So I've been playing chess for about a month now, though I've compressed a fair amount of obsessive studying and playing in that time.  I'm not getting any better just yet, but I'm fairly patient and sure I just need more experience.

My questions are about studying games.  I played through three "instructive games" from a book I had yesterday, and read the annotations very carefully.  Yet I'm not sure whether I really got anything out of it.  Often when I look through games on here I still have no idea why certain moves are being made. 

Is the practice of studying games something that occurs through deeply focusing on particular games, or a gradual learning that occurs from studying games in greater number?  Do you just keep going and start to get it after awhile?

Also, is there any particular advantage to focusing on particular players when studying?  It seems to make sense to me that I could get a grasp on a particular "style" and then move onto another player. 

Thanks!

-Dave K

Unfortunately, we can't improve just by studying one or two games! We require a larger number to obtain the main reasons we study games- one of the foremost being pattern recognition. By studying high-level games and seeing good moves being played in certain positions, we can then incorporate the same ideas into our games later on. Of course, we need to see several games for these ideas to be engraved in our minds.

As per focusing on a single player- some will tell you one side of the argument, some the other. If you focus on a single player, and this player suits your style, it would be a good idea to look over all their games so as to pick up tips on improving your game. If your style is more tactical/aggressive, it would be much less help to you if you studied a player who predominantly played 1. d4, for example. On the other side of things, all players have their flaws and studying a single player may result in you copying their weak points.

Thanks Nytik!

What you say about pattern recognition resonates with what I thought earlier.  I guess studying lots of games adds to the "experience" that I am lacking since I just haven't played that many games. 

As to style, at this early in the process, I'm not exactly sure what my style is yet, if I even have one. 

-DaveK

A good way to discover your style might be to post some of your games in the analysis forum, then other players such as myself might be able to inform you of what we think it is... of course, no-one has a 'direct' style, it's usually a mix of different ideas.

If you are a beginner, I dont think you can learn much from watching GM games. The ideas behind them will be just too complicated for you to understand. You're best bet is definately going through your OWN games, and seeing why you won, or (perhaps more importantly), why you lost, and working out what you could have done better.

One thing that worked for me and isn't much work at all, was to download games from The Week in Chess (a weekly zip file of games played) and quickly play through them using Scid.

No real method. Sometimes I'd look at IM vs IM games, or quick wins, or particular openings, but in all cases I just zipped through them. Must have seen thousands of games this way, none of which I really "studied".

What it's given me is a good idea of what a "normal move" is in a given position. And the best move is very often a normal move.

As RainbowRising says above, it is actually no good to study these high-level games while you're at your rating. Right now, you need to focus on not hanging pieces, something which you seem to do quite often. It might take some work, but just focus on each position and check what your opponents pieces are attacking before making your move.

Even when your blunders are reduced, studying high-level games is still useless. The next step is to practice tactics, tactics, and finally, some more tactics. Things such as pins, forks, skewers, discovered checks, which are all incredibly common at the 1000-1400 level (which you will rise to if you get rid of those hanging pieces!).

When you've got a fair knowledge of tactics, you will need to gain some basic positional understanding. This is things like pawn islands, development, active/non-active pieces, good/bad bishops. Then, when you have gained this knowledge, you can begin to look at high level games and think, "Ah yes, now his opponent has three pawn islands compared to his two."

So, you have a long way to go before study of top-level games is any use to you. The road to this stage is easy for some, difficult for others, but I guarantee with a little hard work and practice, you can get there.

Ok, this is great help.  Thanks!

I found that the book titled 'catastrophie in the opening' was a superb study. It indicates possible pitfalls in a wide variety of openings and this gives an excellent introduction to many different opening ideas.

In terms of styles and famous players, its usually a case of looking at published and annotated games of different players and seeing if any make sense to you, and if so you may then focus on that player.

Of the present day notable English players I think I can understand some ideas of Michael Adams given his classical playing style though he doesnt publish many games, wheras Nigel Short despite playing through many of his games I dont get much from them with the possible exception of the importance he places on the bishop pair.

Good Luck.

Thank You

John Boy

Lots of good ideas in these posts.

As a beginner, you don't have a style, you have weaknesses, trying to figure out your style now would be foolish, and there is a huge risk that it will hamper your growth.

If you want to play through some high-level games and understand why the moves were made, I'd recommend a book called "Russian Chess" by Bruce Pandolfini. The book takes you through 6 games, move by move. At each move, Bruce asks what you would play, and then tells you what move was actually played and *why*. Pandolfini is a US chess instructor who has written lots of books for beginner-intermediate players - I find his style really clear and easy to follow.

Right now I think it's just more games for me, and tactics trainer. (25 a day, beautiful!)

I am also trying to do some chess visualization.   A large part of my blundering comes from seeing the board wrong at times.  I often confuse diagonals or think something can go where it can't.  It's like some mild chess dylexia or something.  I just don't seem to see the board correctly. 

I'm doing the chess visualization trainer here.  So far I'm on just trying to figure out whether a square is white or black.  I don't feel like it's helping my game yet, but I guess it's an initial step. If anybody has any advice in that direction I'd appreciate it. 

I have another question about playing vs. the computer, but I may start a new thread for that particular can of worms.

-DaveK

what about the pieces

do you know which colour belongs to you and which colour the opponent.

are you aware what moves diagonally and or along rows

Thank You

John Boy

 I've had the same problems and more playing is clearing it up.