Spassky book

Main

Date: 13 Dec 2005 20:19:01
From: Zero
Subject: Spassky book

can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's best games?

I saw one on Amazon called, Spassky by Bernard Cafferty,

there is another one by spassky himself

any ideas?

Date: 28 Dec 2005 19:22:59
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Fischer is better than Spassky.

Sam Sloan

Date: 27 Dec 2005 10:17:00
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Nick wrote:
> Arfur Million wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > > I seem to recall that there was also a book called something like
> > > > "Boris Spassky: Master of Tactics" by Cafferty. Was this the same book
> > > > with a different title, or a completely different work (assuming it
> > > > isn't a figment of my imagination, which is entirely possible)?

I have learned that the later edition is not much different from the
first -- just a few corrections, a slightly different bio, no post-1971
games.

> Someone who has known Bernard Cafferty for many years has told me
> that Bernard Cafferty was, in his prime, about 2400 FIDE in strength.

True. I have learned that Cafferty was about 2440 in the 1971 FIDE
ratings.

Date: 27 Dec 2005 23:47:50
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have learned that Cafferty was about 2440 in the 1971 FIDE ratings.

Exactly 2440, according to the database with Fritz 8. For some reason,
that database doesn't have any of his games between 1972 (rated 2440) and
1995 (2260).

Dave.

--
David Richerby Portable Accelerated Smokes (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a pack of cigarettes but
it's twice as fast and you can take
it anywhere!

Date: 26 Dec 2005 15:03:58
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Spassky book

superchess wrote (Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:32:53 +0100):
> there's also a Spassky book about his playing strategy
> by Dutch author-analyst Jan van Reek, don't know if it
> has been translated yet in English
_
davidf wrote (25 Dec 2005 10:29:45 -0800):
> Yes, it has been translated. O own one (autographed
> by Spassky!). It's a curious book. I have mixed feelings
> about it. van Reek presents it as nothing less as *the*
> next step in chess teory after Ninzowitch. It's presented
> as a deep study on strategy, using Spassky's game's
> and style as illustration. Well I didn't find it as deep as
> the guy says (if it was I wouldn't be able to follow it),
> but I found the analysis of Spassky's games much
> more than mere ilustrative.

_
"it is a *very* bad book. I refer interested readers to:
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review363.pdf " - Taylor
Kingston (rgca, 15 Oct 2005 09:25:41 -0700)

Date: 26 Dec 2005 15:01:58
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Spassky book

superchess wrote (Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:32:53 +0100):
> there's also a Spassky book about his playing strategy
> by Dutch author-analyst Jan van Reek, don=B4t know if it
> has been translated yet in English
_
davidf wrote (25 Dec 2005 10:29:45 -0800):
> Yes, it has been translated. O own one (autographed
> by Spassky!). It's a curious book. I have mixed feelings
> about it. van Reek presents it as nothing less as *the*
> next step in chess teory after Ninzowitch. It's presented
> as a deep study on strategy, using Spassky's game's
> and style as illustration. Well I didn't find it as deep as
> the guy says (if it was I wouldn't be able to follow it),
> but I found the analysis of Spassky's games much
> more than mere ilustrative.

_
"it is a *very* bad book. I refer interested readers to:
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review363.pdf " - Taylor
Kingston (rgca, 15 Oct 2005 09:25:41 -0700)

Date: 25 Dec 2005 10:40:05
From: David Ames
Subject: Re: Spassky book

richard stanz wrote:
> Alas, there really isn't a good English-language book on Spassky. Your
> best bet might be Kasparov's MGP book, which will give you Petrosian at
> the same time. The best pure Spassky book is probably Spassky's 400
> Selected Games by the Chess Stars folks, but you have to be willing to
> put up with Informat codes, rather than plain English game annotations.
>
>
> The Cafferty book you mention used to be the standard, but it is dated.
> If you have your heart set on it, I would stay away from the Harding
> Simpole reprint at $30 and look for a used copy on E-bay. (Also, in
> case this is a problem for you, you should make sure its now in
> algebraic notation. My version of the Cafferty book is an old Batsford
> edition which is in descriptive notation.)
>
>
> Happy hunting,
> Richard Stanz

Or, instead of dealing with opportunists on E-bay, you could connect
with actual book dealers at stated prices through www.bookfinder.com

David Ames

Date: 26 Dec 2005 12:24:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spassky book

"David Ames" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Happy hunting,
>> Richard Stanz
>
> Or, instead of dealing with opportunists on E-bay, you could connect
> with actual book dealers at stated prices through www.bookfinder.com

Sure,
I researched a Russian site for titles by or about Spassky, some of them are
in English, prices are reasonable, I recommend the one by his particular
friend Krogius, especially if you just want game scores //Phil Innes:-

