The Critical Eye
Chess Books Examined
by Richard Forster
The "Critical Eye" is a collection of notes and observations on chess publications of historical interest. They are highly critical, occasionally subjective, completely independent, intentionally selective and free of exclamation marks. In other words, these notes have even less to do with formal book reviews than others appearing on the Web.
Items
on this page: 1)
Kasparov, 2)
Hübner on Fischer, 3) Kasparov.
Back to main page.
3) Kasparov (2)
Since I wrote my critical note on Kasparov's latest book, various other reviews have appeared on the Internet and in press. At least some reviewers seem to have been cautioned by my dissemination of the Capablanca-Bogoljubow game and have managed to escape being dazzled by Kasparov's name. Not too surprisingly, further analytical defects have been found in other games. If he had wanted to, Kasparov could certainly have produced much deeper and more accurate analysis, but he obviously had other things to do as well, so the analysis is generally solid but rarely outstanding. As he has admitted himself, the historical part was written by Plisetsky and various important sources were not available to them. So what remains? Neither the history nor the annotations are of exceptional value, so the unique Kasparovian thing about the book must be considered the selection of games that went into it, the opinions on the world champions and perhaps the relative amount of space dedicated to the different champions and candidates, demonstrating how Kasparov gauges their merits in the development of the game. These are certainly very interesting points, but why dilute them with hundreds of pages of rather unexceptional history and analysis? I feel that less would have been more.
Of course, other critics – for some reason quite a few who have formerly been or still are in some way associated with Kasparov – found the criticism inappropriate. After all, the holy boss had spoken... One of them found much of the criticism "correct, mean-spirited and pedantic" and "like a legislative rereading of a bill that everyone favours but no one wants to hear again". I leave it to the reader to try to work out the actual meaning and implication of that remark; at any rate, it is hardly surprising that in the same item that critic proved unable to spell my name correctly.
Elsewhere it was observed that throughout the book there was extensive quoting and attribution. As shown in my earlier discussion, most of the analysis is indeed quoted from elsewhere. The problem, however, is attribution. First, just giving a name ("Alekhine") but nowhere a source won't do. Second, giving just occasionally a name (as Kasparov does) is worse than giving no names at all, for it implies that the unattributed material is indeed original. As has been shown, in the Capablanca game a large part of the quoted lines were not attributed at all. It might be objected that many of the critical lines are "inherent" to a given position, so that Kasparov may have found them independently. This is essentially true but does not exempt an author from acknowledging earlier sources and making a fair attempt at identifying them. The situation can be compared to the domain of problem composition, where a problem loses its right of existence if an anticipation is found – irrespective of whether or not the later composer had a way of knowing the earlier problem. Returning to the present case, the careful reader will find that the overlap between Kasparov's lines and those in the Chess Stars book is far more than accidental, also including a number of decidedly unforced lines.
Ending on a positive note, here is an important discovery made by Ronny Baekelant (Belgium) and his talented 7-year old daughter Eva, validating an old piece of analysis of Capablanca's and refuting Euwe/Prins, Kasparov and a number of other writers (including me):
The position in the diagram is reached from the line 10...Qb6
(instead of the
game move 10...Qa5) 11.Nxc5 Nxc5 12.0–0 Qc6 13.Rc1 Ncxe4 14.Nxe4 Qxe4
15.Re1
Kf7 (perhaps 15...0–0 is better, but it leads to a very bad endgame)
16.Rc7+
Kg6 17.Bd4 Qf4 18.Ree7. 
Capablanca now only considered 18...Rd8 19.Rxg7+ Kh6 20.Rxh7+! Nxh7 21.Rxh7+ with an easy win for White. Kasparov objected that "even without a computer it is clear that after the simple 18...Rg8! there is no win for White: 19.Be3 Qb4 20.Rc5 Bf5 etc." As already pointed out, it was in fact Euwe and Prins who mentioned 18...Rg8 over fifty years ago.
