"Elista Diaries: Karpov-Kamsky 1996" by Anatoly Karpov and Ron Henley, 1996 R & D Publishing, Figurine Algebraic, Softcover, 332pp., $29.95 Reviewed by Glenn Budzinski "Elista Diaries" is a record of Anatoly Karpov's 1996 FIDE World Championship match victory over Gata Kamsky, as seen through the eyes of Karpov and his second, American Grandmaster Ron Henley. This is a thick book, 332 pages total, with plenty of games. Material is segregated into five chapters: "The Kings of Chess," which provides two games and a brief sketch of each of the previous World Champions, beginning with Steinitz in 1886 (Morphy is also recognized as the first "unofficial" champion); all Kamsky's games from the 1993 Biel Interzonal up to his match with Karpov are furnished under "Kamsky's Road to Elista"; Karpov's games leading up to Elista, beginning with his 1995 match victory over Boris Gelfand, are contained in Chapter 3; "Previous Karpov-Kamsky Encounters" is just that: a record of the 20 games they played against each other prior to Elista; and, finally, representing about one-third of the book, are the eighteen games of the 1996 World Championship match, complete with annotations. Additionally, there is also a Forward by Karpov, the authors' Introduction, brief bios on Karpov and Henley, an Index of Players and an Index of Openings. There is no doubt that this book contains a lot of material. The collection of both players' games against each other, as well as their individual roads to the title match, are attractive features, but the "heart and soul" is the games of the World Championship match. (In fact, one could argue that the principal attraction to ANY World Championship book should be the games of that match.) Reviewing games invariably means assessing the quality of the annotations. In this instance, a comparison was made between the commentary of "Elista Diaries" and that contained in the well-regarded publications of "New In Chess" and "Inside Chess", both of which also provided relatively complete coverage of the match. NIC featured annotations by Karpov and Jan Timman, while Yasser Seirawan and Larry Christiansen performed the duties for "Inside Chess". Unfortunately, it is this writer's view that none of the published annotations were sufficiently detailed to do justice to the games. Of course, a prevalence of similar commentary was discovered (not exactly a shock, considering that Karpov was responsible for "Elista Diaries" and much of the NIC material). Annotations to games 6, 10 and 14, were examined in detail. Game 6 was a 29 move Karpov victory playing the Black side of the Petroff; Game 10 was a wild, 59 move Kamsky win with the White pieces, where both kings spent much of the time near the middle of the board, and Game 14 was a positional win with Black by Karpov. Game 6 was analyzed by Karpov in NIC and Seirawan for IC. Seirawan mentions Karpov's previous experience with the Petroff; Karpov relates it to "changing horses" in "Elista" but is silent on the opening in NIC. All three sources similarly highlight the significant amount of time used by Karpov on 8...Qh4 and believe that White would have chances after the alternative, 8...Nxc3. Karpov gives 10...Qg4 a "!" in both places, while Seirawan cites an alternative, 10...Qf6, as leading to a White advantage. Karpov in "Elista" offers 10...Qh3 11 Re1+ Be6 12 Rb1 0-0-0 13 Qf3 as giving White an active queen. The move 11...Kd8 is awarded an "!" twice by Karpov; Seirawan references 11...Kf8 as an option, which led to an equal position in Magem Badals- Illescas, Pamplona 1996. He suggests an improvement in that game, however, which could've turned things into a White advantage. Karpov includes Magem Badals-Illescas in "Elista", but merely mentions 11...Kf8 as deserving consideration in NIC. Seirawan awards 21 Kg2 a "?" and offers 21 Qc2!? Ke8 22 c5 bxc5 23 Bxc5 Kf8. Karpov states that he "did not understand" 21 Kg2, in both "Elista" and NIC. All three sources give 26...Bg4 a "!". Karpov doesn't comment; Seirawan notes that White's problems started with 21 Kg2. 27 Bd2 is given "??" by Seirawan, "?" in "Elista" and "??" in NIC by Karpov. Seirawan suggests 27 f4, which would've made Karpov find 27...Bc5; Karpov cites the same in both sources, but includes more detailed analysis in NIC. Game 10 was a lively affair. Jan Timman, who provides the analysis of this game for NIC and Christiansen who did the same for IC, both mention that Kamsky opened with 1 d4 for the first time in the match. After 12...g6, Karpov explained his rationale in "Elista" that there was no obvious way to take advantage of this kingside weakening created by this move. Timman highlights the subsequent 13 h4 as being a turning point in the game. Christiansen awards 13 h4 a "!" but offers no analysis of it or the prior 12 g6. The move 15...c8 caught the attention of all three sources. Timman cites Christiansen's suggestion of 