Anatoly Karpov - An unsung hero

Originally posted by heinzkat
Hi,
Can you give us a good chess game played by Karpov?

Here's Karpov vs Gyula Sax played at Linares 1983. I just went over it in the previously mentioned "Anatoly Karpov-My Best Games" which is a great collection with good annotations. Karpov is one of my favorites. You have to love someone whom Botvinnik said "The boy doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession." I think Karpov proved that statement false. Enjoy the game....some awesome sacs, then finishing with the brilliant 35.Re7!!

Originally posted by passedpawn22
You have to love someone whom Botvinnik said "The boy doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession."

http://kevinspraggett.com/humour.htm

Thanks for the game, not bad, not bad at all.

His 'How to Play the English Opening' is definitely worth working through too, esp. for those who play either side of this opening.

Originally posted by Blackamp
His 'How to Play the English Opening' is definitely worth working through too....

For a less favourable view of that particular book:-

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen103.pdf


I like Karpov as player though. I played the Zaitev line of the Ruy Lopez for many years inspired by his games against kasparov in their world championship matches

Originally posted by heinzkat
Hi,
Can you give us a good chess game played by Karpov?

I'm very fond of this one

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067298

nothing particularly spectacular - just slowly out playing one of the greatest players of all time (in one of his opponents favourite openings too)

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
For a less favourable view of that particular book:-

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen103.pdf


I like Karpov as player though. I played the Zaitev line of the Ruy Lopez for many years inspired by his games against kasparov in their world championship matches

It's an interesting review. Hansen seems to have three main beefs with the book:

1. A paucity of recent games;
2. The lack of a variation index, and move-order info in the table of contents;
3. Errors in analysis.

Of these, I think (2) is wholly justified, but this lack is, at the end of the day, a fairly minor point. Still, it is a bit annoying, as these additions would not have taken much additional effort. Mitigating this fault is the fact that the games are, at least, arranged in order of variation. With his first criticism, I think Hansen is missing the point. Karpov is trying to provide 30 important and instructive games in the development of the English, that will help players gain an understanding of the opening. As such, it doesn't have to include all the up-to-the-minute innovations. It's a bit like complaining that the Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games contains mainly games more than twenty years old, and at any rate, a careful reading of Karpov's foreword reveals his rationale for the choice of games - and it is clear he has devoted some thought to this. He actually says in his foreword that the volume doesn't aim at being comprehensive. With regard to (3), I am always a bit suspicious of claims about errors in analysis that don't 'name names', so to speak. In the absence of actual examples, I'm more inclined to believe 12th world champion Karpov than Hansen. Besides, even if there are some errors, it is not clear that this will prevent the book from being useful to players learning the English - I mean, look at all the correction of analysis made by Nunn in his edition of Vukovic's Art of Attack in Chess. If it is stuff that Karpov missed, they must be pretty subtle errors.

What Hansen passes over is that, in addition to the 30 games, Karpov provides partial analysis of many more. Overall, I thought this was an unreasonably harsh review of what I have found to be a useful book. The 30 games feature 17 of Karpov's own, and also such luminaries as Kasparov, Kramnik, Shirov, Ivanchuk, Anand, Korchnoi, Adams, Timman, Gelfand etc.

A final note for 1.Nf3 players: A lot of these games feature 1.c4 e5 lines, and while these are still worth studying, they may be of less indirect use.

Here is a game from the book (#28), Karpov's Immortal - Karpov v Topalov, Linares 1994:

Originally posted by Blackamp
It's an interesting review. Hansen seems to have three main beefs with the book:

1. A paucity of recent games;
2. The lack of a variation index, and move-order info in the table of contents;
3. Errors in analysis.

Of these, I think (2) is wholly justified, but this lack is, at the end of the day, a fairly minor point. Still, it is a bit annoying, as ...[text shortened]... Qd6 36. Qxa7 Qxf6 37. Bh5 Rd2 38. b3 Rb2 39. Kg2 1-0[/pgn]

The problem with the book is that it is a translation of an old German book, which has not been updated. I would be fairly certain that Karpov would have no say in the matter (beyond his agent selling the translation rights in the first place) so Hansen's beefs are really with the publisher.

Originally posted by BailieDonaldson
The problem with the book is that it is a translation of an old German book, which has not been updated. I would be fairly certain that Karpov would have no say in the matter (beyond his agent selling the translation rights in the first place) so Hansen's beefs are really with the publisher.