However, Ronny and Eva Baekelant have now found (without a computer...) that White still wins: after 18...Rg8 19.Be3! Qb4 they play not the immediate 20.Rc5 but the strong intermediate move 20.a3!, deflecting the queen from the b4-e7, diagonal which is crucial to the defence (20.Rc5 Bf5 21.Rxf5 Qxe7). As can easily be verified, after 20.a3 White gets to play Rc5 with decisive effect. For example, 20.a3 Qg4 21.f3 Qh4 22.Rc5! and there is no defence against the check on the b1-g6 diagonal (22...Bf5 23.Rxf5). Even after 21...Qh5 White has 22.Rc5 Bf5 23.Rxf5! Qxf5 24.g4! and Black must give up the critical diagonal, with devastating consequences.
PS (23.08.03): Certain critics still find it difficult to accept these findings. So here is further evidence. Mark Dvoretsky analyses the 7th game Lasker-Steinitz (1894) at chesscafe.com and finds a number of mistakes in Kasparov's analysis. Among other things, he points out that in one line Kasparov overlooked a mate in one. This prompts one of the aforementioned critics to write: "That certainly establishes that the My Great Predecessors analysis is not completely based on computers or stolen from other sources, as some critics have implied, and it also shows that Kasparov can make mistakes." In fact, it is the clearest proof yet of blind copying by the Kasparov book, for the simple reason that the missed mate-in-one line is also to be found in the Chess Stars book on Lasker (1998, vol. 1, p. 162).
PPS (23.08.03): Readers interested in the analysis of this fascinating Lasker-Steinitz game should also note that on at least two occasions Dvoretsky cites Kasparov with a wrong move, though both times the difference is small. In the note to Black's 36th move the last move in the quote should read Kc7 instead of Kc6 and in the note to White's 39th move Kc7 should read Ke7.
PPPS (18.11.03): The German magazine SCHACH has in its latest number the first instalment of an excellent in-depth review of Kasparov's book by Robert Hübner (SCHACH, 11/2003, pp. 24-35).
2) Hübner on Fischer
A bilingual CD-ROM, on which Robert Hübner turns his well-known critical mind to Bobby Fischer's classic My Sixty Memorable Games. Hübner describes his goal as follows:
"Most critics deem Fischer's comments to be entirely devoid of errors, and each and every one of his observations is accepted as gospel truth. I was plagued by the desire to find out whether this reputation is indeed justified."
He does not reach a final conclusion, but presents a
thought-provoking
analysis of ca. 135 episodes from the book. Without aiming to reach an
overall
judgement on the accuracy of the analysis, I give two cases where
Hübner
appears to err:
55.1: Fischer - Bednarski, Havana (Olympiad) 1966.
Here Bednarski played 10...Qh4+, instead of which Fischer recommended as improvements 10...Bxe6 and in particular 10...fxe6!. After 10...Bxe6 Fischer gave "11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Nxe6 fxe6 (not 12...Qh4+ 13.g3 Nxg3 14.Bg5 Qe4+ 15.Kd2 Nxh1 16.Nc7+ Kd7 17.Nxa8 wins) 13.Qg4 Nc5 14.Be3! with a strong initiative."
Hübner comments:
"This is basically correct, but Fischer once again overestimates the importance of the initiative; the first line [i.e. 10...Bxe6] promises White less than Fischer believes. After 10...Bxe6 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Qg4 Nc5 14.Be3 Black can reach an equal position by playing 14...Qa5+: 15.c3 (15.Bd2 Qc7 16.0–0 d5 Black has nothing to fear.) 15...Nxb3 16.Qxe6+ Be7 17.Qxb3 Qe5 18.Qa4+ b5 19.Qd4 0–0 etc. The move 10...fxe6 in line B) therefore does not deserve an exclamation mark."