15...0-0-0! as being better for Black if White replies 16 b4, but goes on to recommend 16 0-0 as leading to a White advantage. Karpov presents no analysis and simply notes that he spent a "great deal of time along here." Christiansen recommends 18...Qe6 in place of Karpov's 18...a5 in the game and suggests that Black gets compensation for the pawn minus after 18...Qe6 19 Qxe6 fxe6 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 Rxh8 Bxh8 22 Bxg6+ Ke7. Timman makes note of Christiansen's analysis, but still believes that White is for choice after 23 Bc2. Karpov cites 18...Qa6 as deserving attention. Timman gives 21...Bf6 a "?" and, again similar to Christiansen, recommends 21...Rd8. Karpov is silent. On the other hand, Karpov offers lengthy analysis of 28...f6 and recommends 28...Kd7! instead. He concludes that "Black would certainly not be worse." Here, at perhaps a critical point in the game, there is no comment at all from either Timman or Christiansen. Rather than 31...Kd6, Karpov suggests that 31...Rb8 gives him good counterplay. Once again, silence from Timman and Christiansen. Controversy surrounds 33...Nxe5. Karpov states that 33...Bxe5 is "the correct capture" after which "it is not clear who stands better." He offers 34 Bf4 Re8 35 Nf6 Re6 36 Bxg6 Nxg6! Timman and Christiansen both give 33...Bxe5 34 Bf4 with Black getting the worst of it. Christiansen also cites 33...Kc7 as an equally bad alternative. (Okay, so who's right here?) Karpov gives 34...Qd5 a "?" and recommends 34...Qe6! which results in a drawn bishop ending (after much analysis). Timman is silent and Christiansen only states "if 34...Re8 35 Nf6 wins." In the game, Kamsky subsequently won a piece and garnered the full point thereafter. Game 14 is a neat positional crush by Karpov playing the Black pieces. Timman in NIC and Yasser Seirawan in IC both mention that Kamsky willingly allows a Nimzo-Indian for the first time in the match; they also cite the voluntary withdrawal of the bishop after 9...Bd6. Karpov calls 15 Bb3 "a novelty" and goes on to state that 15 Qh3 gets White "nowhere". Timman and Seirawan recommend 15 h4, although Timman does not disagree with Kamsky's 15 Bb3 as played in the game. Seirawan gives 24 Nc3 a "?" and advocates 24 Ng3 Be6 25 e4. Timman carries the line through one move farther and opines that 25...h4 leads to a Black advantage. Karpov only addresses 24 Nh4 Be4 25 Nc3 g5 as costing a piece. The move 26...Kf7 engenders disagreement among the sources. Karpov calls 26...Kg7! "more precise". Although Timman agrees with Karpov, Seirawan sees nothing wrong with the move played, suggesting "if 27 Rf1 Kg6 28 Rf2 Bd3". All agree that 30 Nc5 is an improvement over 30 Ne2 played by Kamsky and that 33...Na7 and 44...d4 were first-rate. Karpov made his additional pawn good and forced Kamsky's resignation on move 62. Karpov's analysis in "Elista" may not be as comprehensive as one might wish, but it does get to the point. In many instances, it is more detailed than that offered in either "New In Chess" or "Inside Chess." Despite the obvious similarities between Karpov's commentary as contained in "Elista" and NIC, his "Elista" annotations appear to be somewhat more substantive. Of course, it is beyond the scope of this review to even begin to consider the similarities between NIC and IC comments. Although commentary to the World Championship games in "Elista Diaries" is acceptable for the most part, the inclusion of games by previous World Champions is of questionable value. There is nothing particularly profound either about Karpov and Henley's annotations or the short biographies of each player. In the opinion of this writer, this section does little more than occupy space. Perhaps one can agree to Karpov's recognition of Morphy as the first "unofficial" World Champion. However, when such a view is presented on the same page with the statement "American Harry Pillsbury...was no doubt the best player in the world at the turn of the century" (Page 85), Karpov's blatant pandering to the American chess book-buying public is obvious to even diehard Morphy and Pillsbury fans like this writer. The ultimate question is whether it's worth spending about $30 for a paperback on the Elista match. As a reviewer in today's big bucks world of chess books, it would not be difficult to justify such a lofty price tag, since this is one of the few books available on the match and Karpov and Henley have provided a thorough, objective accounting. Nonetheless, $30 IS $30. Despite the additional ancillary information and the somewhat more effective annotations provided by "Elista Diaries", the reader needs to decide just how interested he is in this particular match. In the event that he has already received coverage through either "New In Chess" or "Inside Chess" and he is not a big fan of either Karpov or Kamsky, he may decide that his money is better spent elsewhere.