The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century, Ranked

Rating:
Summary: A lifetime of love ..... plus great chess too!
Review: I first want to say this is a very fine hard-back book. (It was also a little on the expensive side. Maybe it will be cheaper when - and if - it comes out in paperback.) But it is a great book and may be Soltis's best book ever. (!!) From such a prolific author as this one, that - in itself - is saying a lot!

(Also, if you would like much more info on this book ... AND on Soltis's list, please visit my web page devoted to "The (All-Time) Best Games of Chess Ever Played," at ...)

The author made a very large list of over 7,000 games, (!) then narrowed this list down to around 300 games, and then winnowed it down to the best 100 - using come of the most exacting criteria and the most rigorous research data I have ever seen used for chess games.
He graded the games according to the following criteria: (On a scale of 1 to 20!)
# 1.) Overall Aesthetic Quality.
# 2.) Originality.
# 3.) Level of Opposition.

# 4.) Soundness, Accuracy, Difficulty.
# 5.) Breadth and Depth.

Now I will not give you his list of the ten best chess games here. (You can see which games he picked on my web site and see a discussion of that list there.); But I will tell you I have problems with his list. (And his methodology. See below.) For instance, he rejects Adams - Torre, (New Orleans, 1920.); as a possible fabrication. I think this is unfair and an unproven accusation. (I personally like that game very much and would probably place it in one of the prettiest games ever played. It's maybe THE game for exploiting a weak back-rank.)
He also dismisses 2 other games as fakes, and they probably are. (Alekhine's infamous 5-Queen game vs. N. Grigoriev is positively, absolutely a fake. And there are strong enough suspicions about Botvinnik - Chekover; Moscow, 1935 - to disqualify it as well.)
He also considers postal games together with regular, over-the-board chess, and I have a slight objection to that, as it is like comparing apples and oranges. He also blows off some other pretty good games, such as Nimzovich's "Immortal Zugzwang Game," which was a personal favorite of mine. And he tosses several others for lacking "breadth and depth." (Games like Spassky - Petrosian; Game # 19, World Champ. Match, 1969. Or Keres - Botvinnik; USSR Absolute Championship Tournament, 1941. Both of these games, IMOHO, deserve to be in the, "100 Most Beautiful Games of All Time.") And upon reflection, I must admit that some of his criticisms are valid in certain cases. But overall, his list is interesting, yet in a way - controversial. But when a writer of Soltis's stature picks a list like this, you have to pay attention. (And I will also admit to being a big fan of Andy's.)

METHODOLOGY: A note on Andy Soltis's methodology. At first glance, it would be easy to look at this book, and assume that GM Soltis was very objective. But upon deeper examination, there are MANY problems with the methods that he used. For instance, he had five categories, and he numbered these from 1-20. But what were the exact criteria used? Logically, the larger the gap, the more open to interpretation the numbers are. I might grade a game as an "18" for originality. Soltis might give the same game a score of only 15. (Or much less!) I would have chosen a much smaller bandwidth, with a very exact criterion. For instance, "10" might be "GM opposition with above average defense." A "9" might be " a GM opposition with only average defense." Etc. If Soltis had been more exact in his criteria or further elucidated what his standards were, then we would know more - and have a greater confidence - in the choices that he made. As it is, I think his choices are as subjective as the next person. The only thing that gives his choices any weight at all is the name of the author. And I do not believe that is enough. Personally, I have much more confidence in the methods used by Nunn, Emms, and Burgess in their list. (See my web page on this topic.)
Some of the games that many others consider as the best of all time are left completely off of GM Soltis's list. If you are going to have a major problem with that, then maybe you should consider not getting this book.

[another] One of the nice things about Soltis's book? He goes into great detail about some of the other efforts to define the best games. He also has a very nice list of the "Near-Misses," (Games other authors may have - or may not have - ranked very highly. All very thoroughly annotated.) And some of the "Most Over-Rated Games." (Games Soltis considers being not worthy of the best games list.)

But in the long run, you can argue over the choices all you like. In the end, you would still have to ask yourself, is this book worth the money I am going to pay for it? And the answer is a resounding yes!! You would NOT buy this book to learn OR improve. BUT ... you would definitely do BOTH if you purchased this book and carefully played through all the games contained within. No, buy this book because you love the game, and are curious to see what the author picks as the "100 Most Beautiful Games of the 20th Century." You will be informed, entertained and delighted as only few authors can. This author is maybe the best chess writer in the U.S. today.

This book is the culmination of a lifetime of devotion to the game!! 'Nuff said?