Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Books on the middlegame? (Read 17247 times)
flaviddude
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 329
Location: Australia
Joined: 01/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #35 - 03/28/08 at 14:00:13
Post Tools
I like all the books mentioned. You really should learn to read descriptive just so that you can pick up books really sheaply.

For example I paid 60 cents for a copy of the keres book. Once a year I read the chapter on defending difficult positions.

You state that you are a near beginner.

I suggest Hans Kmoch - Pawn Power in Chess. this really will improve your middle game play.

Also look out for Andrew Soltis - The Art of Defense in chess.

This is a meat and potatoes book which will improve youe defensive play. The grat majority of chess players are much weaker at defence then they in other aspects of the game.
  

I am hopelessly addicted to the King's Gambit
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 964
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #34 - 03/28/08 at 10:44:06
Post Tools
Paddy wrote on 03/26/08 at 21:58:56:
micawber wrote on 12/05/07 at 19:12:46:
@Paddy---- regarding Tal-Botwinnik 1960.

I seem to remember something about Ken Neat's critisism of the earlier editions of this translation.
But I recall that in 1997  not everyone agreed with his overall judgement.
Then again, I presently have the sixth edition, and it says (revised and extended).
The fifth edition, which was published in 2000, was edited by Taylor Kingston, who is known
as a chess historian. Unfortunately there is no record wat changes were made in the 5th an 6th ed.
Some passages that have been quoted in other books, seem at least well translated
(example: Koblenz: "Lehrbuch der Schachtaktik Band 2"quotes the larger part of Tal's comments
on the notorious 7th game;Koblenz was Tal's second during the match).
So I don't see any reason to suppose the present edition is unsuitable.

Curiously Ken Neat did the translation of Tal-Botwinnik 1961 (the account of the return match by Botwinnik). I hope that profession envy didnt come into the 1997 controversie.


A rather unworthy post I feel.

The English-speaking chess world owes Dr Neat a huge debt of gratitude for having translated the vast majority of the classic Russian chess books that we all treasure and enjoy. Professional envy? Come on. Neat is a professional translator; Russell is not. he admits he did most of the "translation" as an undergraduate, and I am afraid it shows.

I have now had the opportunity to spend some time looking at the “revised and expanded” 5th edition of Tal-Botvinnik 1960, “edited” by Taylor Kingston.

Compared with the fourth edition, some errors have been corrected, such as incorrectly spelt names (e.g. Liliental-Lilienthal, Flor Flohr, Porreka-Porreca, Lipitsky-Lipnitsky, Fogelman-Foguelman), but not all (e.g. Gligorich, which is phonetically accurate but normally spelt without the h).

There are still some small “technical” errors which one would have expected to have been weeded out by the 5th edition, e.g. page 61, note to Black’s 9th move, 9…Qb6: “Black immediately begins to take action against the d5 square.” Of course, this should be d4, not d5.

There are also still some obscure or meaningless sentences, e.g. page 18: “Capablanca’s “lighter” system and other orthodox defenses seem to have been forgotten in the archives of history.” Did you understand that? My guess is that the reference is to Capablanca’s once famous “simplifying manoeuvre” (…dxc4, …Nd5) in the orthodox Queen’s Gambit.

I checked the relevant pages against the list of errors pointed out by Dr Neat in New in Chess magazine 1997/7 and found that most of them have still not been corrected.

I should be less concerned if all the errors in the book were small and did not spoil the sense. But how about these:

On page 19 there is a serious error: referring to the Modern Benoni, Russell’s version reads:

“Aron Nimzowitsch was the first to use it in a game with Frank Marshall in the New York International Tournament of 1927. Marshall immediately transferred his knight to c4, and the instant Black hesitated (…) he was smothered in a few moves.” In fact, in the game referred to here, Nimzowitsch was White and Marshall Black! This is a famous game, and reversing the names of the players is arguably evidence of a deficiency in chess culture as well as in Russian grammar.

On page 58; “There is a curious story behind the King’s Indian Defence. It got recognition 20 years ago. Before that it was rarely, or as they say, spontaneously employed. In particular, Chigorin would never have selected such a system.” The last sentence should read something like: “In particular, such a set-up was chosen long ago by Chigorin.”

On page 59: (Discussing the history of the g3 system against the King’s Indian): “Black’s difficulties in this variation arose when he started searching for more active continuations…” This should read rather: ““Black’s difficulties in this variation prompted him to start searching for more active continuations…”

On page 59: Discussing the Petrosian system against the King’s Indian (usually reached by 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 0-0 6 Be2 e5 7 d5) “The talented Ukrainian master Leonid Stein has had the last word for Black in this variation in which he played h6 in answer to Bg5 and nipped White’s idea in the bud, of course at the cost of a tempo.” It should be obvious that “In answer to Bg5” is an incorrect translation; it should say “before Bg5” or “to prevent Bg5”. (Remember, these are just examples, and this is supposed to be the 5th revised edition!)

