Great Moments in Advertising: New in Chess Says Timman is Better Qualified to Write About Kasparov's Matches than Kasparov

How can someone write such a thing with a straight face? Here's a bit of ad copy (received by email; I haven't managed to find it on the web) promoting Jan Timman's new book, The Longest Game: The Five Kasparov-Karpov Matches for the World Chess Championship:

From 1984 to 1990 Garry Kasparov and Anatoli [sic] Karpov played five matches for the World Chess Championship. The matches lasted a staggering total of 14 months. The two K's played 5540 moves in 144 games, and in the end the score was only 73-71 in Kasparov's favour.

It was front page news all over the world.

I have always wondered why the fiercest rivalry in sports history had never resulted in a single book that told the full story and explained the chess . [sic]

Now such a book exists, written by the man who is probably the best qualified person in the world to do so.

In The Longest Game Jan Timman chronicles the many twists and turns of the fascinating saga, including his behind-the scenes impressions, and takes a fresh look at the games.

Timman annotates 50 key games and 17 fragments, in a much more accessible and objective way than has ever been done before, Kasparov’s own forests of variations included.

I'm sure it's a very good book - Timman's books typically are - and I intend to buy a copy. But saying that Timman is "probably the best qualified person in the world" to write about the Kasparov-Karpov matches is prepare-the-electric-shock-therapy crazy. (Alternatively, one might prefer the standard idiom these days, which makes reference to a flying mammal and its digestive processes.) One can reasonably believe that Timman will be more objective than Kasparov when it comes to evaluating some of the behind-the-scenes matters, like the stoppage of the first match, but it's also possible that Kasparov's knowledge of how things worked in the USSR gives him the better perspective.

No doubt it will be interesting to compare their reports and opinions. But when it comes to the chess, Timman is the vastly inferior player, and it's absurd and perhaps even offensive to pretend that he could be the best qualified player for the most important aspect of the matches: the chess itself. Kasparov is past his prime, obviously, but he still held his own in rapid and blitz against the world's best players in 2016 and 2017. Even now he's still clearly able to play chess at a 2700+ level. Timman, by contrast, never got higher than a 2680 rating - in 1990 - and is presently 2540. The point isn't to insult Timman, who was one of the world's best players for a couple of decades and played for one of the world championship titles in 1993 (and an outstanding study composer as well), but to show that the ad copy is ridiculous.

Two further peccadilloes: First, note the use of the adjective in the phrase "single book". Chess fans who have been around for a while know that Kasparov wrote three books on his games with Karpov, and the matches are distributed across the three books. But to younger players, or those who haven't followed chess literature very closely, they may read it as "there are no books on the matches that tell the full story and explain the chess". (Yes, he refers to Kasparov's analysis, but doesn't note that it's from a book or series of books by Kasparov himself. For all the reader knows, it could have been in ChessBase, or the Informant, or New in Chess Magazine, or somewhere else.)

Second, the little dig at Kasparov's "forests of variations" also induces the grinding of teeth. Aren't they thoughtful? They don't want their poor readers to hurt themselves looking at deep lines. (Isn't it awesome that the analysis can be more objective than Kasparov's without Timman's needing to delve as deeply into the variations?) Poor wittwe weader might get a headache! (Maybe the concept can be improved even further - see this "review" of another book, and this fuller review of its sequel, for a promising suggestion.)

It's condescending, and readers shouldn't appreciate it even if they prefer their annotations to be relatively light. If the occasional "forest" is required to get at the truth of a given position, so be it. I trust Kasparov (and Mozart) more than the ad man when it comes to the issue of "too many notes". The reader may not always want to bother with the full analysis and that's fine, but the analysis should be there all the same - especially for something as grand as the "fiercest rivalry in sports history", between two of the greatest players of all time. (If the ad man wants to say, "That's what Kasparov's books are for," then he's conceding that the Kasparov books are objectively greater (at least for the analysis), and Timman's is simply useful as a one-volume abridgement. And note that it is an abridgement, covering fewer than half of the games. While there were a few short and boring draws when Kasparov was in survival mode in the first match, very few of the games in the next four matches were of that sort. That it is an abridgement is significant, and one more reason why this book cannot claim to be "the full story".)

I'd also add that the "forests" weren't as dense as the ad suggests. Yes, there are some games when Kasparov goes to town - though he's never Huebnerian (for those of you who get the reference) - but for the most part the lines are manageable, with a lot of talk. And for some of the games - some of the Zaitsev Ruys, for instance, like games 14 and 16 of the 1986 match - I don't see how one can even pretend to have covered those games without some deep analysis. (And if Timman does cover such games in the way they deserve, I wonder if New in Chess will have a little note telling the reader to take some aspirin or Tylenol while pleading for forgiveness.)

So once again, let me say that Timman is a fine analyst and I'm very likely to get the book. But please, ad people, just tell the truth about the book. Timman was a leading grandmaster and remains a strong player and analyst, as his award-winning book from two years ago (Timman's Titans) will attest. There's no need for over-the-top claims that insult the reader's intelligence.

Isle of Man, Rounds 5-7

But mostly rounds 6 and 7. My comments about round 5 will be limited to the difficulties experienced by two members of the semi-old guard: Vladimir Kramnik and Boris Gelfand. Kramnik's travails were already noted in the preceding post, while Gelfand's suffering began in that round. After a solid 3-1 start, he lost in round 5 to S.P. Sethuraman, and from a position that would normally be impossible to lose. He was clearly better in a rook and bishop ending with even material, but hallucinated his way into a lost bishop ending a pawn down.

In round 6, he doubled down on this, losing to Anna Zatonskih from a winning position. To her credit, she made things tricky in time trouble and devised a dastardly trap, but normally Gelfand would have cashed in on at least one of the winning positions he enjoyed in the game. After this, he took a bye to stop the bleeding.

Speaking of players who needed byes, Hou Yifan took one after playing her fourth female opponent in a row, and has bounced back against the men, winning in round 6 and 7. She has five points and plays Sebastian Bogner in round 8.

Another player who has bounced back a bit is Kramnik, who won with White in round 6 (no problem there - he has gone 3-0 with White, albeit against much lower-rated opposition) and then finally won a game with Black in round 7, employing the Benko Gambit for the first time in his life (or so said the commentators at one moment; is should be checked to see if he transposed into one via a King's Indian or a Benoni). Despite all his miseries in the tournament, he has 4.5 points and will play Sethuraman in round 8.

James Tarjan, one of the players who contributed to Kramnik's earlier sorrows, has continued to play well. He bounced back from his unnecessary loss to Niclas Huschenbeth in round 4 by drawing with Sabino Brunello (2555), beating Pavel Tregubov (2589), and drawing with Rasmus Svane (2595). His 4-3 score is good for a 2654 TPR.

Still one more member of the old guard deserves some praise: Jan Timman. Like Tarjan, he's both 65 and has the initials "J.T." More relevantly, he has also had success against elite players. No wins over 2800s, but four draws against players who are or have been rated over 2700. That's a fine result, and he has gone undefeated so far. He gets another 2700 in round 8, David Howell.

Two noteworthy norm aspirants are Aman Hambleton and Ramesh Praggnanandhaa. Hambleton is well-known for his mighty beard, which he intends to keep until he achieves his third GM norm. He had been in the running until he lost a defensible ending to Gabriel Sargissian in round 6. Praggnanandhaa is a 12-year-old who has already achieved a 2500 rating (and is already the youngest IM ever, achieved at the age of 10 years, 10 months, and 19 days), but has no norms. If he can achieve them in the next five months or so, he can break Sergey Karjakin's record for the youngest GM ever. He was in the running until round 7, but his loss to Varuzhan Akobian probably put an end to his hopes in this tournament. He's playing an untitled 2384 in round 8, which seals it.

Now let's turn to the leaders. Going into round 6 there were two tournament leaders, Pavel Eljanov - who won this tournament last year - and the world champion, Magnus Carlsen. Carlsen cheekily played Owen's Defense with Black, albeit against 1.Nf3 rather than 1.e4 (after the latter move it's considered somewhat dubious), and won with remarkable ease. That gave him the clear lead, and although he only drew against the fast-rising Indian star Santosh Gujrathi Vidit in round 7 (with difficulty, with White) he's still half a point ahead of his pursuers.

The most notable among them is perhaps Fabiano Caruana, who will have White against Carlsen in round 8. He drew in round 6 and defeated Gawain Jones in round 7, thanks largely to some fine preparation. He has 5.5/7, as does Hikaru Nakamura, Eljanov, Vidit, and Emil Sutovsky.

Another half a point back is a large group that includes Viswanathan Anand and Hou Yifan, along with the U.S. players Akobian and Aleks Lenderman. Lenderman remains undefeated after drawing his last four games; his TPR is 2793, 6th highest in the tournament. (The top two TPRs, by a long way, belong to Carlsen and Caruana at 2893 and 2873, respectively.) Unfortunately for American fans, Akobian and Lenderman are paired for round 8.

Here are the leading pairings for round 8:

• Caruana (5.5) - Carlsen (6)
• Nakamura (5.5) - Sutovsky (5.5)
• Vidit (5.5) - Eljanov (5.5)

Finally, here is a selection of games from the past three rounds.

A Look Back at Karpov-Timman, 1993

Last week Anatoly Karpov and Jan Timman contested a friendly four game match, won by Timman 2.5-1.5 after a win in game 3. The match wasn't particularly memorable and little was at stake, but it harkened back to a time when they were both at or near the absolute top of the chess world. This was mostly true for Karpov and especially true for Timman in 1993, when they fought for the then-vacated FIDE World Championship title in the wake of Garry Kasparov's and Nigel Short's secession. That match - the Karpov-Timman one - is the subject of my World Chess column this week.

Short Interviews with Great Players

Boris Gelfand, Alexei Shirov, Jan Timman and other stars sit down for brief interviews, which you can find here.

Old News: Gupta Wins Hoogeveen Open, Timman Defeats van Foreest

A few days ago I mentioned the goings-on at the chess festival in Hoogeveen. Two of the events had finished and two were still ongoing, so here I'll tidy things up and report on the then-unfinished events.

First, then, the Open. Abhijeet Gupta, Benjamin Bok, Jan Werle and Das Neeloptal co-led with a round to go with 6/8. The pairings worked out "nationalistically": the Dutch players Bok and Werle were paired, and likewise the Indians Gupta and Neeloptal. The Dutch players drew, but it was a long fight in a Meran that Bok, with black, came close to winning. The other game, between Gupta and Neeloptal, was also sharp, but it was neither long nor drawn. Neeloptal collapsed in the opening, a complicated variation of the Catalan, and faced with the loss of a piece he resigned on move 20. Gupta thus won the tournament, half a point ahead of Bok, Werle, and Deep Sangupta, who defeated Stelios Halkias in the final round.

Second, the match between Jan Timman and Jorden van Foreest. Timman had won games three and four to clinch at least a draw in the six-game match, and when van Foreest won game five that outcome remained possible. Timman had white in game six and kept everything pretty well under control until his careless or overly optimistic 22nd move. This gave his opponent a chance to win material with 25...Bb5, but he didn't play. Then Timman had a chance to be much better with 27.dxe6, but another unsound sac left him in trouble again - briefly. 28...Rd2 was winning; instead, Timman was winning two moves later, but when he missed 30.Nxf7! (30...Kxf7 31.Bxd5+ destroys Black's position) and, once again, 31.Nxf7, the game finished in a draw. Timman thus won the match 3.5-2.5.

The Love for Wood

That is the enigmatic title of a Dutch documentary from 1979, filmed mostly in and around that year's Dutch chess championships, and features mostly Jan Timman, Hans Ree, Ulf Andersson, Jan Hein Donner and Max Euwe. You can watch it below - just make sure to switch on the English subtitles (unless of course you understand Dutch).

A number of games are shown or referred to, and I've done my best to compile them for you, here.

Here's a bonus of sorts. Early on in the film Donner says that "[i]n the split second you touch the piece you'll see more than you have seen in the past 30 minutes or hour in which you have been thinking." This is of course an exaggeration, but it is true that players very often recognize their move (or their intended move) to have been a mistake the instant after they touch the piece or worse, release it and hit the clock. As if on cue, I had paused the film above shortly after seeing Donner's comment, and then before having the chance to return to the documentary watched the following blitz game online:

At 2:10 Alexander Morozevich, with Black, plays ...a5, and after thinking for 24 seconds his fellow GM, Vladimir Belous, plays the queen from d1 to d2, and only then recognizes that it's a blunder - Black will play ...g5 winning a piece. At least that's what I assumed. It makes sense of the move he finally does play another 20 seconds later, Qc1. Ironically, though, three moves later Belous plays e3, allowing ...g5 anyway. I'm not completely sure he intended it as a piece sacrifice, both because his compensation dries up pretty quickly and because I think I detected a tiny expression of surprise/shock right after he made his move - but I could be wrong, and will leave it to you to decide. At any rate, I suspect that many of you could share horror stories of moves recognized as blunders a moment after it is too late.

Unive, Day 4: Two More Draws

And so Anish Giri has a 3-1 lead over Alexei Shirov and Baadur Jobava a 2.5-1.5 lead against Jan Timman in their showcase six-game matches at the Unive chess tournament.

Unive, Day 3: Draws in Both Matches

Both Alexei Shirov and Jan Timman were pressing today against Anish Giri and Baadur Jobava, respectively, but in the end both games were drawn. Giri leads 2.5-.5 and Jobava leads 2-1 going into the rest day. Three rounds remain in these sub-events of the Unive chess tournament.

Ongoing: Unive: Giri vs. Shirov and Jobava vs. Timman

This fun event (the Unive chess tournament), comprising a pair of six-game classical matches, began Sunday in the Dutch city of Hoogeveen. The marquee match is between Dutch prodigy Anish Giri and Latvian superstar Alexei Shirov of "fire on board" fame. If Shirov were playing at his best the match would be a toss-up, but his results have been declining the last couple of years and in the last few months his results have been awful. Indeed, Giri leads 2-0 so far, and if this keeps up he might bridge the 14-15-point gap separating him from the top 6 in the world.

The second match is between top Georgian grandmaster Baadur Jobava and Dutch legend Jan Timman. Their first game was drawn, but Timman lost the second game after a couple of blunders. (He had been under some pressure, but objectively the position was fine.)

Recently Completed Events: Karpov Beats Timman 2.5-1.5

One of the sub-events in Groningen over the Christmas holiday was a 4-game match between former world chess champion Anatoly Karpov and Dutch great Jan Timman. The match commemorated their FIDE World Championship match 20 years prior, and finished with the same result: Karpov won. The first three games were drawn, but Karpov won a nice technical game to close out the match - have a look.