444223

hardcover, 432 pages, $45
Figurine Algebraic Notation

Like all Revolutions, this
one has its Pros and Cons

After Kasparov’s five volume opus My Great Predecessors, he had run out of former world champions to write about. So he decided to tackle what he calls the “opening revolution” that took place in the 1970s. The funny part is the GMs that actually played during this era don’t really consider it a revolution! Garry acknowledges this in the introduction:

True, as was shown by my poll of nearly thirty specialists, who were playing at that time and took an active part in the development of the new systems, many do not consider those times to be revolutionary. They would argue that any revolution presupposes an upheaval in consciousness, and a revision of old dogmas which have been refuted by time itself—and this supposedly did not happen. However, in my view, the reassessment of chess values that occurred can well be called a revolution. (Italics mine-MJ)

Ahh, you gotta love Garry. If he thinks a revolution of chess ideas took place in the 70s than by god it did—even if many of those that were there, actually there, don’t agree! But hey, Garry’s into politics nowadays where going against the grain is a way of life for him and even seems to motivate him. You have to give the guy credit in that he relishes tough battles. Instead of facing Shirov for a world championship match because he didn’t feel the Latvian could really challenge him, he opted for a match with Kramnik and ended up paying the price.

Hopefully he fairs better against Putin, although honestly I think he would have a better chance of winning an election here in the U.S. Especially when you compare how lame most of our candidates sound compared to how intelligent Kasparov came off on the many late night talk shows he has appeared on as of late.

Part one Revolution in the 70s is divided into two sections. The first three quarters of the book covers various chess openings. The last quarter consists of 28 responses to a questionnaire that Kasparov sent (mostly by email) to many of the biggest names in chess that were active during the 70s. Many of the names should be familiar to you:

Averbakh, Taimanov, Matanovic, Nikitin, Portisch, Zaitsev, Velimirovic, Sosonko, Razuvaev, Alburt, Gulko, Soltis, Hartston, Dvoretsky, Keen, Hubner, Browne, Sveshnikov, Adorjan, Ljubojevic, Andersson, Timman, Romanishin, Makarichev, Beliavsky, Mikhalchishin, Nunn and Speelman.

Notice one name that is conspicuous by its absence? Yes, you would think Kasparov would have asked his main rival and the world champion for most of the 70s what his thoughts were on this “revolution.” Perhaps Karpov chose not to respond? (Garry does mention that not everybody replied to his query.)

Here are a few interesting excerpts from some of the 28 responses to Kasparov’s questionnaire. I’ll start with GM Alexander Matanovic, who I think had one of the best answers as to the cause of the “revolution”:

In my view, the rapid acceleration in the development of chess in the 1970-1980s and also the ‘opening revolution’ were influenced by three main factors:

1) The rise in popularity of chess in the preceding period, which occurred mainly thanks to the flourishing of the Soviet Chess School after the Second World War, created the conditions for a qualitative leap in its development.

2) The regular publication of Chess Informator, which made topical chess information accessible to chess players throughout the world.

3) The results of Robert Fischer, which attracted an enormous number of young people to chess. The greater number of players meant increased competition, which provided a powerful stimulus for chess creativity and at the same time forced many prominent grandmasters to seek new ideas and variations. Since all the endgame principles were already formulated and unchangeable, and the middlegame depended primarily on the quality of the opening, the main field where players could apply their creative energy and talent became the opening.

Here are a few more interesting excerpts:

GM Walter Browne: Chess was driven forward by all the leading players, and I studied their games with pleasure. Tal really inspired me with his style. Larsen liked to experiment and he was successful; he was willing to take chances and he played everything. Fischer always had ideas and tremendous preparation; he tried new ideas and was constantly experimenting in blitz games. Then I studied the games of the Soviet aces such as Korchnoi, Petrosian, Smyslov and Polugayevsky. They all had to do that—churn out new ideas. At that time I spent a lot of time on chess: 6-8 hours a day. I worked tirelessly, feeling that I was participating in the overall chess evolution.

IM Mark Dvoretsky: I do not think that Fischer radically influenced the development of theory. For a long time he played an extremely limited number of openings, which he had studied to perfection. Earlier too there had also been similar players, although rather lower in standard: they also dug fairly deeply. In his favourite schemes Fischer did indeed achieve perfection and he influenced their development. However, I don’t think that this was something extraordinary, leading to qualitative changes. It is another matter than Fischer, like any outstanding player, had a great influence on the development of the games as a whole. They tried to imitate him, although to follow Fischer’s example was very difficult, and few players were capable of this.

IM William Harston: My own contribution? I think I was the first person to give the name ‘Hedgehog’ to the system with pawns along the 6^th rank.

[Editor: also available are responses from András Adorján.]