There is no doubt that, even with the errors and ambiguities, there is much to enjoy and learn from this book, but it could have been so, so, much better.


To be fair, I should add that the chess world should also be very grateful to Hanon Russell for the huge amount of high-quality (and free!) content at the Chess Café website, and for the many really excellent books that his company has published in recent years - but unfortunately, even in its "5th edition",  "Tal-Botvinnik 1960" isn't one of them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zatara
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 422
Location: Virginia
Joined: 02/26/08
Gender: Male
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #33 - 03/28/08 at 05:32:06
Post Tools
Howdy all,
for the "advanced beginner I would recommend the Silman/Seirawan book series...  I think that Silman's reacess your chess is a bit advanced.  I would also recommend Silman's complete endgame course (the new one just out).  for tactics I would run through (literally) combination's for kids by hall.  Then try and due Halls combination challenge.  without tactics you will be shreaded (yes again literally).  The other posts are good for middle to advanced club players I think...  JUST MY THOUGHTS  Good luck and good chess...
ZATARA
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 964
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #32 - 03/26/08 at 21:58:56
Post Tools
micawber wrote on 12/05/07 at 19:12:46:
@Paddy---- regarding Tal-Botwinnik 1960.

I seem to remember something about Ken Neat's critisism of the earlier editions of this translation.
But I recall that in 1997  not everyone agreed with his overall judgement.
Then again, I presently have the sixth edition, and it says (revised and extended).
The fifth edition, which was published in 2000, was edited by Taylor Kingston, who is known
as a chess historian. Unfortunately there is no record wat changes were made in the 5th an 6th ed.
Some passages that have been quoted in other books, seem at least well translated
(example: Koblenz: "Lehrbuch der Schachtaktik Band 2"quotes the larger part of Tal's comments
on the notorious 7th game;Koblenz was Tal's second during the match).
So I don't see any reason to suppose the present edition is unsuitable.

Curiously Ken Neat did the translation of Tal-Botwinnik 1961 (the account of the return match by Botwinnik). I hope that profession envy didnt come into the 1997 controversie.


A rather unworthy post I feel.

The English-speaking chess world owes Dr Neat a huge debt of gratitude for having translated the vast majority of the classic Russian chess books that we all treasure and enjoy. Professional envy? Come on. Neat is a professional translator; Russell is not. he admits he did most of the "translation" as an undergraduate, and I am afraid it shows.

I have now had the opportunity to spend some time looking at the “revised and expanded” 5th edition of Tal-Botvinnik 1960, “edited” by Taylor Kingston.

Compared with the fourth edition, some errors have been corrected, such as incorrectly spelt names (e.g. Liliental-Lilienthal, Flor Flohr, Porreka-Porreca, Lipitsky-Lipnitsky, Fogelman-Foguelman), but not all (e.g. Gligorich, which is phonetically accurate but normally spelt without the h).

There are still some small “technical” errors which one would have expected to have been weeded out by the 5th edition, e.g. page 61, note to Black’s 9th move, 9…Qb6: “Black immediately begins to take action against the d5 square.” Of course, this should be d4, not d5.

There are also still some obscure or meaningless sentences, e.g. page 18: “Capablanca’s “lighter” system and other orthodox defenses seem to have been forgotten in the archives of history.” Did you understand that? My guess is that the reference is to Capablanca’s once famous “simplifying manoeuvre” (…dxc4, …Nd5) in the orthodox Queen’s Gambit.

I checked the relevant pages against the list of errors pointed out by Dr Neat in New in Chess magazine 1997/7 and found that most of them have still not been corrected.

I should be less concerned if all the errors in the book were small and did not spoil the sense. But how about these:

On page 19 there is a serious error: referring to the Modern Benoni, Russell’s version reads:

“Aron Nimzowitsch was the first to use it in a game with Frank Marshall in the New York International Tournament of 1927. Marshall immediately transferred his knight to c4, and the instant Black hesitated (…) he was smothered in a few moves.” In fact, in the game referred to here, Nimzowitsch was White and Marshall Black! This is a famous game, and reversing the names of the players is arguably evidence of a deficiency in chess culture as well as in Russian grammar.

