I like his game vs Chernikov more dashkee, but to each his own.
Best aggresive games to study
Sort:
He had a lot of great games to choose from, jetfighter; I wish I could play one like him.
dashkee94 wrote:
If you can't learn from Morphy, what makes you think you can learn from Tal? At your rating, understanding Morphy is essential. I mean, look at it this way: Most people disrespect Morphy because of the lack of adequate competition. They say he never faced opponents that really knew defense, or pawn structures, or developement, or endgame theory, etc. And what about the opponents you face? People that don't know defense, pawn structures, developement, endings....sounds familiar, doesn't it? And Morphy absolutely destroyed his opponents. So who better to study from? I broke 2000 USCF a couple of years ago, and let me tell you, I still learn from Morphy's games. The foundation of modern chess rests on Morphy, so you need to get some understanding of his games before you can progress to the modern players.
A few other players you might want to look at are H. N. Pillsbury and Rashid Nezhmetdinov. Nezhmetdinov played Tal five games, and blew Tal off the board in four of them--it looked like Tal playing Tal. He had some of the most brilliant wins in chess history, his win against Polugaevsky is one of the best ever.
Your point about the oppisition is excellent
yeah I'm starting to look at chess from an economics point of view instead of the artistic viewpoint i've been using. simply because I've started to realize how unsound my play can be looking for that artful attacking masterpiece.
dashkee94 wrote:
A few other players you might want to look at are ... Rashid Nezhmetdinov. ... He had some of the most brilliant wins in chess history, his win against Polugaevsky is one of the best ever.
And over the head of most non-masters, as well as outside the skill set of some engines.
This article has become a giant argument about Morphy.
Ziryab wrote:
dashkee94 wrote:
A few other players you might want to look at are ... Rashid Nezhmetdinov. ... He had some of the most brilliant wins in chess history, his win against Polugaevsky is one of the best ever.
And over the head of most non-masters, as well as outside the skill set of some engines.
True, his games are over the head of most non-masters, but so is Tal, and if that's what he wants to study, well, then, have at it. I don't really study RN's games; it's more like playing them over and admiring them.
If you can't learn from Morphy, what makes you think you can learn from Tal? At your rating, understanding Morphy is essential. I mean, look at it this way: Most people disrespect Morphy because of the lack of adequate competition. They say he never faced opponents that really knew defense, or pawn structures, or developement, or endgame theory, etc. And what about the opponents you face? People that don't know defense, pawn structures, developement, endings....sounds familiar, doesn't it? And Morphy absolutely destroyed his opponents. So who better to study from? I broke 2000 USCF a couple of years ago, and let me tell you, I still learn from Morphy's games. The foundation of modern chess rests on Morphy, so you need to get some understanding of his games before you can progress to the modern players.
A few other players you might want to look at are H. N. Pillsbury and Rashid Nezhmetdinov. Nezhmetdinov played Tal five games, and blew Tal off the board in four of them--it looked like Tal playing Tal. He had some of the most brilliant wins in chess history, his win against Polugaevsky is one of the best ever.