<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Overtly biased in style, but still a good collection
Review: "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games" attempts to show to the public what the best chess games of all time have been. Whilst, as one who has on and off read a great deal about chess, I do know quite a bit about the game and the players, there is little doubt that this book, whilst it is highly instructive, does suffer from some flaws.All the games included do have most impressive annotation which permits the most casual reader to be aware of what went on and where the loser went wrong (which might otherwise in these games have been very difficult). The games aim to give players lessons, but here lies the fault: although they seem to be different from game to game, it is fair to say that the differences are not nearly so great that the 100 games included cover all possible problems one might have. This relates to the fact that "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games" focuses far too much on sharp tactical, attacking games and is never going to teach the aspiring player to learn all the necessary skills to become good at chess. There are very few notable endgames included in this book, and the number ofpositional masterpieces is not large either: when they do get included, it is often because direct attacks were involved to some degree in the play. This lack of strategic chess makes "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games" deeply flawed in its selection. The explanation for the book's choices seems almost non-existent, though many of the games were known to me before I first read this book several years ago. On the whole "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games" has a flawed and incomplete selection, but the games themselves do take a great deal of understanding that ought to strengthen most players' abilities.
Rating: 
Summary: Masterpiece at your fingertips
Review: As a chess teacher, I am always looking for books for my students. I have worked with this book since I bought it in 1999. It has a great collection of chess gems with well-illustrated diagrams and analysis. The brief biographical sketches of the opponents is a great introduction for the beginner to chess history. I have followed the career of Dr. John Nunn (Professor of Mathematics)and have played over many of his games which he annotated. This book surely has his imprint, thorough and instructive, but not over-burdeningly voluminous. Simply put, the book gives you a glimps of the beauty and wit of chess without crushing you with too many details. This work is a great introduction for any student beginning chess who wishes to pursue the game with any degree of seriousness and completeness. A great first step, this work shines as a rather neat biographical sketch of chess at the top in the "modern" era of chess. And ... it is more than worth the money. A great chess book at a great value. Bravo! to GM Nunn et al.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots and Lots of games but analysis is not for a beginner
Review: I regretted that I didn't buy this book when I could. The more I read the book, the more I like it. It's not my fault that I miss it in my collection; I will get it one way or another, period. It's the PUBLISHER's FAULT! How could this nice work be packaged in such a lousy paperback format? And the price is very cheap (or very reasonable too.) I certainly MUST NOT complain about the price of the book here! I wish the book had at least the paper and cover quality (maybe 15% more costly but worth it) like the book "Tal-Botvinnik 1960." As you see, the FORMAT and PRICE make me misjudge this book.
I learned my things from the authors' store-telling and endnotes. Two typical examples: Anand-Karpov (19??) (I can't recall the year but will fill it in when I remember. See, I told you, I need the book for my collection badly), Anand made an "in-between move" and caught Karpov's supprise and won the game. And second, the game between Kasparov-Anand (19??), after winning the game, Kasparov said, "I used only 2 minutes for the first 20 moves, but had spent 24 hours for preparation the day before." That says how Karparov is like; and serious players should take notice.
For now, I can only read the book from a local library.
Rating:
Summary: A well-analyzed collection of excellent chess games
Review: If one wants to get collections of chess games, there are other books than this one. For example, one could get the Tartakower volume of 500 games. But I like this book, with only 112 games, a little better.
The book makes use of analyses from the players and others. More important, the authors used a few good chess programs to improve their understanding of these games. That's a big plus. And so, what we see is a bunch of really good fights.
Is this the best way to learn chess? Well, tough fights are a big part of chess. There is more to chess than that, of course. There are books that show how to get big advantages in the opening against tepid play by one's opponent. There are even a few that show how to try to get draws with White against stronger opponents. And there are books that show how to restrict your opponent to a few lines that you can learn extremely well, so that you can survive the opening against anyone weaker than a Master.
Still, this book has games by some great players, and it is fun to play through them. In addition, a few of the games have openings that may have special appeal to some readers. There are more than twenty Sicilian defences, and seven Semi-Slav defences.
The nine players (in alphabetical order) that have at least six games in this book are Anand, Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Lasker, Spassky, Tal, and Topalov. Fans of those players will get to see some detailed analyses of some of their best games.
How strong does one need to be to get anything out of this book? Well, I have a simple answer for that. You need to be a candidate expert (an "A-player") or at least aspire to be one. If you plan to improve at chess, why not see what good chess looks like and see what kinds of styles of play appeal to you? If you are really ambitious, do some of your own analysis and see if you can come up with better lines.
I recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: This is a really good book!
Review: My favorite collection of master games has always been "500 master games of chess" by Tartakower and DuMont. This book has easily replaced that book as my favorite games collection. While "500 master games" is still great- I feel that this is superior for several reasons; 1) it is in algebraic notation 2) the games span a greater time horizon and include a few more modern games 3)the annotations are by world class players 4) the annotations are based upon a more modern understanding of the game, and 5) the "pre-game" commentary describing the players, their syles, and the specific tournament all add to the enjoyment of playing over the games. This instructional, historical, and just plain fun factor of the games is excellent. My hope is that there may eventually be a sequel (volume 2).
Rating:
Summary: An excellent to study great games and the history of chess
Review: Naturally any book like this will have a subjective element to it and people will disagree with the content. In this book however the author's have done an admirable job in selecting the best 100 games.