Kostrov "Shall I outplay the World Champion? ". Spb. 2001 (in
two books).
a) " From Steinitz up to Petrosian " - $ 2.8 Add to my cart

b) " From Spassky up to Kramnik " - $ 2.8 Add to my cart

Krogius etc. "Boris Spassky ". Moscow, 2000. In 2 volumes, $20
Add to my cart

Matsukevich, "B.Spassky-R.Fischer", in English, 1992, $23.6. Add
to my cart

"Boris Spassky. A way up", 1996, $4.5. Add to my cart

"Boris Spassky's 300 wins", 1999, p.380, in English, $26.4. Add
to my cart

Boleslavsky, Bondarevsky, "World Championship match
Petrosian-Spassky, 1969", 1970, $20. Add to my cart

"Petrosian-Spassky", 1969, $5. Add to my cart

"Petrosian-Spassky. World Championship match", 1966, $9.8. Add
to my cart

Bondarevsky, "Boris Spassky conquers the Olymp", 1966, $14.9.
Add to my cart

Chess special issue "Semi-final candidate match Spassky-Karpov",
$15. Add to my cart

One addendum, I also found the following which features most of the
games by Sultan Khan, also at a good price

Matsukevich, "The comet of Sultan-Khan", Moscow 2003, p.255, $
16.8.
The book about misterious Indian chess-player Sultan-Khan
(1905-1966), who flashed on the Europian chess scene in 1929-1933. He was
the most unique and original talent of the 20th century. He has played only
198 tournament games, 120 of them are in this book. All the games are
annotated. Besides there are a lot of rare photos and pictures.

> David Ames
>

Date: 25 Dec 2005 10:29:45
From: davidf
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Yes, it has been translated. O own one (autographed by Spassky!). It's
a curious book. I have mixed feelings about it. van Reek presents it as
nothing less as *the* next step in chess teory after Ninzowitch. It's
presented as a deep study on strategy, using Spassky's game's and style
as illustration. Well I didn't find it as deep as the guy says (if it
was I wouldn't be able to follow it), but I found the analysis of
Spassky's games much more than mere ilustrative.

Date: 24 Dec 2005 06:24:04
From:
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Chess One wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I never met Alexander and no, he
> > never whacked Alekhine. But who did?
> --------
> didn't O'Death? I'll research it.
>
> i see he beat Bronstein after a game lasting 13 hours [!]
>
> Sunnocks says [unsure of her sense of current tense] he beat 2 world
> champions, Euwe and Botvinnik. And of other GMs:-
>
> Gligoric, Pachman, Bogoljubov, Tolush, Szabo, Bronstein, Flohr, Tartakover,
> Najdorf, O'Kelly and Matanovic.
>
> looks like you are right that he never beat Alekhine. he edited Alekhine's
> best games 38-45.

Skinner & Verhoeven's collection of 2,543 Alekhine games lists four
vs. Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander:

Hastings, 1 January 1934: draw, 32 moves, Petrov's Defense
Nottingham, 22 August 1936: Alekhine wins, 27 moves, Queen's Indian
Defense (special prize for most brilliant kingside attack)
gate, 31 ch 1937, Alekhine wins, 42 moves, Four Knights Opening

gate, 28 April 1938, draw, 50 moves, French Defense

So, there appears to be no serious game in which Alexander "whacked
Alekine with a Dragon."

Date: 23 Dec 2005 17:34:12
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Chess One wrote:
> Did you ever encounter CH O'Death? I thought he was a home counties player
> with a much bigger Dragon. Didn't he whack Alekhine with it? [in Nottingham?
> 36?]

Skinner & Verhoeven's collection of 2,543 Alekhine games lists four
vs. Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander:

Hastings, 1 January 1934: draw, 32 moves, Petrov's Defense
Nottingham, 22 August 1936: Alekhine wins, 27 moves, Queen's Indian
Defense (special prize for most brilliant kingside attack)
gate, 31 ch 1937, Alekhine wins, 42 moves, Four Knights Opening
gate, 28 April 1938, draw, 50 moves, French Defense

So, there appears to be no serious game in which Alexander "whacked
Alekine with a Dragon."

Date: 23 Dec 2005 16:02:43
From:
Subject: Re: Spassky book

I am PH Clarke's biographer, I modestly add, and at his best he was IM
strength, No.2 in England in 1958. I never met Alexander and no, he
never whacked Alekhine. But who did?

Date: 24 Dec 2005 11:27:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spassky book

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am PH Clarke's biographer, I modestly add, and at his best he was IM
> strength, No.2 in England in 1958.

5 times second in Brit championship and played in 7 Olympiads, as you know.
You like his book on Tal the best or Petrosian?

Don't leave out the man's eyebrows! They were a significant part of his
expression. Huge great things which quivered. He played board 1 for Cornwall
until Mickey Adams took over top spot. There are some Redruth players who
knew him pretty well, the current Cwll Treasurer, eg. Also Nick C who writes
here sometimes.

I played garet twice. 1:1

> I never met Alexander and no, he
> never whacked Alekhine. But who did?
--------

didn't O'Death? I'll research it.

i see he beat Bronstein after a game lasting 13 hours [!]