However, it seems questionable whether Black can equalise so easily after 10...Bxe6:In Hübner's line, after 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Qg4 (13.0–0!? also deserves attention since gaining the exchange with 13...Qb6+ 14.Kh1 Nf2+ 15.Rxf2 Qxf2 16.Bxe6 is very risky for Black - his king is dangerously exposed.) 13...Nc5 14.Be3 Qa5+ 15.Bd2! Qc7 16.0–0 d5
(see diagram) Black has to fear the strong move 17.Bxd5, with two main lines:
A) 17...exd5 18.Qh5+ Kd7 (or 18...g6 19.Qxd5, followed by 20.Rae1[+]) 19.Rf7+ Be7 20.Re1 Rae8 21.Qxd5+ and White regains the piece with a clear advantage (e.g. 21...Qd6 22.Qxd6+ Kxd6 23.Bf4+ Kd7 24.Bg5 Ne6 25.Rd1+ Kc8 26.Bxe7).
B) 17...Qd7! (Black loses after 17...Rd8? 18.Bxe6 Rxd2 19.Bf7+ and 20.Qg5+) 18.Bf3! (better than 18.Qh5+ g6 19.Qe5 Bg7! or 18.Bxe6 Nxe6 19.Rae1 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 0–0–0 21.Rxe6 Rhe8! 22.Rfe1 Rxe6 23.Rxe6 Rf8, with sufficient counter-play) 18...Qxd2 19.Qh5+ g6 20.Qe5.
Here Black cannot hold on to his extra piece. After either 20...Rg8 21.Rad1 Bd6! (since 21...Qa5 allows 22.Bc6+! bxc6 23.Qf4!! and wins) or 20...Bg7 21.Qxg7 0–0–0 22.Rad1 White maintains the initiative in a materially even position.
Summary: As with most long analyses the above lines are likely to contain holes. It has been shown, however, that if at all, 10...Bxe6 equalises only with great difficulty. Fischer's preference for 10...fxe6 thus seems justified.
Postscript: Returning to the initial
diagram, does
White really win after 10...Bxe6 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Nxe6 Qh4+ 13.g3 Nxg3
14.Bg5 Qe4+ 15.Kd2 Nxh1 16.Nc7+ Kd7 17.Nxa8,
as claimed by Fischer? I do not see a clear way to an advantage for
White after
17...Qg2+. Therefore it might be better to transpose moves and answer
10...Bxe6
by 11.Nxe6 fxe6 (here 11...Qh4+? 12.g3 Nxg3 13.Bg5 just loses because
Black
cannot check on e4) 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Qg4, leading to the position
discussed above. Black may deviate with 10...Bxe6 11.Nxe6 Nxc3, but
after 12. Nxd8
Nxd1 13.Nxb7 Nxb7 14.Kxd1 or 14.0–0! White enjoys a large
advantage. 
Here Stein played 29...Qf8 and lost. Could he have saved himself by accepting the piece sacrifice with 29...gxf5?
According to Fischer White would have won by 30 Qg3+ Kh7 31.Ng5+! Bxg5 32.Bxg5, which he backed up with several sample variations. Hübner disagrees and goes on to demonstrate that after 32...Ra3! (not considered by Fischer) Black seems to hold. Hübner also analyses 30.Ne5, but here too Black seems to have sufficient defensive resources. Hübner thus concludes:
"The move 29...Qf8 deserves a question mark, because it loses; with 29...gxf5 Black can reach a draw."
Again, I believe this conclusion to be questionable. After 29...gxf5 30.Qg3+ Kh7 I suggest replacing Fischer's 31.Ng5+ by 31.Bg5!, followed in most variations by a quick Rad1 or Qh4.
Black has many defensive tries but none seems to hold the position, as the interested reader should be able to verify himself with the help of a suitable chess engine. To give just one sample line: 31...Rg8 32.Rad1 Nd5 (other moves lose just differently) 33.Qh4 Rxg5 (33...Bxg5 is met by 34.Qxh5+ Bh6 35.Qxf5+ and 36.Rxd5 etc.) 34.Nxg5+ Kg6!? (34...Bxg5 35.Qxh5+ Kg7 36.Rxd5 Qxd5 37.Qxg5+ and 38.e7) 35.g4! and not too surprisingly Black's position crumbles quickly.
Summary: It appears that Fischer's overall judgement of the merits of 29...gxf5 was correct. However, he gave a wrong reason (31.Ng5+ instead of 31.Bg5!).
1)
Kasparov
Wherever one looks
Kasparov's anthology is being praised to the skies. But not here.