Reading through many of these writings, you get a real sense of the love of game that these talented men possess. Interestingly enough, although not surprisingly, there are no women respondents. However, if this book were on the current era there is no doubt that Judit Polgar would have to be included as she is responsible for several new powerful opening ideas including 11.Neg5!? and 14.g4!! in the French when she crushed GM Berkes in 24 moves in 2003.

Moving on, I want to mention that the book itself is quite attractive. A large hardback with a white dust jacket with tiny black and white photos of each of the 28 GMs that were queried. Inside the book, the bright-white pages feel nice to the touch and the diagrams are large and easy to read in the double column layout.

Finally, we get to the meat of the book—the 23 chapters on the openings. The very first chapter is on the “Hedgehog” system and is 34 pages.

This defense is truly a child of the 70s, as previously it was thought that Black’s cramped position had to be inherently bad.

However, after players such as Ljubojevic and Adorjan employed it to good effect, it began to catch on. Even Karpov felt its sting when he suffered his first lost as world champion to it in 1975 to Andersson.

In case you don’t know, the Hedgehog is usually used as a defense to the English Opening (although it can be used against other White systems):

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.Nc3 e6 6.0–0 Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 (diagram)

A tabiya of the English Hedgehog

Apparently Hartston named it the ‘Hedgehog’ because the Black pawns can suddenly ‘spring out’ like the sharp quills of a hedgehog, inflicting damage on an unwary adversary. Here are Kasparov’s thoughts on Black’s position:

For Black it is much easier to play this compact system: each of his pieces knows its place. After due preparation he can calmly make a number of moves, hardly calculating any variations and not wasting time in thought: there is a pattern, a set of standard, perfectly safe maneuvers, gradually preparing …d6-d5 or …b6-b5. All the time White is obliged to watch out for these two advances, as a result of which he often ends up in time-trouble. Therefore it is better for Black to not open up the game immediately on emerging from the opening—he should follow the principle ‘the threat is stronger than its execution’ and blow up the centre only closer to time-trouble or in a critical position.

I especially like Kasparov’s final tip about not opening up the center until close to time control, which could prove extremely valuable to the tournament player who employs the Hedgehog. Additionally, there are several well annotated games in this section.

Inconsistency among the Different Chapters

Unfortunately, not all the chapters are as informative as chapter one. Chapter 13 is on the French, and yet only gets 3 pages!? This would lead you to believe there wasn’t much going on in the French during the seventies, which of course wasn’t the case. And that is one of my quibbles with the book. The amount of coverage given the selected openings is quite uneven. Some don’t even contain a single complete game!?

Also, the names of a few of the openings like the Volga Gambit and the Chelyabinsk variation might not be familiar to many U.S. readers. However, if I said the Benko Gambit and the Sveshnikov variation you would know them instantly.

Another problem is that the book was poorly edited. For example, in the Caro-Kann chapter a couple of the games begin 1.e4 e6 (??) Obviously it should be 1…c6.

And in the game Karpov-Sosonko, Tilburg 1979, move 17 for both players is completely absent! (In the interest of helping out my fellow chess players, if you already own this book, the missing moves on page 115 are 17.Bxf6 Bxf6.)

Probably the most surprising/confusing thing about the book is how many of the games are not actually from the 70s. Quite a few are from the 80s, 90s, and even several from 2005?! A case could be made for these later games being included if the old plans from the 70s were shown followed by the modern way of handling the position. Unfortunately, this isn’t really done (although occasionally older moves are mentioned), and so one is left a little confused as to why so many newer games are included.

The Bottom Line

There is much to like and several things to dislike about Part One Revolution in the 70s. My favorite part of the book is the final section called, The Opinion of 28 World Experts. Here you get to read what many of the games greats felt about chess in the 70s, as well as their own contributions. The chapters on the various openings are hit and miss. Some are quite good and offer a lot of interesting and useful information and ideas, whereas others are so short and concise that their usefulness is questionable at best.

Another minus is the poor proof reading/editing, which has allowed too many errors to creep in. This is unfortunate, especially when you’re asking your customers to pay $45.00 (U.S.) for the book.

To sum up, I would say that while Part One Revolution in the 70s is not a must-have chess book, for those that can afford it, you will find much to like. On a scale of 1-10, Part One Revolution in the 70s by Garry Kasparov gets an 8.

From the Publisher's website: "Garry Kasparov is generally regarded as the greatest chess player ever. He was the thirteenth World Champion, holding the title between 1985 and 2000. His tournament record is second to none, featuring numerous wins in the world's major events, often by substantial margins. As well as his outstanding successes, Kasparov has constantly promoted the game; he has done more than anyone to popularise chess in modern times."

Index of all Reviews

Chess Books & Equipment