Sunnocks says [unsure of her sense of current tense] he beat 2 world
champions, Euwe and Botvinnik. And of other GMs:-

Gligoric, Pachman, Bogoljubov, Tolush, Szabo, Bronstein, Flohr, Tartakover,
Najdorf, O'Kelly and Matanovic.

looks like you are right that he never beat Alekhine. he edited Alekhine's
best games 38-45.

Was =second to Keres, Notts 1938. 1st in 1947, =1st with Bronstein in 1953.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Date: 23 Dec 2005 10:12:48
From:
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Bernard got to board eight in the England team but was never of full IM
strength, about 2400 at his cautious best, around the time he wrote the
Spassky book, which is not in algebraic in any edition, and stops at
1972 in its newest form. However, BC is 2700++ in the matter of chess
translation from the Russian, as is his colleague, PH Clarke.

There is a Soltis book which you may prefer, out of print but try ABE.
If you like inforamtor symbols, Spassky's 400 Best Games is much more
topical.

As I say, Soltis or Cafferty are friendly authors. Even a beginner
would learn something.

James Pratt (Basingstoke!)

Date: 23 Dec 2005 18:26:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spassky book

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bernard got to board eight in the England team but was never of full IM
> strength, about 2400 at his cautious best, around the time he wrote the
> Spassky book, which is not in algebraic in any edition, and stops at
> 1972 in its newest form. However, BC is 2700++ in the matter of chess
> translation from the Russian, as is his colleague, PH Clarke.

I knew Peter, he was our county captain. Converting Brit ratings, Peter was
in chess, maybe 2250 around 1970. He ran a chess book business and there was
a lot of Russian material on his table. He was a dragon and Queen's Indian
player.

> There is a Soltis book which you may prefer, out of print but try ABE.
> If you like inforamtor symbols, Spassky's 400 Best Games is much more
> topical.
>
> As I say, Soltis or Cafferty are friendly authors. Even a beginner
> would learn something.
>
> James Pratt (Basingstoke!)

Did you ever encounter CH O'Death? I thought he was a home counties player
with a much bigger Dragon. Didn't he whack Alekhine with it? [in Nottingham?
36?]

Cordially, Phil Innes

Date: 23 Dec 2005 21:34:51
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Spassky book

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1jXqf.14$7S2.10@trndny09...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bernard got to board eight in the England team but was never of full IM
>> strength, about 2400 at his cautious best, around the time he wrote the
>> Spassky book, which is not in algebraic in any edition, and stops at
>> 1972 in its newest form. However, BC is 2700++ in the matter of chess
>> translation from the Russian, as is his colleague, PH Clarke.
>
> I knew Peter, he was our county captain. Converting Brit ratings, Peter
> was in chess, maybe 2250 around 1970. He ran a chess book business and
> there was a lot of Russian material on his table. He was a dragon and
> Queen's Indian player.

That's an interesting way of characterizing a player -- I assume you are
referring to their favored defenses against 1.e4 and 1.d4. What I find
interesting is that after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 throughout most of chess praxis
3.Nc3 (which makes the "Queen's Indian 3...b6 dubious) has been more popular
than 3.Nf3 (when, of course, the lessened control of e4 allows 3...b6 and
the Queen's Indian).

For many years, I could have been described as a "Pirc/Sicilian and
Nimzo-Indian player." Even though I played 3.Nf3 b6 from time to time, my
priy motive in playing the 1...Nf6 and 2...e6 move order was to play the
Nimzo-Indian.

Randy Bauer

Date: 23 Dec 2005 23:25:54
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Spassky book

En/na Randy Bauer ha escrit:

> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1jXqf.14$7S2.10@trndny09...
>
>>I knew Peter, (...) He was a dragon and Queen's Indian player.
>
> That's an interesting way of characterizing a player -- I assume you are
> referring to their favored defenses against 1.e4 and 1.d4. What I find
> interesting is that after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 throughout most of chess praxis
> 3.Nc3 (which makes the "Queen's Indian 3...b6 dubious) has been more popular
> than 3.Nf3 (when, of course, the lessened control of e4 allows 3...b6 and
> the Queen's Indian).
>
> For many years, I could have been described as a "Pirc/Sicilian and
> Nimzo-Indian player." Even though I played 3.Nf3 b6 from time to time, my
> priy motive in playing the 1...Nf6 and 2...e6 move order was to play the
> Nimzo-Indian.
>
> Randy Bauer

Well, ...
The players who play 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 usually met both two moves (3.Nc3
and 3.Nf3)

After 3.Nc3 there are two main answers 3...Bb4 and 3...d5

After 3.Nf3 there are 4 main answers 3...b6, 3...d5 3...Bb4 and 3...c5
(there are people who prefer to play QG only when exchange variation is
avoided, and there are people who only play Benoni after f4 lines are
avoided)

There are different combinations (for Nimzoindian players):
Nimzo+QI
Nimzo+QG
Nimzo+Bogo
Nimzo+Benoni

I supppose the original post as being refered to this first one.