The book
is a solid effort, no doubt, but there are several defects. Only some
of them
will be featured in the present item, but they should be enough to make
readers
and potential reviewers think.
Much of the writing was
evidently and understandably done by co-author Plisetsky.
Unfortunately, he
often relied on Russian sources, thus overlooking much of the
historical and
analytical material published in the West. Occasionally this has
serious
consequences, as in the case of the Capablanca-Alekhine match where it
is
repeatedly claimed (though not substantiated) that if a score of 5-5
had been
reached, Capablanca would have retained the title. This theory,
probably
originating from a Soviet source from decades later, is highly doubtful
at best.
However, Kasparov/Plisetsky (K/P henceforth) do not even seem to be
aware of the
controversial nature of their claim.
Rather than listing
further oddities and inaccuracies that I have encountered, I would like
to
examine one of the 148 games in some detail. I happen to have annotated
the same
game in collaboration with Edward Winter in New in Chess Magazine,
3/1996, pages 76-89 (reprinted in E. Winter's Kings, Commoners and
Knaves,
Milford 1999, pp. 82-104), and thus I feel competent to make some
observations.
As will be seen,
Kasparov's new analytical discoveries are far fewer than is claimed
both in the
book and in various reviews. Moreover, it will also be shown that
previous
annotations are rather poorly researched and that many variations are
copied
without giving the slightest acknowledgement. It may be excusable that
neither
of the authors recalled the Winter/Forster effort in NIC on the
game in
question, but even when quoting Bogoljubow from the tournament book
they seem to
have relied on secondary sources rather than the book itself. Since the
tournament book has been conveniently reprinted by Edition Olms, this lapsus
is
incomprehensible.
Capablanca-Bogoljubow,
Moscow 1925.
K/P: Kasparov and
Plisetsky.
They quote notes by Bogoljubow, Capablanca and Panov. Nowhere do they
give exact
sources.
KCK:
Winter/Forster in Kings, Commoners and Knaves, which, except
for a few
footnotes, is identical to our piece in New
in Chess 1996. Edward Winter compiled the notes of previous
annotations,
while I reviewed them critically.
KCK quotes notes by Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Capablanca,
Euwe/Prins,
Golombek, Kmoch, Lasker, Panov, Pokorny, Spielmann, Stahlberg,
Tartakower and
some others, always with an exact source reference. Furthermore, in
footnotes KCK
adds a line by Hübner and several variations from Soloviov/Khalifman's
Chess
Stars volume on Capablanca (vol. 2, 1997), published after the original
New
in Chess article in 1996.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3
dxc4 4.e4 c5 5.Bxc4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.Nc3 Bc5
K/P: "It is known
that after 7...Be7, 8.e5 Nd5 9.Qg4 is unpleasant, while after 7...e5 –
8.Ndb5
Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Na6 10.Be3!, and if 10...Ng4, then 11.Bxa7! Rxa7 12.Nxa7
Nxf2+
13.Ke2 Nxh1 14.Nxc8 Bc5 15.Rxh1 0–0 16.Bxa6 bxa6 17.Na4 wins."
As mentioned in KCK
this line had already been given in Bogoljubow's tournament book.
Winter
commented:
"Vassily
Panov's book on Capablanca (Moscow, 1959) repeated Bogoljubow's
analysis without
giving credit."
Chess Stars
(Soloviov/Khalifman) repeats the analysis, giving credit to neither
Bogoljubow
nor Panov.
K/P repeat the analysis,
giving credit to neither Bogoljubow nor Panov, nor Chess Stars.
8.Be3 Nbd7
Here K/P mention only
analysis by Bogoljubow and Capablanca. As shown in KCK, the
suggestion of
Euwe/Prins, 8...0-0 9.e5 Nfd7, may be an important improvement.
9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Nxe6 Qa5
Here 10...Qb6 is analysed
in detail. K/P quote Capablanca's analysis, but conclude: "However,
even
without a computer it is clear that after the simple 18...Rg8! there is
no win
for White (...)."
In fact, 18...Rg8 was
pointed out by Euwe/Prins in their well-known 1949 book on Capablanca
(without a
computer). Their book, by the way, is also available in Russian.
