Karpov's Strategic Wins 1+2

[Michael Yip]

I just received them a couple of days ago

Volume 1(1961-85) 76 Games 458pp
I read the first 52 games
General format is to present games from every year.
Overall a good book but not outstanding. Some of the game selections are puzzling but the author has excluded any games covered in another book on Karpov's Endgames(105 endings). Many games have complete games nested in the notes. There's a big variation in the depth and quality of annotations.

Annoying quirks are needless statistics on the results of moves played by Karpov and opponents without relevant explanations. Some judgements on the level of the game played left me very puzzled. Quality Chess Website excerpt sample undersells this book by quoting Game 1, where Karpov played as a child. Honestly can't think why this game was included let alone praised (seemed as Karpov played like a 1700 and his opponent much worse).


Volume 2(1986-2010) 67 Games 576pp
By far the stronger of the 2 books
Looks like a first class book. I need more time to go through it.

Overall I like these books. Written for all levels with many basic explanations for the moves which seem really obvious as author is just describing what is happening in the game

[Michael Yip]

Re: Karpov's Strategic Wins 2

A very good book and likely candidate for 'Book of the Year' prize somewhere. The publisher again does an accidental job of underselling the book by giving the first annotated game Winants-Karpov Brussels 1986. This is a nice game once you go through it but not of the stature of most of the games in the book.(I've gone through the first 35 game)

Although the book is entitled 'Strategic Wins' going through the games reveals how Karpov is a fabulous tactician using tactics as a tool to further strategic aims and control the game. It's hard to see how one can be a strong strategist without being a strong tactician at the same time.

Many of the games have complete games nested in the notes in a large enough format for easy reading. There are so many masterpieces (my subjective opinion) I can hardly put the book down. The author continues with some annoying quirks in his annotations
-speculating on the players thoughts
-citing statistics which do not necessarily add to the strategic explanantions

As usual there are some long variations, variations with explanantions and just plain little explanations. Also some needlessly obvious commentary. I found it easiest to play through the games and any complete games in the notes and ignore any comments not attaced to variations. Big variations I'm going to leave as another project. Most of the games are works of art where the moves will speak for themselves.

The book can appeal to a wide range of readers from 1600+ up. There is included alot a biographical information presented as a summary of activity year-to-year.

Sadly there are still a large number of games left unpublished or insufficiently annotated still deserving a wider public audience.