AT

Date: 23 Dec 2005 21:59:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spassky book

"Randy Bauer" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:%3_qf.429173$084.96378@attbi_s22...
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1jXqf.14$7S2.10@trndny09...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Bernard got to board eight in the England team but was never of full IM
>>> strength, about 2400 at his cautious best, around the time he wrote the
>>> Spassky book, which is not in algebraic in any edition, and stops at
>>> 1972 in its newest form. However, BC is 2700++ in the matter of chess
>>> translation from the Russian, as is his colleague, PH Clarke.
>>
>> I knew Peter, he was our county captain. Converting Brit ratings, Peter
>> was in chess, maybe 2250 around 1970. He ran a chess book business and
>> there was a lot of Russian material on his table. He was a dragon and
>> Queen's Indian player.

> That's an interesting way of characterizing a player -- I assume you are
> referring to their favored defenses against 1.e4 and 1.d4. What I find
> interesting is that after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 throughout most of chess praxis
> 3.Nc3 (which makes the "Queen's Indian 3...b6 dubious) has been more
> popular than 3.Nf3 (when, of course, the lessened control of e4 allows
> 3...b6 and the Queen's Indian).

Adorjan had been giving me chess lessons on the pathetic basis that I will
understand them. He did pretty well for Kasparov, then Leko, and is
currently reduced to me.

Yes. 3... b6 is the QI proper. I have never actually played it! You?
I play 1... Nf6 then punt early. Maybe 2. ...g7 or 2... c5 against almost
anything. Do you know the Adorjan gambit? Rekably I have never met a
sub-200 player who knows it.

[LOL - I am playing a game on a writing newsgroup against someone at the
moment, it is a closed Sicilian Dragon [I am black], and I expect him to
sacrifice in order to stay in the game since I have won a piece in 8 moves.
I don't think he is a good player so am proceeding without view of the board
to make it lunatic!]

But your point above is which colour to attempt to control - the white or
black squares? Black's issue will be how to develop adequately, and if White
presses just a mite too hard, how and where to counterpunch - which is AA's
lesson material.

What do you do against d4 and c4 Randy? And where comes your counterpunch
which establishes equality, and maybe a bit more?

> For many years, I could have been described as a "Pirc/Sicilian and
> Nimzo-Indian player."

Yes, understand.

> Even though I played 3.Nf3 b6 from time to time, my priy motive in
> playing the 1...Nf6 and 2...e6 move order was to play the Nimzo-Indian.

Another question - is there a point in your opening repetoire where you see
no futher? Like, you wait on White's move, since the initiative apparently
rest with White, but the game formation is already determined by your play
as black? At what move does this occur in your play [if at all?]

Cordially, Phil

> Randy Bauer
>

Date: 24 Dec 2005 18:05:13
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Spassky book

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:Eq_qf.60$xb4.22@trndny02...
>
> "Randy Bauer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%3_qf.429173$084.96378@attbi_s22...
>>
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:1jXqf.14$7S2.10@trndny09...
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Bernard got to board eight in the England team but was never of full IM
>>>> strength, about 2400 at his cautious best, around the time he wrote the
>>>> Spassky book, which is not in algebraic in any edition, and stops at
>>>> 1972 in its newest form. However, BC is 2700++ in the matter of chess
>>>> translation from the Russian, as is his colleague, PH Clarke.
>>>
>>> I knew Peter, he was our county captain. Converting Brit ratings, Peter
>>> was in chess, maybe 2250 around 1970. He ran a chess book business and
>>> there was a lot of Russian material on his table. He was a dragon and
>>> Queen's Indian player.
>
>> That's an interesting way of characterizing a player -- I assume you are
>> referring to their favored defenses against 1.e4 and 1.d4. What I find
>> interesting is that after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 throughout most of chess
>> praxis 3.Nc3 (which makes the "Queen's Indian 3...b6 dubious) has been
>> more popular than 3.Nf3 (when, of course, the lessened control of e4
>> allows 3...b6 and the Queen's Indian).
>
> Adorjan had been giving me chess lessons on the pathetic basis that I will
> understand them. He did pretty well for Kasparov, then Leko, and is
> currently reduced to me.
>
> Yes. 3... b6 is the QI proper. I have never actually played it! You?
> I play 1... Nf6 then punt early. Maybe 2. ...g7 or 2... c5 against almost
> anything. Do you know the Adorjan gambit? Rekably I have never met a
> sub-200 player who knows it.

I used to play 3...b6 when I was wanting to play a solid game; I had good
results with the old main line with 9...c5. In situations where I needed
something more dynamic, I usually offered to play the Benoni with 3...c5.

The Adorjan gambit with ...b5 in the Nimzo? Yes, I'm familiar with it but
haven't ever played either side of it. My recollection is it's analyzed in
his book "Black is OK" (which is an excellent book, although I think his
recent sequel is very uneven).