K/P then indicate that
after 10...Qb6, 11.Nxc5 Nxc5 12.Rc1! would appear to be the most
accurate,
giving several variations. Again, no mention of Euwe/Prins (or anyone
else),
though they had analysed the position over fifty years ago. Nor is
there any
mention of Hübner, who analysed the position in his 1996 book Twenty-Five
Annotated Games (cf. KCK for details).
11.0–0 Bxe3 12.fxe3
Kf7
Here a bunch of variations
(12...Qb6, 12...g6, 12...Rg8 etc.) is copied from Euwe/Prins, but again
no
credit is given. K/P also omit to mention that after 12...Rg8 13.Nd5
the best
answer may be 13...Nxd5 (see my short analysis in KCK). I
further claimed
that Alekhine's 13.Qd6 was definitely stronger than 13.Nd5, but in view
of
13...Qb6 this is probably a dubious statement.
13.Qb3
Here K/P give in brackets
"(13.Rf5?! Qb6!)". Exactly the same brief line appears in the Chess
Stars volume on Capablanca. As will be seen later on, this was hardly a
coincidence, but the Chess Stars volume is nowhere credited at all.
Incidentally, as pointed
out in KCK, back in 1925 the little-known Czech player Amos
Pokorny drew
attention to 13.Qg4! in a relatively obscure publication. In fact, the
move
appears to win by force. None of the many other annotators, not even
Kasparov
and his ever-present computer, has hit on this move since then.
13...Kg6 14.Rf5
Here Capablanca's
suggestion 14.Rf3 is criticised. Though it is not mentioned, most of
K/P's
analysis had been given by Spielmann in 1928.
14...Qb6 15.Nf4+ Kh6
16.g4
Here K/P give (among other
lines) Capablanca's analysis starting with 16.Qf7. For once (in the
line
18...Nxg4) Kasparov seems even to have turned off his computer.
Otherwise he
would have pointed out that Capa's 21 Qxg4+ is not accurate (cf. KCK),
while 21 Ne6+ wins on the spot.
After 16.Qf7 Qxe3+ 17.Kh1
g6 K/P write
"Here
Panov recommended 18.Rxf6 Nxf6 19.Qxf6 Re8 20.Ncd5 Qf2 (but not
20...Qxe4? 21
Qh4+ Kg7 22 Nf6 Qe5 23 Nxe8+ Qxe8 24 Re1 - G.K.) 21.h4 'with a
winning
attack', but after 21...Bd7! nothing of the sort is apparent."
On this three observations
must be made:
a) The line up to 21.h4
had been given by Bogoljubow in the tournament book. It was copied by
Panov
without giving credit. Elsewhere K/P quote Bogoljubow verbatim, so they
should
have noticed. Or didn't they have access to the tournament book of
Moscow 1925?
b) Kasparov's editor's
note (20...Qxe4? etc.) was also anticipated by Bogoljubow in the tournament book
("not 20...Qxe4 because of 21.Qh4+ and 22.Nf6").
c) The "refutation" 21...Bd7 is
not valid (see diagram). White does indeed have a winning attack
after 22.Qg5+ Kg7 23.Nf6 (as can be verified with the computer). The
pretty main line of my (unpublished) 1996 analysis went 23...Qxb2
24.Rf1 Re5 25.N6h5+ Kg8 26.Qf6 gxh5 27.Nxh5 Rb5 28.Qf7+ Kh8 29.Qf8+!
and mate next move. Of course, there are many other variations, but it
is very strange that Kasparov should have trusted the computer's
superficial judgement after 21...Bd7.
16...g5 17.Qxb6 axb6
18.Rd1 Rg8
Here two paragraphs are
devoted to 18...gxf4 and 18...Ra5. No mention at all is made of Lasker,
Alekhine
and others who had analysed most of these lines. Plus there is the line
18...Ra5
19 Nfd5 Nxg4 20 Rdf1 Re8 21 b4 Ra3 "winning", which, though hardly
forced, happens to be exactly the line given in the Chess Stars volume.
