Hi all!

I just wanted to touch on a subject very familiar to all players...improvement! Whether one is stuck on a plateau or steadily progressing it is essential for one to get better and better at chess or it is likely they will give up or put the game down for a while.

Here's my opinion.

Their are many different ways to study and some works for some others for others but I feel this is the best way I have every heard, though it is time consuming.

Study the masters...seems simple right? All of us can say we have poured over gm games and classic duels across the 64 squares but a chess buddy of mine added to this...

Study the history of chess. When we all begin to study we jump around and go everywhere but if you follow chess from its origins you see a lot of similarities to developing players.

For example old greats like Anderson or Morphy played a reckless attacking style similar of beginning players. Studying those games would be very relevant to those players because these games reflect their style. Tactics...as we've all heard is the name of the game until your rating is above 1800...openings and other concepts do play a part but tactics are absolutely essential.

Then as a player progresses in strength more contemporary games become relevant. For example Alekhine was the prototype of the modern grandmaster and studying his style and ways would mean much more to someone around 1750 than it would to someone who's 1300.

Eventually games like Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Anand...they all become more clear as you build on the knowledge of the generation before and the shifts in chess thoughts into the modern era.

I know this may be very stupid and flames may be coming my way from those of you who are very good at chess but I just thought I would post it anyway.

 

Comments???

In general I think it's a good idea, however a lot of the older games have great nuggest of tactics and endgame displays, but the openings are either unsound, unfashionable, or very difficult to play.

I think a more modern treatment of positonal considerations is the better way to approach things, because stuff like development rules are almost made to be broken for things like initiative and forming imbalances and weaknesses.

For god sakes don't listen to Eniamar.  He thinks its a "modern approach" to neglect development for the initative.  No, its an archaic approach, back in the 1800s people just moved around a couple of pieces instead of using their whole armies.  Just

look at how the same pieces moved over and over during the immortal game below (not that that was a bad game of course!)!  The modern approach uses ones entire army, opening systems are designed to use every piece (and maybe every piece but one).  Skim over some grandmaster games, how many grandmasters aren't developing their pieces?

Sure grandmasters will occasionally break these rules, but until you have mastered bringing out every piece (including those SOB rooks) don't get into any fancy BS.