(snip)
>
> What do you do against d4 and c4 Randy? And where comes your counterpunch
> which establishes equality, and maybe a bit more?

I played (and wrote a bit about) the Pirc for many years, and it's a good,
solid defense that appeals to my fondness for a kingside fianchetto,
hypermodern play against the center and open lines for both bishops. I've
played just about every variation of the Sicilian over the years. When I'm
feeling "creative" I've trotted out the Modern and Nimzovich from time to
time. Against 1.d4 I had a long and mostly painful relationship with the
King's Indian Defense. I've done much better with the Nimzo-Indian/Queen's
Indian. I also played the Benko Gambit for many years, and fool around with
various move orders to get to the Dutch, since I don't like some of white's
independent alternatives after 1.d4 f5.
>
>> For many years, I could have been described as a "Pirc/Sicilian and
>> Nimzo-Indian player."
>
> Yes, understand.
>
>> Even though I played 3.Nf3 b6 from time to time, my priy motive in
>> playing the 1...Nf6 and 2...e6 move order was to play the Nimzo-Indian.
>
> Another question - is there a point in your opening repetoire where you
> see no futher? Like, you wait on White's move, since the initiative
> apparently rest with White, but the game formation is already determined
> by your play as black? At what move does this occur in your play [if at
> all?]

I guess I don't quite understand what you mean. In terms of depth of my
repertoire, it's a lot further out there in the Pirc than in, say, the
Modern, which tends to be more amorphous.

Randy Bauer

>
> Cordially, Phil
>
>> Randy Bauer
>>
>
>

Date: 24 Dec 2005 23:32:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spassky book

"Randy Bauer" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:t5grf.645464$x96.188275@attbi_s72...
>
> I used to play 3...b6 when I was wanting to play a solid game; I had good
> results with the old main line with 9...c5. In situations where I needed
> something more dynamic, I usually offered to play the Benoni with 3...c5.

Me too. It was new at the time, Larsen was essaying it. You can even offer
to swp Queens 15 moves later a pwn down and still be better.

> The Adorjan gambit with ...b5 in the Nimzo? Yes, I'm familiar with it but
> haven't ever played either side of it. My recollection is it's analyzed
> in his book "Black is OK" (which is an excellent book, although I think
> his recent sequel is very uneven).

Yes. I will not report your comment to him since it is not sufficient for a
response. But if you said more, he is an okay guy to repond directly to you.
------------
>>
>> What do you do against d4 and c4 Randy? And where comes your counterpunch
>> which establishes equality, and maybe a bit more?
>
> I played (and wrote a bit about) the Pirc for many years, and it's a good,
> solid defense that appeals to my fondness for a kingside fianchetto,
> hypermodern play against the center and open lines for both bishops. I've
> played just about every variation of the Sicilian over the years. When
> I'm feeling "creative" I've trotted out the Modern and Nimzovich from time
> to time. Against 1.d4 I had a long and mostly painful relationship with
> the King's Indian Defense. I've done much better with the
> Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian. I also played the Benko Gambit for many
> years, and fool around with various move orders to get to the Dutch, since
> I don't like some of white's independent alternatives after 1.d4 f5.

Well, I could have written the same stuff. But like you, cannot answer my
own question, since probably I am not good enough!!

[The question resides in when to counterpunch, and how? Is this a typical b5
thrust and sacrifice which yields massive initiatie? If I could get this
then I could play with the stars, no? but... :))) ]

-----------\

>> Another question - is there a point in your opening repetoire where you
>> see no futher? Like, you wait on White's move, since the initiative
>> apparently rest with White, but the game formation is already determined
>> by your play as black? At what move does this occur in your play [if at
>> all?]
>
> I guess I don't quite understand what you mean. In terms of depth of my
> repertoire, it's a lot further out there in the Pirc than in, say, the
> Modern, which tends to be more amorphous.

I am not adequate to speak my intention.

But its Christmas Eve and I have yet to wrap stuff, and tragically our
conversation will go no further?

Merry Christmas to you man, and to yours.

Phil

> Randy Bauer
>
>>
>> Cordially, Phil
>>
>>> Randy Bauer
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 18 Dec 2005 06:38:15
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Chess One wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Someone who has known Bernard Cafferty for many years has told me
> > that Bernard Cafferty was, in his prime, about 2400 FIDE in strength.
> > He believes that Bernard Cafferty was stronger than Phil Innes
> > (who has claimed to have been rated '2450')
>
> No I haven't 'claimed to have been /rated/ 2450' - but I did play at that
> strength for a season or two.

"My qualifications for saying so is (sic) that I was nearly an
international master, with a rating of 2450..." - Philth Innes,
September 21 2004.

Date: 17 Dec 2005 15:20:04
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Spassky book

superchess wrote (Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:32:53 +0100):
> there=B4s also a Spassky book about his playing strategy
> by Dutch author-analyst Jan van Reek, don=B4t know if it
> has been translated yet in English

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (14 Dec 2005 05:36:35 -0800):

> Unfortunately, it has, under the title "Grand Strategy: 60
> Games by Boris Spassky." It is an absolutely dreadful
> book. Avoid it.