Moreover
- "as the computer shows" - in the final position 22 Nb5 and 23 Nd6
would still lead to some dangerous counter-play. Even though Black
should come
out on top with correct play, I suspect that Kasparov did not look at
these
lines at all.
19.Nfd5 Nxg4
Here after 19...Rg6 20.Ne7
a cryptic G.K. note suggests 20...Rg7 (misprinted as 21...Rg7). The
move was
suggested by Golombek half a century ago. More importantly, we are left
to
believe that G.K. discovered the strong possibility 19...Nxd5. With one
small
exception "his" whole analysis was given by Euwe/Prins. The small
exception is 27 Nxb4 in one variation - exactly the move given in the
Chess
Stars book by Soloviov and Khalifman.
20.Ne7 Rg7 21.Rd6+ Kh5
22.Rf3 Ngf6 23.Rh3+
Another uncredited Chess
Stars line with 23.Nf5 follows here, whereas Alekhine's 23.Ncd5 does
not get any
mention (cf. KCK).
23...Kg4 24.Rg3+ Kh5
25.Nf5
Here K/P give Bogoljubow's
analysis of 25.Ncd5. Of course, no credit is given. Nor does G.K. seem
to have
been interested in the final position ("a probable draw"). As related
in KCK, analysis with Korchnoi and others has shown that White
is on the
verge of winning.
25...Rg6
26.Ne7
Two "G.K. editor's
notes" are given in Capablanca's line starting 26.Rh3+. As readers of KCK
will find out, the two moves had been suggested previously by Alekhine
and me
respectively.
26...g4
K/P give two paragraphs of
analysis of 26...Nc5 without crediting any third party. It may be added
here
that the 27.Nxg6 lines had all been found by Bogoljubow and Euwe/Prins,
whereas
the 27.Rf3 line stems from the Chess Stars volume except for the final
move
31...Kh6! - the only original contribution here - which turns the
assessment
from slight advantage to equal.
27.Nxg6 Kxg6
Again the analysis of
27...hxg6 is almost completely copied from Euwe/Prins (via the Chess
Stars
volume). As shown in KCK there are serious improvements for
Black. But
apparently by now Kasparov's interest in the game had gone and - if at
all - he
only checked the remaining analysis very superficially.
28.Rxg4+ Kf7
Again, contrary to
appearances the analysis of the alternative 28...Kh5 is not new at all.
29.Rf4 Kg7 30.e5 Ne8
31.Re6 Nc7 32.Re7+ 1:0.
The line given in the
final note could have been attributed to Tartakower.
The Chess Stars volume has
been mentioned several times; if possible it is even more deficient as
regards
the quotation of its sources: On three pages packed with
Informator-like
analysis it manages to give just once the names of Bogoljubow and
Lasker, and
four times that of Capablanca. Of course, in reality much of the
analysis was
also copied or at least anticipated. Thus K/P relied heavily on Chess
Stars
without acknowledgement, Chess Stars in turn did the same with various
earlier
sources.
Here follows a comparison
of what K/P have to offer in addition to the Chess Stars volume:
p. 303: On a full page of
annotation K/P manage to offer only these new moves: 10...Qe7
in the note
to Black's 8th, 11.Nxg7+ Kf7 12.Nf5 Qxb2 13.Rc1 Bb4 14.Bd4,
16...Qxa2 17.Qe5
instead of 17.Bd4 and 12...Bg4 13.f3 Be6 14.0-0 in the note to
Black's
10th. None of this changes the previous evaluation; nor is any of it
really
relevant to the course of the game. Moreover, the last line was already
analysed
by me in KCK. Since 13...Be6 14.0-0 is obvious (by analogy with
12...Be6
13.0-0) I let Black play the more dangerous and - in my humble opinion
-
stronger 13...Rd8, which is not considered by K/P.
p.304: One paragraph of
new "supplementary" analysis starting with 12...Qe5 13.Nxg7+ Kd8
- new because nobody seems to have analysed 13...Kd8 before,
"supplementary" because it just confirms the previous assessment of
the position. In the note to Black's 13th the line in brackets (15...Kh6
16.Ne6) is new in comparison to Chess Stars but not to KCK.
