BOOK REVIEW: Learn From The Grandmasters

There actually are two editions of this book, but the first (some of which managed to make it into the accompanying picture!) is far superior.

The premise was for everyone to include two games: a game won by somebody else that made a big impression on them, and the favorite game they themselves played.

So we start off with a world champ! Tal's first selection makes for a dandy tribute to Nezhmetdinov, as he annotates his loss against Rashid from the 1957 Soviet championship. I remember this game having a big impact on me too when I played it over, for it seemed obvious that the pawn center Tal achieved after 20 moves would be a distinct plus. Right? Here's Tal with a bit of an epiphany: "Suddenly I realized my opponent had assessed the position much more deeply than I had. Unfortunately I had missed one vital point--the pawn center, although in no danger, is also of no value."

Korchnoi includes a great fighting game from his hero, Lasker (who else?), against Tarrasch. In the midst of which he offers up the following: "I must say, on the basis of my experience, that of the three pawns protecting the king, the most important one is the knight's pawn, and to exchange it for the bishop's or rook's pawn is a poor deal."

Larsen is the first guy (in the book) to annotate Johner-Nimzowitsch (though he was considering including Rotlewi-Rubinstein: "I remember how that game looked like magic to me when I was 13"). And he says: "My System is a wonderful book, but not really a system! It contains some of the elements of a system, but the system is not complete."

Szabo follows--and also includes Johner-Nimzowitsch! Which makes for an unusual opportunity (the chance to see two top players annotating a classic game, and coming at the whole business from rather different angles).

Szabo's own game was the one against Barcza from 1939 which features 3 pieces vs queen (which was also annotated by Pachman in Modern Chess Strategy--where I first came across it).

Ulf Andersson's choice would also likely be my choice. For in the category of Greatest Game Ever Played, it would indeed be hard to top Reshevsky-Bronstein, Zurich 1953.

Timman: "At present, Botvinnik is the player I feel the greatest affinity with, whom I can understand best of all great chess players."

Walter Browne apparently didn't manage to read the format, so he just included his two best games instead. In one--against Zuckerman, a major openings gun--he played an off-the-wall move early on, and noted: "The perfect move against Zook the Book, who relies on knowledge more than a spider relies on his web!"

Stean includes one of my very favorite Fischer games: that gem against Matulovic where R J played 13... Kxe7. An amazingly smooth performance.

And speaking of favorite games...it would indeed be hard to top Gufeld's pick. Now if you've never seen Kavalek's bishop vs two rooks game, rush right over to chessgames.com and take a gander! You'll be glad you did. What's funny though is...Gufeld was actually Kavalek's opponent in that game! ("Since this game I always maintain that the dark-squared bishop has a magic all of his own...")

Of Gufeld's second choice (a game against Bagirov), he says: "I have never been as creatively satisfied with any game as I was with this one. I simply until now feel very happy when I recall it. And when I think about it, then I forget all my chess misfortunes and there remains merely joy at the realization of a dream."

Lawrence Day (who incidentally Eric--the Quiet Genius from my other blog--played once way back when at the Canadian Open) entertainingly includes one of Suttles' games: Benko-Suttles, US Open 1964. His note to Suttles' first move: "A challenge to dogmaterialism!" The position after the ninth move is typically hilarious (no wonder we always used to call the guy Duncan The Subtle!).

Incidentally, if you like wacky play in the openings, check out most any Suttles' effort. Like his games from San Antonio 1972 (which was where he became a GM). He's sort of a proto-Basman.

There are other contributors here too (including Kavalek himself!). As I put it in my review on goodreads: "An unlikely one-shot knockoff anthology with a wealth of different styles and viewpoints, unlike anything else I've seen, and which is to this day one of the best chess books I've read."