_
"I refer interested readers to:
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review363.pdf " - Taylor
Kingston (rgca, 15 Oct 2005 09:25:41 -0700)

Date: 17 Dec 2005 15:00:48
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Alan OBrien wrote (Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:01:14 GMT):

> "Louis Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 20 Sep 2005 19:04:38 -0700
> >> I don't believe that he has actually
> >> written one himself. Thanks.
> >_
> > As far as I know, that's true.

_
"I don't believe that he has actually written
one himself. Thanks" - rudysanford (rgca,
19 Sep 2005 17:17:53 -0700)
_
"As far as I know, that's true." - Nick
(rgca, 20 Sep 2005 19:04:38 -0700)

Date: 17 Dec 2005 14:24:52
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Arfur Million wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Arfur Million wrote:
> > > I seem to recall that there was also a book called something like
> > > "Boris Spassky: Master of Tactics" by Cafferty. Was this the same book
> > > with a different title, or a completely different work (assuming it
> > > isn't a figment of my imagination, which is entirely possible)?
> >
> > That was a 1991 reissue of Cafferty's 1972 Spassky book. I have not
> > seen it, so I do not know if post-1971 material was added, but blurbs
> > I've seen indicate it is substantially the same, if not identical to
> > "Spassky's 100 Best Games." Perhaps the notation was changed from
> > descriptive to algebraic.
>
> Ah, thank you. I remember borrowing the "100 Best Games" version from
> the library when I was a lad, and being very impressed but the book
> and, of course, the games. Some years ago, I had a chance to acquire a
> second-hand copy of "Master of Tactics" without seeing it, but wasn't
> sure if it was the same book or not. IMHO, Cafferty is one of the group
> of not-that-strong players who write excellent chess books.

'Not-that-strong' is a comparative term.

Someone who has known Bernard Cafferty for many years has told me
that Bernard Cafferty was, in his prime, about 2400 FIDE in strength.
He believes that Bernard Cafferty was stronger than Phil Innes
(who has claimed to have been rated '2450') and Taylor Kingston
(who has claimed to have been rated '2300+').

--Nick

Date: 18 Dec 2005 01:48:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spassky book

"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message

> Someone who has known Bernard Cafferty for many years has told me
> that Bernard Cafferty was, in his prime, about 2400 FIDE in strength.
> He believes that Bernard Cafferty was stronger than Phil Innes
> (who has claimed to have been rated '2450')

No I haven't 'claimed to have been /rated/ 2450' - but I did play at that
strength for a season or two.

> and Taylor Kingston
> (who has claimed to have been rated '2300+').

Who transposed a known postal to OTB rating, which is also not exactly 'a
claim', as it is merely fallacious to mix the two.

And you? Should I assume your answer to be associated with your own
motivation for writing of these things - it is after all the common one, in
both senses of comon ;)

Phil Innes

> --Nick
>

Date: 14 Dec 2005 15:30:28
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Louis Blair wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote (14 Dec 2005 05:36:35 -0800):
> > "Grand Strategy: 60 Games by Boris Spassky"
> > [by Jan van Reek] is an absolutely dreadful book.
> > Avoid it.
> _
> What about:
>
> Boris Spassky's 400 Selected Games
> by Sergei Soloviov

I have not seen that, but Stephen Ham gave it a rather negative
review:

www.chesscafe.com/text/review381.pdf

I had a similar verdict on its predecessor from that same publisher,
"Boris Spassky's 300 Wins":

www.chesscafe.com/text/stars.txt

I have not seen the others you ask about.

> Boris Spassky, Volume 1
> by Krogius, Golubev & Gutsait
>
> http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=6&PID=783
>
> Boris Spassky, Volume 2
> by Krogius, Golubev & Gutsait
>
> http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=6&PID=784
>
> Boris Spassky - 10th World Champion (CD)
> by Grandmaster Khalifman (and others)

Date: 14 Dec 2005 15:22:03
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Spassky book

20 Sep 2005 19:04:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Book on Spassky
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
[email protected] wrote:
> Which book about Boris Spassky is the best?
> The Spassky section in Kasparov?
> Soltis? Cafferty? Someone else?

"Boris Spassky's 400 Selected Games"
by Sergei Soloviov is a good choice.

If you can read Russian, then you may consider
"Boris Spassky" (two volumes) by
Krogius, Golubev, and Gutsait.

> I don't believe that he has actually
> written one himself. Thanks.

As far as I know, that's true.

--Nick
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Date: 8 Oct 2005 14:49:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Book on Spassky
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
[email protected] wrote:
> Which book about Boris Spassky is the best?
> The Spassky section in Kasparov?
> Soltis? Cafferty?