On page 58; “There is a curious story behind the King’s Indian Defence. It got recognition 20 years ago. Before that it was rarely, or as they say, spontaneously employed. In particular, Chigorin would never have selected such a system.” The last sentence should read something like: “In particular, such a set-up was chosen long ago by Chigorin.”

On page 59: (Discussing the history of the g3 system against the King’s Indian): “Black’s difficulties in this variation arose when he started searching for more active continuations…” This should read rather: ““Black’s difficulties in this variation prompted him to start searching for more active continuations…”

On page 59: Discussing the Petrosian system against the King’s Indian (usually reached by 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 0-0 6 Be2 e5 7 d5) “The talented Ukrainian master Leonid Stein has had the last word for Black in this variation in which he played h6 in answer to Bg5 and nipped White’s idea in the bud, of course at the cost of a tempo.” It should be obvious that “In answer to Bg5” is an incorrect translation; it should say “before Bg5” or “to prevent Bg5”. (Remember, these are just examples, and this is supposed to be the 5th revised edition!)

There is no doubt that, even with the errors and ambiguities, there is much to enjoy and learn from this book, but it could have been so, so, much better.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
drkodos
God Member
*****
Offline


I see....stars.

Posts: 778
Location: Jupiter, and beyond
Joined: 03/29/07
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #31 - 12/06/07 at 14:41:02
Post Tools
Stigma:  Fair enough.  Good points, well articulated.    I am not swayed, but I understand.

On another note, I do think his Endgame book is very worthwhile.
  

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #30 - 12/06/07 at 07:33:21
Post Tools
drkodos,

It is true that Nunn and Watson take more care to use games between strong, evenly matched opponents. But this has less to do with the quality of the books, than with the level they are aimed at. If a student has never seen a plan executed in pure form (from a superior position, or against weak defence), how is he going to recognize that same plan in a tense game where the opponent took care to stop it, and it remained hidden in the notes?! For this reason, I could imagine recommending a Silman book to a near-beginner, but never Watson's strategy books.

When Silman (or Euwe, or Pachman) presents the advantage of a strong knight in the centre in it purest form (i.e. Smyslov-Rudakovsky) I wouldn't call that untrue, instead it is a building block for later understanding more complex positions where that knight is just one element among many (i.e. the many Sveshnikov Sicilian lines where Black plays around just such a knight). Besides, in Reassess Silman does mix such one-sided encounters with games between world-class players, even from World Championship matches.

Regarding how to create the imbalances, I think Silman has this covered if one reads closely. He has a chapter devoted to imbalances arising out of common openings, another on how to create weak squares, and there are many examples of a player making timely exchanges to end up with the better minor piece, win control over an open file, and so on. Once one knows the patterns to aim for, such opportunities are much easier to spot.

It sounds to me like you bought the Silman books at a point when they where simply too basic for you, but that doesn't diminish their value for weaker players who don't yet grasp the elements of a position and how they dictate plans. I myself bought The Amateur's Mind too late for it to be useful for me, but I still happily use its examples when coaching young players. Silman's idea with that book was interesting, but I agree there is a flaw: The correct solutions (original GM game) should have been given AFTER the attempts by Silman's students, to show how a progressively deeper understanding of the position leads to increasingly purposeful play. As it stands now, the class players' attempts just look pathetic after a virtuoso performance by Alekhine...
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #29 - 12/06/07 at 07:32:57
Post Tools
Silman's books aren't too bad. His patronising tone can be off -putting for some, but I can see why its effective for others: his tone exhorts you to pay serious attention when reading! like a stern school teacher.

The first book that cracked chess for me was Tisdall's Improve Your Chess Now. He doesn't "dumb-down" like Silman but gives practically useful advice.

Never liked any of the old books. I recently (!!) read My System, but I think its going to make my chess worse  Tongue
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
drkodos
God Member
*****
Offline


I see....stars.

Posts: 778
Location: Jupiter, and beyond
Joined: 03/29/07
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #28 - 12/06/07 at 05:43:06
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 12/06/07 at 02:38:32:
I agree with smrex13 that it's impossible to find a middlegame book to suit all players. I personally have always loved Reassess Your Chess, I first read it when I was about 1500 and have reread it several times over the years.

Of course you could say it is just rehashing of old truths (i.e from Euwe/Kramer's The Middlegame, Kotov's Play Like a Grandmaster etc.) but I'm not sure that matters much. Often the first general middlegame/strategy book a player really studies becomes a kind of bible, the one book that "cracked chess" for that player, as Nigel Davies once said (in his case I think it was Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess), regardless of which other books s/he could have read.