In the
comment to White's 14th the wrong analysis in Chess Stars is corrected,
but - as
mentioned above - the key moves had already been shown by Spielmann. In
addition, it would seem that after 16...Rg8 17.Rf1 Rxg7 18.Rxf6+ Rg6
19.Qg8! Qc5
instead of K/P's 20.h4 etc. the line 20.Qh8 (threatening 21.Rf4
Qe7
22.Nd5) Qe7 21.Nd5 Qg7 22.Qd8 is a simpler win. Finally, after 14...Ne5
15.Nd5
K/P give the new line 15...Nxd5 16.Rxe5 Bxe6 17.Rxe6+ Nf6 18.e5,
though
it would appear that 16.Qxd5 is simpler (16...Qxd5? 17.Nf4+ and 18.Rh5
mate, so
16...Nf3+ is forced but hopeless).
p. 305: In the note to
move 16 after 16...Qxe3+ 17.Kh1 g6 18.Ne6! Rg8 K/P seem to show a new
win with 19.Nd5
etc. While apparently not anticipated, this "discovery" is
far
from earth-shattering since in 18.Rxf6 and 19.Rf4 White has two
well-known
alternative wins. After 16...g5 K/P seem to be the first to mention the
obvious 17.Ne6,
though Bogoljubow's 17.Rxg5 also leads to a win. Later they add the
move 21...Bd7
as a refutation of Bogoljubow's analysis, but as mentioned above the
judgement
is just wrong. Finally, Capablanca's analysis of 16...g6 17.g4 Qxe3
18.Kg2 etc.
is supplemented with the line 18...Qd2+ etc. - without leading
to a
different result, however. At move 18 the two moves 19 Nh3 Nxg4 are
added
after 18...Ra5; again an addition without significance. Finally, on
this page
the move 20...Rg7 is added in Bogoljubow's analysis, but as
pointed out
above it had been already suggested by Golombek.
p.306: The short line
given at move twenty seems to be completely new and of
relevance -
unfortunately the only such occasion in this game. At move 23 K/P add 23...Rg6
24.Rh3+ Kg4 25.Kg2 to a Chess Stars line, but of course it is the
same line
as given in more detail two moves later, so that hardly counts. At move
26 K/P
offer an alternative win in one line with 28.Ne7 Nh5 29.Rxg6 hxg6
30.Rf3.
Two moves later K/P give the slight improvement 29...Nh5 30.Rd8 Kh4
31.Kf2,
while in KCK I had given 29...Nh5 30.e5 Kh4 31.Rd4+ g4 32.Rd8
with
similar consequences.
p. 307: As mentioned
above, at the end of the note to 26...g4 K/P manage to add one move (31...Kh6)
to the Chess Stars line, slightly changing the assessment of the
position.
Previous to that they also manage to add one line (starting with
29...Nf5)
which, however, they themselves declare inferior. Finally, at the very
end of
the notes they manage to add the two moves 36...b5 37.Rb4.
All the rest - and
that's a considerable chunk of analysis - appears move for move as in
the Chess
Stars volume. Moreover, almost all the additions by K/P are fairly
irrelevant to
the course of the game.
To sum up:
- A very great part of the analysis (certainly more than 95%) has been copied from earlier sources, mostly without proper acknowledgement (either to Chess Stars or the earlier sources).
- Several highly relevant sources have been neglected, others have been only partially checked.
- Even in the "original" analysis, part has been anticipated and with one exception it only confirms previous analysis.
- Despite computer use a few clear improvements have been overlooked, though I (a 2300+ player at the time) and my computer (circa Fritz 3, I guess) had found or confirmed them in 1996.
- Analysis by Bogoljubow is
"refuted" (see diagram), but the original assessment turns out to be
correct and the "refutation" mistaken.
Other games in the book
may fare a little better (although a cursory glance revealed a number
of similar
problems), but the present example - which happened to be the one I was
most
familiar with - is a most disappointing effort and hardly worthy of the
world
number one player.
All diagrams created with ChessBase 8.0.