The main drawback today of the books by Andrew Soltis
and Bernard Cafferty about Boris Spassky's games is
that their coverage had to stop (given when those books
were written) before Spassky's 1972 match with Fischer.
Although GM Andrew Soltis is a stronger player than
Bernard Cafferty, I regard Cafferty's book as better
because it has more of Spassky's games (100 > 70)
and Cafferty writes more detailed annotations.

--Nick
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Date: 16 Dec 2005 09:01:14
From: Alan OBrien
Subject: Re: Spassky book

"Louis Blair" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 20 Sep 2005 19:04:38 -0700

>> I don't believe that he has actually
>> written one himself. Thanks.
>
> As far as I know, that's true.

I believe he has *written* a book on his games in the Candidates' Final v
Kortschnoi in Belgrade 1977. He took a lot of flak for his behaviour in that
match, and he wanted to set the record straight. He says no publisher was
interested soon after, and probably less so now.

Date: 14 Dec 2005 14:36:16
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Louis Blair wrote:
> What about:
>
> Boris Spassky's 400 Selected Games
> by Sergei Soloviov
>
> http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=6&PID=343
>
> Boris Spassky, Volume 1
> by Krogius, Golubev & Gutsait
>
> http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=6&PID=783
>
> Boris Spassky, Volume 2
> by Krogius, Golubev & Gutsait
>
> http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=6&PID=784
>
> Boris Spassky - 10th World Champion (CD)
> by Grandmaster Khalifman (and others)

Deja vu...

In rec.games.chess.analysis, there's a (September - October 2005)
thread, 'Book on Spassky', in which I suggested the books (above)
by Soloviov and Krogius, Golubev & Gutsait. I also commented
there on the books about Spassky by Cafferty and Soltis.

--Nick

Date: 14 Dec 2005 14:08:43
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Taylor Kingston wrote (14 Dec 2005 05:36:35 -0800):
> "Grand Strategy: 60 Games by Boris Spassky"
> [by Jan van Reek] is an absolutely dreadful book.
> Avoid it.

_
What about:

Boris Spassky's 400 Selected Games
by Sergei Soloviov

http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=6&PID=343

Boris Spassky, Volume 1
by Krogius, Golubev & Gutsait

http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=6&PID=783

Boris Spassky, Volume 2
by Krogius, Golubev & Gutsait

http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=6&PID=784

Boris Spassky - 10th World Champion (CD)
by Grandmaster Khalifman (and others)

http://www.classicalgames.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=001397&Category_Code=dc

Date: 14 Dec 2005 12:36:03
From: richard stanz
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Alas, there really isn't a good English-language book on Spassky. Your
best bet might be Kasparov's MGP book, which will give you Petrosian at
the same time. The best pure Spassky book is probably Spassky's 400
Selected Games by the Chess Stars folks, but you have to be willing to
put up with Informat codes, rather than plain English game annotations.

The Cafferty book you mention used to be the standard, but it is dated.
If you have your heart set on it, I would stay away from the Harding
Simpole reprint at $30 and look for a used copy on E-bay. (Also, in
case this is a problem for you, you should make sure its now in
algebraic notation. My version of the Cafferty book is an old Batsford
edition which is in descriptive notation.)

Happy hunting,
Richard Stanz

Date: 14 Dec 2005 06:39:37
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Arfur Million wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Arfur Million wrote:
> > > I seem to recall that there was also a book called something like
> > > "Boris Spassky: Master of Tactics" by Cafferty. Was this the same book
> > > with a different title, or a completely different work (assuming it
> > > isn't a figment of my imagination, which is entirely possible)?
> >
> > That was a 1991 reissue of Cafferty's 1972 Spassky book. I have not
> > seen it, so I do not know if post-1971 material was added, but blurbs
> > I've seen indicate it is substantially the same, if not identical to
> > "Spassky's 100 Best Games." Perhaps the notation was changed from
> > descriptive to algebraic.
>
> Ah, thank you. I remember borrowing the "100 Best Games" version from
> the library when I was a lad, and being very impressed but the book
> and, of course, the games. Some years ago, I had a chance to acquire a
> second-hand copy of "Master of Tactics" without seeing it, but wasn't
> sure if it was the same book or not. IMHO, Cafferty is one of the group
> of not-that-strong players who write excellent chess books.

Quite so. Cafferty's also an excellent translator of Russian works
(e.g. "Think Like a Grandmaster), and one of the most knowledgeable
Westerners on the history of Soviet chess.

Date: 14 Dec 2005 06:25:26
From: Arfur Million
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Arfur Million wrote:
> > I seem to recall that there was also a book called something like
> > "Boris Spassky: Master of Tactics" by Cafferty. Was this the same book
> > with a different title, or a completely different work (assuming it
> > isn't a figment of my imagination, which is entirely possible)?
>
> That was a 1991 reissue of Cafferty's 1972 Spassky book. I have not
> seen it, so I do not know if post-1971 material was added, but blurbs
> I've seen indicate it is substantially the same, if not identical to
> "Spassky's 100 Best Games." Perhaps the notation was changed from
> descriptive to algebraic.