What makes Silman's books great is of course the great examples with thorough explanations, plus the insight into many of the common stumbling blocks of amateurs. As for his "Thinking technique", I sometimes go through the whole routine if I feel absolutely clueless in a position, and then it can help unearth a reasonable plan. But I feel it is too time-consuming to be used regularly throughout a game, and I doubt any really strong players think in such a schematic, structured way. To get much higher than 2100-2200 you really have to spot most of the strategies in Reassess intuitively, to free up time for prophylaxis and calculation. But still, it is no small accomplishent to have devised a thinking system that makes the subtlest plans of Karpov, Smyslov, et al. understandable to class B-C-D players!


It is not that it is a rehasing of "old truths" that would be my target, but that it is a rehasing of old chess UNTRUTHS because so many of the ideas are represented mostly in games where the primary IMBALANCE in the game was that one player was very strong and capitalized on the overwhelming difference in playing strength in positions that are already clearly superior.

No doubt, having the technique to fully execute all types of technical wins from +/- or -/+ winning positions is a desirable skill to posses (and even that is not really addressed in his books) but the real crux for me is creating the "imbalances" in the first place, and this is never really addressed in the books.  

I also do not like that he uses far too many of his own games against clearly weaker opponents as examples to learn from instead of games between two very strong GM's playing at, or close to, the height of their strengths, like good books try to do.  That's why the Nunn & Watson books are vastly superior.

In his Amateur's Mind book he spends countless pages on games where he plays against player rated basically 1000+ points lower than himself.  I was interested in seeing how the disjointed, incorrect, poorly worded ramblings of a person who does not understand the game could be helpful to another person that is also trying to learn.  But, I just don't get it, and I can see how and why it does sort of smack some as a form of arrogance the way he lauds them for finally embracing his version of chess language, despite their inabilities to actually play the game.   Maybe it works because people identify that they are at least better than the poor sods in the book?


I realize I am giving some offense to anyone the books have helped, but that is not my intent. (Personally, I feel Silman should be the one who is being grinded here, not people the books have helped.)   I just believe the same time invested in other materials would have produced at least similar, and most likely, even better results.


I guess I am just bitter for having spent my money on them.

In the X-mas spirit, I would truly love to give them to someone who feels they could use them and thus rid my shelves of them before my kids see them.  I'd rather they find my pron collection.... Wink



~ drkodos.
  

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #27 - 12/06/07 at 02:38:32
Post Tools
I agree with smrex13 that it's impossible to find a middlegame book to suit all players. I personally have always loved Reassess Your Chess, I first read it when I was about 1500 and have reread it several times over the years.

Of course you could say it is just rehashing of old truths (i.e from Euwe/Kramer's The Middlegame, Kotov's Play Like a Grandmaster etc.) but I'm not sure that matters much. Often the first general middlegame/strategy book a player really studies becomes a kind of bible, the one book that "cracked chess" for that player, as Nigel Davies once said (in his case I think it was Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess), regardless of which other books s/he could have read.

What makes Silman's books great is of course the great examples with thorough explanations, plus the insight into many of the common stumbling blocks of amateurs. As for his "Thinking technique", I sometimes go through the whole routine if I feel absolutely clueless in a position, and then it can help unearth a reasonable plan. But I feel it is too time-consuming to be used regularly throughout a game, and I doubt any really strong players think in such a schematic, structured way. To get much higher than 2100-2200 you really have to spot most of the strategies in Reassess intuitively, to free up time for prophylaxis and calculation. But still, it is no small accomplishent to have devised a thinking system that makes the subtlest plans of Karpov, Smyslov, et al. understandable to class B-C-D players!
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
smrex13
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 112
Location: Ashland
Joined: 06/03/06
Gender: Male
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #26 - 12/06/07 at 01:23:27
Post Tools
I find books on the middlegame to be a very interesting topic.  In many ways, there is no objective standard by which to judge their quality.  Choosing a middlegame book (or books) depends a lot on your approach to chess and your current level both tactically and strategically.  I've often found that a book that seemed useless a few months ago suddenly becomes my bible.  Also, books that are universally praised can sometimes do nothing for me (Nimzowich's "My System" for example).  Finding the right middlegame book seems to be a confluence of so many factors that it's impossible to just recommend one that will be useful.  It's great when it happens, but often I find myself slogging through books that are supposed to be good without seeing much benefit.

Just my two cents,
Scott
  

"Behind every beautiful thing there's been some kind of pain"  - Bob Dylan
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gerry1970
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 482
Joined: 02/01/06
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #25 - 12/05/07 at 22:53:59
Post Tools
Hello All:

It's funny how Silman polarises chess players so much. It is a very good book for beginners+ as the explanations are lengthy narratives as opposed to endless variations. He does not give a panacea and does also state that everything depends on the specifics in the position.

