DesperateKingWalk wrote:
It is just a coincidence that you spewed everything on the Wiki including Winter's link.
It is like you wrote the Wiki page.
I guess the only source we need to know is yours.
I'd need to check, but it is quite possible that I added that quote to the Wikipedia page.* It's too bad that Silman's page where Donaldson's review of Kasparov (also referenced on Wikipedia) is now a dead link. I recall reading that review. Donaldson is a good, conscientious historian. His book on Fischer is exemplary scholarship and good reading too.
.
*I checked. If I did any edits on that page, I did so anonymously. Sorry to disappoint.
Exactly!
What is your point. My Great Predecessors is history.
You don't seem to comprehend the nature of history.
Unsourced material is not history.
The last time I check the players and the games are clearly sourced. What are you talking about.
Something that appears to be outside your knowledge base.
Here's an example (not chess related) by a college history teacher: http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/2012/08/youngs-cauldron-redux.html
You'll find nothing like this in Kasparov, who mostly offers the surname of those he quotes, but not a reference to the text quoted, to say nothing of date and place of publication and page reference. As My Great Predecessors was being released, the books were criticized for lack of sourcing. The editors added a partial bibliography to the back of volume 5 in response. Such a feeble reply does not address the criticism.
My Great predessors is a great book, perfect no. But it is considered history, and has won many awards.
The book is still in print, and 1st edition copies have only gained in value.
And many titled players have read this book for a reason.
And even most critics say it is a must read.
I listed the set as one of the ten that got me to class A. The instructive value of Kasparov's work is beyond question. At issue here, however, is its historical value.
.
Consider Edward Winter's review of the first volume:
"The absence of, even, a basic bibliography is shocking in a work which claims to be ‘Garry Kasparov’s long-awaited definitive history of the World Chess Championship’, and a lackadaisical attitude to basic academic standards and historical facts pervades the book."
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/kasparov.html
.
As history, Kasparov's book falls short.
You are not impressing me be your lack of original thought. And just spewing out a Wiki page at me.
I have read all 5 volumes and own the 1st editions. I know of the reviews, and the critics, and the awards this book has gained over the years.
The book is history, of the players, and games of GM Kasparov's predecessors.
My original thought accords with Winter's views. I did not use Wikipedia, but went straight to Chess Notes for the quote: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html
.
I also have first editions of Kasparov's My Great Predecessors. That's not impressive. They were much anticipated and sold well. I've read enough of them to know the defects first hand. Decades of researching and teaching history have also influenced my views.
.
You can learn a lot about the game of chess from Kasparov's books. Time spent with them will help your game. What they teach you of history will be a mix of good information and things that are not so, but you will not know which is which. That's the problem that stems from poor fact checking and no attention to sourcing.
.
I'm rereading and working through certain portions of Monte, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014). That book is exceptional history. My work is derivative. I'm simply using Monte's terrific "Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess" to improve and source my database of Greco's games.
.
For example, ChessBase Mega has this fragment:
David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981) offer a more complete version. From Monte, we can learn that Greco included it in his manuscript dedicated to Sir Francis Godolphin. The date in uncertain, but Monte believes it precedes the manuscript dated 1623 given to Nicholas MountStephen.