Ah, thank you. I remember borrowing the "100 Best Games" version from
the library when I was a lad, and being very impressed but the book
and, of course, the games. Some years ago, I had a chance to acquire a
second-hand copy of "Master of Tactics" without seeing it, but wasn't
sure if it was the same book or not. IMHO, Cafferty is one of the group
of not-that-strong players who write excellent chess books.

Regards,
Arfur

Date: 14 Dec 2005 06:09:37
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Arfur Million wrote:
> I seem to recall that there was also a book called something like
> "Boris Spassky: Master of Tactics" by Cafferty. Was this the same book
> with a different title, or a completely different work (assuming it
> isn't a figment of my imagination, which is entirely possible)?

That was a 1991 reissue of Cafferty's 1972 Spassky book. I have not
seen it, so I do not know if post-1971 material was added, but blurbs
I've seen indicate it is substantially the same, if not identical to
"Spassky's 100 Best Games." Perhaps the notation was changed from
descriptive to algebraic.

Date: 14 Dec 2005 06:03:31
From: Arfur Million
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Taylor Kingston wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Zero wrote:
> > > can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's best games?
> > >
> > > I saw one on Amazon called, Spassky by Bernard Cafferty,
>
> You mean "Spassky's 100 Best Games"? That is a very good book, though
> it stops at 1971.

I seem to recall that there was also a book called something like
"Boris Spassky: Master of Tactics" by Cafferty. Was this the same book
with a different title, or a completely different work (assuming it
isn't a figment of my imagination, which is entirely possible)?

Regards,
Arfur

Date: 14 Dec 2005 05:36:35
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Spassky book

[email protected] wrote:
> Zero wrote:
> > can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's best games?
> >
> > I saw one on Amazon called, Spassky by Bernard Cafferty,

You mean "Spassky's 100 Best Games"? That is a very good book, though
it stops at 1971.

> there=B4s also a Spassky book about his playing strategy
> by Dutch author-analyst Jan van Reek,
> don=B4t know if it has been translated yet in English

Unfortunately, it has, under the title "Grand Strategy: 60 Games by
Boris Spassky." It is an absolutely dreadful book. Avoid it.

Date: 14 Dec 2005 16:28:00
From: Alan OBrien
Subject: Re: Spassky book

"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[email protected] wrote:
> Zero wrote:
> > can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's best games?
> >
> > I saw one on Amazon called, Spassky by Bernard Cafferty,

You mean "Spassky's 100 Best Games"? That is a very good book, though
it stops at 1971.

Taylor, I would not call it a *very* good book. I remember it as being full
of spelling mistakes and it had one humorous howler.

In the list of Spassky's career totals the colums "+ = -" had been
transposed to "- = +" thus making it look like Spassky lost heavily against
almost every opponent.

Another downside is that the games are in descriptive - a feature which
becomes less and less appealing to me with every passing year.

The games are good, of course.

Date: 14 Dec 2005 22:23:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spassky book

"Alan OBrien" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Zero wrote:
>> > can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's best games?
>> >
>> > I saw one on Amazon called, Spassky by Bernard Cafferty,
>
> You mean "Spassky's 100 Best Games"? That is a very good book, though
> it stops at 1971.
>
> Taylor, I would not call it a *very* good book. I remember it as being
> full of spelling mistakes and it had one humorous howler.

I was lucky and found a hardback with ripped spine but costing only $3.50 in
second hand store. There are some interesting games in it, including those
try-out openings which were big innovations at the time, like the Mod Benoni
1955 [page 63] .

What is interesting is the commentary [or annotation] see 10th move to 10.
B-Kn5 ? and "A standard developing move of the sort a club player readily
makes. From a GM one expects a deeper penetration into the essence of the
position and 10. N-Q2 was required!"

Another note at 19 in the same game says "too slow and passive."

At the time this was big news, since black had come up with a set-up giving
white GMs a problem. Later Larsen gave the whole opening an even greater
boost.

The book has 3 Fischer references in the Index, as well as 3 against
Bronstein and Furman, and 2 for Keres, and 5 against Petrosian and Geller.
There is a good Dragon game against Geller p. 164. played 1965.

I agree that descriptive is tough unless you are playing out the moves on a
board. QB5 is 2 different squares, depending on whose move it is.

Phil

> In the list of Spassky's career totals the colums "+ = -" had been
> transposed to "- = +" thus making it look like Spassky lost heavily
> against almost every opponent.
>
> Another downside is that the games are in descriptive - a feature which
> becomes less and less appealing to me with every passing year.
>
> The games are good, of course.
>

Date: 14 Dec 2005 14:32:53
From:
Subject: Re: Spassky book

Zero wrote:
> can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's best games?
>
> I saw one on Amazon called, Spassky by Bernard Cafferty,
>
> there is another one by spassky himself
>
> any ideas?
>
there�s also a Spassky book about his playing strategy
by Dutch author-analyst Jan van Reek,
don�t know if it has been translated yet in English