I think many higher rated players forget what it's like to be rated 1600.

And at the rate I am going on PlayChess I will not have to remember; I will be back there soon.  Smiley

Take care,

Gerry

drkodos wrote on 12/05/07 at 20:11:25:
HgMan wrote on 12/05/07 at 12:09:49:
 I'm sure How to Reassess Your Chess is a clever approach and the puzzles, etc. are well worth someone's time, but I'd rather start with Simple Chess...


It's not that clever, actually.  It's a repackaged and even watered down version of "classic chess demagoguary."  What impresses me most is that he is able to do in 600+ pages, spanning three "seperate" works, what other authors have acheived in less than 100 pages.


Talk about imbalances!



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gerry1970
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 482
Joined: 02/01/06
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #24 - 12/05/07 at 22:48:27
Post Tools
Hello All:

Just reminded by this thread that before Silman's book the two that I could understand were Simple Chess by Stean and Positional Chess by John love. The latter is even more simplistic than Stean's so both would be great starts for a beginner.

Take care,

Gerry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
drkodos
God Member
*****
Offline


I see....stars.

Posts: 778
Location: Jupiter, and beyond
Joined: 03/29/07
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #23 - 12/05/07 at 20:11:25
Post Tools
HgMan wrote on 12/05/07 at 12:09:49:
 I'm sure How to Reassess Your Chess is a clever approach and the puzzles, etc. are well worth someone's time, but I'd rather start with Simple Chess...


It's not that clever, actually.  It's a repackaged and even watered down version of "classic chess demagoguary."  What impresses me most is that he is able to do in 600+ pages, spanning three "seperate" works, what other authors have acheived in less than 100 pages.


Talk about imbalances!


  

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Kiwi
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


"Am l no a bonny fighter?"
[Kidnapped]

Posts: 37
Location: New Zealand
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #22 - 12/05/07 at 19:28:11
Post Tools
"While I'm here, can anyone recommend a good tactics puzzle book. the emms's ultimate chess puzzle book looks good with 1000 puzzles and whatnot."

My Daily Exercise
365 Tactical Tests to Improve Your Chess
Publisher: New In Chess, 2006
Edition: Paperback medium
ISBN-13: 978-90-5691-188-1
Pages: 170
Language: English


The fastest way to win more games of chess is to improve your tactics

Most games of chess are decided through tactics. This is good news, since virtually all players love tactics. The best advice for a novice who wants to improve quickly is therefore: improve your tactical abilities. This books helps in identifying weak points in the position of your opponent, in recognizing patterns of combinations, and in visualizing tricks.

My Daily Exercise is neither just a freewheeling puzzle book, nor a systematic course in which the thematic grouping of the positions gives an unwelcome hint to the solution. Here the tactical themes are clearly explained, but the random order in which the exercises are presented, makes studying the material much more similar to what a player experiences in an actual tournament game.

Tactics are both the wonder and the terror of chess, and regular practice is the key word in getting better at it. The book starts easy, but don’t worry: the level of difficulty will steadily increase. Don’t skip the explanation if you have found the solution, because only if you read the solutions carefully you will maximize the improvement of your skills.

The way in which Heinz Brunthaler, a successful coach and author from Germany, has listed the solutions makes it impossible to take a peek at the key moves of the next exercise. My Daily Exercise is particularly useful during commercial breaks in your favorite television program!

A few minutes a day with My Daily Exercise will make you a much better player



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: Books on the middlegame?
Reply #21 - 12/05/07 at 19:12:46
Post Tools
@Paddy---- regarding Tal-Botwinnik 1960.

I seem to remember something about Ken Neat's critisism of the earlier editions of this translation.
But I recall that in 1997  not everyone agreed with his overall judgement.
Then again, I presently have the sixth edition, and it says (revised and extended).
The fifth edition, which was published in 2000, was edited by Taylor Kingston, who is known
as a chess historian. Unfortunately there is no record wat changes were made in the 5th an 6th ed.
Some passages that have been quoted in other books, seem at least well translated
(example: Koblenz: "Lehrbuch der Schachtaktik Band 2"quotes the larger part of Tal's comments
on the notorious 7th game;Koblenz was Tal's second during the match).
So I don't see any reason to suppose the present edition is unsuitable.

Curiously Ken Neat did the translation of Tal-Botwinnik 1961 (the account of the return match by Botwinnik). I hope that profession envy didnt come into the 1997 controversie.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo