I only recently received Volume 1 and Volume 2 of Viktor Korchnoi's BEST GAMES collections, and most readers will be very familiar with them. The first consists of 50 games with White, and it won the British Chess Federation Book of the Year award. The second, 50 games with Black, retains the same high quality. I will talk mostly in general terms, since I haven't had time to read them very thoroughly (especially the volume of games with Black).

In my opinion, Korchnoi is easily the greatest player not to win the World Championship after Steinitz' ascendancy. I think that this is becoming generally conceded, notwithstanding the claims of players like Rubinstein and Keres, because of his many great victories in the Championship cycles, his having reached two world championship matches, his tournament successes, and his amazing longevity at the top. He is still a top-ranked player today and going strong after more than 5 decades of play. Of course, the usual problem with misleading book titles exists here: these are by no means Korchnoi's best games, nor does even he say so, ranking quality of games as only fourth among his criteria. Rather, he wants to give examples spread out over his whole career, against as many different opponents as possible, and involving as many different types of openings and positions as possible. He tends to pick a lot of games versus relatively lower opponents, and not even particularly spectacular or ingenious ones, but ones which illustrate special insights and in many cases, intense infighting that requires a strong practical approach. In a way, that's too bad, because so many of his truly brilliant and memorable games are missing. I wouldn't mind seeing a series of his wonderful games versus Spassky, for example, but we get only one in the two volumes. Karpov gets 4 games, and Tal, Polugayevsky, and Geller get 2 apiece. But otherwise, for the most part it tends to be one apiece versus the greats, as with Fischer, Petrosian, and Botvinnik.

These books are highly readable, full of words and opinions (like Korchnoi himself), and without much analytical detail. There are revealing tidbits such as this one pointed out by a friend of mine: “A competent positional player, if he has several plans, does not hurry to carry out one of them. After all, by beginning to implement some plan, he to some extent loses his superiority over his opponent, which in fact consisted of the fact that up till then he had more possibilities than the opponent!” This kind of flexibility seems to contradict the old advice of concentrating upon one plan and consistently pursuing it. Of course, both approaches are appropriate depending upon the position. But Korchnoi's view is in line with Dvoretsky's observation about very few games between strong players being characterized by one overall plan that endures for either player; rather, he talks about limited short-term plans that are constantly adjusted. Another one: “Played according to plan. But all obvious moves look dubious in analysis after the game.” Or: “Pawn advances are justified if they help to solve urgent problems -- strategic or tactical.” Who know if these are meaningful statements, but they are fun! Korchnoi also talks about being guided in very complicated positions by intuition, something that does seem to be more true of him than many great players, although of course he could outcalculate any of us mere mortals when necessary.

In general, I think of Korchnoi as being primarily a classical player (relative to his contemporaries, that is), but looking through these volumes, I would have to say that that is mainly true of his games with White. Despite his heavy use of the English opening (most of the games are 1.d4 systems), I would characterize his play with White as very direct with a great, even extreme, love of space, followed by classical squeezes and direct attacks when the opponent lashes out to free himself. As Black, he is all over the map, playing a great variety of conventional openings in often unconventional style, and finding middlegame counterattacks from the most unlikely and optically disorganized positions.

Unquestionably, these are very fine books that are musts for a chess lover's library. I will say, however, that this is not the most fascinating games collection that I have seen. Many of the comments are quite banal, and one wants more explanation (in terms of moves) for why simple and obvious moves weren't played. The games are high quality but not always absorbing. On the other hand, a lot of what Korchnoi says is fascinating, and I think that the endgames he chooses (just look for the diagrams) are extremely interesting; perhaps some games were chosen on that account alone. In general, this is a book to be enjoyed and studied, with most of its instructional benefits accruing to the developing player.

YOU CAN FIND MY BEST GAMES WITH WHITE AT

YOU CAN FIND MY BEST GAMES WITH BLACK AT