Mikhail Tal was a remarkable man. His brilliant successes in the years leading up to his World Championship victory excited the chess world; his very ñame be-carne synonymous with brilliance and attacking flair.
'Misha' had a warm and engaging personality without a hint of malice. His en-thusiasm for the game he loved was unquenchable. In his later years he was af-flicted by severe health problems which would have crushed a lesser man, but he never complained about his difficulties and continued to play chess right up to his death. Misha hated to postpone a game; even if he had to slip out of his doctors' grasp, he would try to make it somehow. Despite his fragüe appearance, his attacking powers and astonishingly quick sight of the board remained intact.
My last visit to him was in May 1992, just after he had returned from Barcelona, his last major tournament. He 'showed' me his fine win against Lautier, but was so weak that he had to lie on his back and díctate the moves and analysis 'blindfold' to me, while I played them over on a board. He died on 28th June 1992, and the chess world is a much poorer place for his absence.
I was delighted to be asked by Cadogan Books to work on a new edition of his classic book The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal, which covers his career up to 1975. This is one of those rare chess books which is not only splendidly instruc-tive, but also conveys a real impression of the author's personality.
There was relatively little for me to do apart from convert the moves to alge-braic notation. I corrected some obvious misprints and errors (the incorrect dia-gram for the game fragment on page 61 and the missed mate in one in the analysis of game 90 are typical examples). In some cases there were errors caused by misprints, for instance the accidental omission of moves. I have corrected these without comment (just as an example, I have mentioned one as a footnote on page 150). Likewise, in about 20 academic cases, I have tidied up the end of a variation. I do not doubt that Tal would have agreed to these changes had he still been alive to go over the proofs. If there was any doubt about the analysis, or if the change was in any way significant, my remark appears as a footnote.
To avoid confusión, I should explain that footnotes which are marked 'Editor's note' and Translator's note' are transcribed from the RHM edition. The unattrib-uted footnotes are mine and appear for the first time in this edition.
JohnNunn Chertsey, June 1997
http://www.mediafire.com/?lczg0ym2tvz
Entradas