I thought something like that might be the case, as in the foreword (quoted by Hansen in his review), Karpov says the games are 'all from the last decade', even though the earliest is from 1987, and the latest from 2004. And my copy claims the book was first published by Russian Chess House, Moscow in 2006???

I think some attempt at an update might have occurred, as there are games from as late as 2004 (e.g. #27 - Filippov v van Wely, Tripoli), but the publisher forgot to get Karpov to update his foreword.

All very confusing.

Originally posted by BailieDonaldson
... so Hansen's beefs are really with the publisher.

Well I'm sure that's true for the most part - but not quite entirely.

When I thumbed through the book I saw that the analysis of the first game I came to (I think possibly the very first in the book) was just a rehash of the version that appeared in the 'Openings in Action' series at the end of the 1980s.

Just dumping old analysis into a new book - even before the reprint - is bad form and something that Raymondo Keene is guilty of far too often (to name but one other culprit).

Whoever's at fault the key point is that the book isn't as good as it could or should be. In fact I've never seen anybody recommend it other than relatively inexperience players or review whores who say everything is good just so publishers will continue to send them samples to review.

- not that ANY of the above means the book can't be useful. In fact I think it would be hard to write a chess book that was completely of no use whatsoever.

Originally posted by Blackamp
... but the publisher forgot to get Karpov to update his foreword.

All very confusing.

Unfortunately I suspect "couldn't be bothered" is probably more likely that "forgot"

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
Well I'm sure that's true for the most part - but not quite entirely.

When I thumbed through the book I saw that the analysis of the first game I came to (I think possibly the very first in the book) was just a rehash of the version that appeared in the 'Openings in Action' series at the end of the 1980s.

Just dumping old analysis into a ne ...[text shortened]... I think it would be hard to write a chess book that was completely of no use whatsoever.

well, as someone who is unlikely to dig up the Openings in Action series from the 80s, i'm not too disappointed in seeing that analysis in the book. I can't see what is wrong with reprinting analysis, so long as it has not been refuted. After all, it makes it available in a convenient form to those who might not have access to the original sources.

I'm not saying it is a classic, but it is aimed at the club player, and I don't know too many of those who wouldn't learn quite a bit about the English from a close study of this book.

Originally posted by Blackamp
well, as someone who is unlikely to dig up the Openings in Action series from the 80s, i'm not too disappointed in seeing that analysis in the book. I can't see what is wrong with reprinting analysis, so long as it has not been refuted.

Well on general principles it's lazy (which is not a good sign if you're hoping an author might have put some effort into the book).

Specifically, old analysis (certainly from the end of the 80s and before, perhaps from the mid 90s) is notoriously less accurate than is currently the case because the old authors had to use their noggins and didn't have access to the computers we have now. There are some advantages to the brain power approach of course but tactical blunders can and do creep in however careful you are.


At the beginning of his Best Games collection John Nunn writes,

"... I have thoroughly reanalysed each game for this book ... My quest for accuracy has been aided by recent technological developments"

- and he was writing in 1995 and talking about Fritz 3(!)
"

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible to find anything of use in the book. There's no reason at all why you should regret your purchase if you find the book useful.

I *am* saying it's not a good book in the sense that there are going to be much better options available. Unfortunately in the chess world far too many publications are lazily produced with very little effort or care being devoted to them. Karpov's English book is one such example I'm afraid.

Fact is Karpov's reputation as an author - as far as his later efforts go anyway - do not match his undoubted achievements actually playing the game.

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
Well on general principles it's lazy (which is not a good sign if you're hoping an author might have put some effort into the book).

Specifically, old analysis (certainly from the end of the 80s and before, perhaps from the mid 90s) is notoriously less accurate than is currently the case because the old authors had to use their noggins and di ...[text shortened]... orts go anyway - do not match his undoubted achievements actually playing the game.

i guess it's just one of those glass half-empty/half-full things.

Here's Silman's take on the book:

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/How_to_Play_English_Opening.html


And one from chess.com:

http://blog.chess.com/ericmittens/how-to-play-the-english-opening-review

British Chess Magazine:
http://www.bcmchess.co.uk/reviews/bcmrev0709.html


Finally, another, unfortunately anonymous, review:

http://www.chessdevon.co.uk/HTML/games/archives/Reviews/Arch64/base.htm

karpov losing game after game at the donostia tournament in spain.
chess has evolved greatly over the last ten years