Each of the games are introduced in terms of the players and then the context in which the game was played. At the end of the game there is also a short section with lessons that can be learned from it.
In this book I particularly enjoyed Nigel Short's King march (game 86) and Anatoly Karpov' triple rook sacrifice (game 90)
Rating: 
Summary: Terrible book, lacking any value-added features
Review: Sorry Morphy fans ... there are none of Morphy's games in this book because none are good enough ... maybe because by the time the competition was strong enough to get the best out of him, his career was already over! If you rule out single-player collections like "Fire on Board", and "My 60 Memorable Games" this is the SECOND BEST collection of games I have ever seen (The best is John Nunn's "Understanding Chess Move by Move") and a great buy for players of any strength. It is a modern equivalent of Tartakover and DuMont's "500 Master Games of Chess" but with vastly better annotations, and more interesting background information. I just wish it had been printed on better paper and with a hard cover.
Rating:
Summary: A Masterpiece!
Review: This is one of the best game collections to date, second only to Zurich 1953...I don't think any of Morphy's games were of the same caliber as most of the games in this book. If you want pretty combinations, buy one of Morphy's game collections. If you want chess at its best, buy this book.
Rating:
Summary: A great cross-section (1834-1997) of the finest games ever
Review: This is the "games collection" that I have been waiting years to find! It is a book of 100 chronologically-ordered, heavily annotated chess games, which the three authors decided upon through some sort of weighted voting system, in which Graham Burgess annotated 50, John Nunn 25, and John Emms 25. It is not a "mammoth"-sized book; it is about the size of a typical bestseller paperback, though somewhat wider. To give you an idea of where the historical concentration of games occurs, Game 1 is from 1834, Game 25 is from 1926, Game 50 is from 1963, Game 75 is from 1981, and Game 100 is from 1997. The most heavily-represented players are Mikhail Tal (11 games), Bobby Fischer (9), Garry Kasparov (8), Anatoly Karpov (8), Jose Capablanca (6), Emanuel Lasker (6), and Boris Spassky (6). I would have expected to see more games from Paul Morphy (0 games!), Adolph Anderssen (2), Harry Pillsbury (2), Tigran Petrosian (2), Wilhelm Steinitz (3), and Alexander Alekhine (4). From those lists, you can probably infer that the book is somewhat skewed toward the modern games. On the other hand, there are only three Karpov-Kasparov games, which surprised me. There is a lot of analysis in the games, with plenty of biographical descriptions and "color". Despite the fact that three different authors did the annotating, there is a very "uniform" feel to the games; it doesn't read like it's three disjointed authors. Maybe that's because three people did the analyzing and one person did the writing. My favorite historical collection of annotated games was always Tartakower & du Mont's famous collection of 500 games, plus a supplemental book of 100 more games, but those left off at around 1950. For a long time those two books were my chess Bible, and so I knew hardly anything about players like Tal, Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov, let alone the less famous players who still had played some amazing games in modern times. Sure, there are several modern collections of games (especially "Winning Chess Brilliancies" by Yasser Seirawan, "Modern Chess Brilliancies" by Larry Evans, and "The Art of Chess Analysis", by Jan Timman), and plenty of collections of best games of individual players, from Paul Morphy to Alexei Shirov. However, I hadn't yet found an individual book that gave you this kind of in-depth perspective across chess history into modern times. This book ranges from the famous 1834 McDonnell-de la Bourdonnais 62nd match game with the three black pawns side by side on the seventh rank, all the way through to games of the last couple of years, like Viswanathan Anand's great attacking games against Anatoly Karpov in 1996 and Joel Lautier in 1997. I think that there is real value, both entertaining and instructive, in seeing comments from the same authors on such a wide chronological range of games. Furthermore, it is very rare to see such modern analysis of older games. Few books released these days seem to cover any games before the 1960's. Often there seems to have been very little added to some of the analysis that was "state-of-the-art" sixty years ago. Most exceptions seem to be connected with John Nunn, like the several algebraic reprints of "Best Game" collections which he has touched up and footnoted, in addition to the new material which he added on to the end of Max Euwe's "The Development of Chess Style." I liked this book best, however, because it covers such a wide range of players, games, and eras. I am very grateful that there are chess writers out there willing to re-examine older games in a modern light, not stopping after pointing out where opening theory has evolved beyond that game, but also continuing on with new analysis of the middle game and end game positions that occurred (or could have) in the game. My greatest chess interest lies in viewing how chess mastery has evolved over the decades, and this book does a better job than any other single book of illustrating that evolution. My only quibble, and it is a small one, is that I would have liked to have seen more older games. I was surprised to find no games at all by Paul Morphy, but Macon Shibut's "Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Style" is a fantastic modern book which covers many of Morphy's games, and so I, in possession of both books, am happy. I only wish that the authors of "The Mammoth Book of the World's Best Chess Games" had done 500 games rather than 100. Maybe we'll see a sequel! In any event, at less than a dime per game for classic games with lots of interesting annotations, this particular book is a great deal. Some of the notes and variations may go beyond beginning players, but it's fun anyway to play over the games and read what experts have to say about them, even if you don't follow all of the conclusions. So I would really recommend this book to anyone with much of an interest in chess history.
<< 1 >>
|
