Time Paradox in Botvinnik's article???

I was reading the book: The Magic Tactics of Mikhail Tai
Learn from the Legend, by Karsten Muller and other authors.

At page 11 there is an article of reflections written by Botvinnik, but there is something which doesn't make sense.

Please read this quotation from page 12, and see if you can discover why this article cannot be possibly be written by Botvinnik: "As far as his chess development is
concerned, Mikhail Nekhemevich Tal (9. 11 . 1936 till 28. 6. 1992). who came from a middle-class Jewish family, was really hardly a prodigy according to today's standards. Whereas, for example, Sergey Karjakin became a grandmaster at 12 and seven months or Magnus Carlsen,
the youngest No. l in the world of chess. at 13 . four months and 2 7 days (both were born in 1990) ."

Now I expect that if the authors write something in the middle of an article by Botvinnik to state it clearly. In this case the last part mentioning Carlsen and Karjakin, cannot be possibly written by Botvinnik because he died in 1995.

Was the bold text in your post bold in the article? If so that was intended to signify an other writers addition to the piece.

There are rumors that the Russians have a time machine.

      check the copyright; The original book is a little dated. This book that your reading,"Learn From The Legend" IS BASED on the book "Magic Tactics!

No, I put the bold text, because otherwise if you don't have the book, how do you understand what I'm referring to, or the particular part which is perplexing?

Maybe you are confusing this book, copyright in 2012, with another old one which has been reprinted. Here the authors are: Dr. Karsten Muller and Raymund Stolze. The introduction they write to the book is dated 2010. (This book is printed by New in Chess)

The other book you maybe confuse this one with is: Life and games of Mikhail Tal, by Mikhail Tal, which was printed in 1997 based on a book from the 1970ies. (This one is printed by Everyman)

I find very confusing that maybe they add material inside Botvinnik's article, without putting it between parentheses, or in a note. Because Botvinnik cannot have written that.

The statement also seems shallow. I don't think Botvinnik could have written that. Judging a person's brilliancy based on what age they reach grandmastership instead of the quality of their play hardly sounds like it is coming from Botvinnik at all.

     Your right about my confusing the books. There's been an explosion of publishing in the past 20 yrs. A new writer adds a few pages to an old book, with a new cover, and it becomes a copyright infringement lawsuit for yrs.