How to (really) get better at chess: What they aren't telling you

LOL!

If you play something weird your opponent will yes be outside of his preparation...but he won't need it.

Now the Alekhine's is a respectable defence so I'm not critizing the choice of playing 1...Nf6 but it's hardly something that can worry a white e-4 player - even if he doesn't have any preparation on it.

I have played it but back when i was a little less on my game.  Point of fact it was the only reponse I could play to e4, I had total mental block.  OCD Quality.  Having not read more then a handful of books on chess and never getting out the practice board when I did, in my mind Nf6 was blacks best/only choice.  I have since learned this to be entirely false, obviously.  Alekhine's D. is fun but it get's crazy heady and can tend to be alot cramped on the queen side. It does however lead to some of the most beautiful if not complex positions.  I dropped playing it here because Im not quite quick enough with it live.  Might be time to dig back into it, already know white's handful of responses.  

Try this some time: watch a GM game live from start to finish without the aid of a computer. Throughout the game, try to guess which move each player will make. Write down the variations you see during the game, and what moves surprised you.

Then go back over that game and see what you and they missed.

After you've done that, then turn on an engine and see what you missed! Ask yourself whether the computer is right. Surprisingly often it isn't!

When you've done all that, take a look at the clock and see how much time you've spent on that one game of chess.

Then go back over some of your favorite classic games and spend that much time studying them. Do all chess games deserve that much study? Of course not. In your own serious games, you should spend at least as much time studying that game as you and your opponent spent playing it.

Here's a short list of great games that will reward that sort of close scrutiny:

Botvinnik-Capablanca AVRO 1938

Tal-Larsen Candidates game #10 1954

Karpov-Kasparov World Championship game #16 1985 (their second match)

Fischer-Spassky World Championship game #6 1972

Reti-Alekhine New York 1924

Averbakh-Kotov Candidates 1953

Smyslov-Bronstein Candidates 1956

Kasparov-Topalov Wijk Aan Zee, 1999

Taimanov-Smyslov Tblisi USSR Championship 1966. (Smyslov lost this one. But pay special attention to the endgame beginning at move 42!) 

Shirov-Kasparov Linares 1993. (This game was so good that Shirov included it in his best games book even though he lost!)

Each of those games, and many others are well worth many hours of study.

I wish I could remember who gave this advice and where I read it recently, but in regards to studying it was right on:

EVERY position from ANY game is worth studying, if only briefly. It could be the critical position from game #6 of Fischer vs. Spassky, or it could be a relatively innocuous position between two duffers rated 800. The point is that it's a POSITION with strengths and weaknesses, imbalances, potential plans for both sides--even a mate in 1 if you actually see it.

So I actually don't see any problem with studying a single GM game for 5 hours (not that I've ever done it). It took them that long to play it, most likely, and they saw a HECK of a lot more in each position than we're going to see.

I believe linlaoda's advice is right on. It's been helping me tremendously to do exactly what's suggested. And though my blitz and standard ratings don't reflect it (primarily because I play those very little), I think my online rating suggests a lot of improvement.

Thanks, SF, I've made a note of those games.

Early on I was told by a higher rated player to memorise master games, in particular Alekhine. I have not done this, as I have been weighed down with books and tactics more.

I should make clear:

I'm not recommending that students spend 5 hours a day studying only complete games. I am recommending taking grandmaster games seriously and really delving into them. Only when you've done that will you appreciate the depth and beauty of the game. Get into the habit of thinking deeply about the game, and then use that skill for the deep targeted study you need to improve.

But the first step for many players is to get serious about studying chess. Too many people just skim through games and think they're studying. If you've never really studied a single chess game, study one of these great games in depth and research what happened in it. You will gain a new appreciatition for the game!

Yes sure. One drawback that I find with studying certainly master games is that those in collections tend to be brilliancies, often featuring daring sacrifices and so on. Whereas these are great, I find that they can be counter-productive because the danger is that you are programming yourself to look for killer wins in a similar way. More effective I think are the day-to-day games, where players convert small advantages for a win, say taking an extra pawn and pushing toward promotion or cramping an opponent slowly. This is one of the reasons I like Stean's Simple Chess as it explores games like this. I'm sure that my studying tactics (with the over-emphasis on queen sacs) and playing through such brilliancies has not helped my play at all, in fact it might have even help to foster bad habits. So that's probably my idea for a chess book - 101 Typical Chess Games.

I keep the notation pane off and write down the analysis and calculation in a Word document at certain stages in the game, though try getting in everything I can.  As to the five hours: it doesn't need to be in one sitting but could be an hour per day for five days.  The length of time should also vary depending on the length and complexity of the game. 

Benedictine's comment makes me want to add this:

you should study the games of the great chess masters that fit the style of play that you prefer (if you already have a preference).  Some study of openings has to be included in your study.  If you prefer closed positions, you need to know how to get there whether as black or white.  The same goes for open games.  Certain openings lead to certain positions.

I think studying games that match your preference will not only help you become a better chess player, but it will make the game more enjoyable.

I totally agree with the OP's opinion about tactics.  Tactics can be used in all phases of the game, to win a pawn, pieces or just to gain space or improve your position - not just to achieve a mate in 3 (or win a queen or whatever) as many tactics puzzles show.

@smyslovfan said:

"The dirty little secret to getting better at chess is work."

Very true.

Thanks!

I personally think it's quite appropriate to narrow it down to what you prefer.  99.9% of us cannot devote our lives to chess so you should play the way you want to play.

Compare a great game that Petrosian or Nimzowitsch won versus one that Tal won and see which one is the type of game that inspires you.  If we start to study games that inspire us and get us excited about chess, we will study more and become better in the process.

I like it.

good advice SF! great games! Thanks!

How do you improve tactics beside practice?

@TalmIinator: I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about studying a player to fit a certain style. I'm not saying that it isn't fun - been there done that. However, to improve in chess, you can't only be good at closed positions - you must get better at *more* positions. That's key. Knowledge of the Italian Game will help your handling of the King's Indian Defense.It won't take a lifetime to learn all the types of positions. i.e. If you can't play open positions, start playing the sicilian positions.

@Benedictine: I think actually that every winning move is a "mini-brilliancy" of some sort. You don't have to look for a brilliant sacrifice - oftentimes it just is not there. Sometimes the winning move is a crazy sacrifice (satisfying), but most of the times it's just a tactical continuation resulting in a winning endgame (ironically more satisfying).

@jclheriteau: To improve at tactics, I have used tactics books, master games  - studying chess will improve tactics.
Some good tactics books:
Course in Chess Tactics - Bojkov (my favorite)
Forcing chess moves - hertan

Studying games of a grandmaster will help you learn tactics whenever you see one played - take it as a free lesson!

Thanks so much for all the comments! I'm seeing that I have left some pieces out of my original post, but thanks everyone for adding in the missing pieces. Keep improving at chess!

@linlaoda:  Petrosian preferred to play a  certain way, whether playing black or white - as did Tal.  Both took their turn as world champion.  Both of them had to modify their style when it was necessary.

I daresay that if a player has a style preference and they choose to study a GM that prefers (or preferred) that style, they will certainly be able to learn about different positions and they can certainly grow and improve as a chess player. 

Good post thanks. It reinforces what I think about chess, which is that tactics are the key ingredients of winning chess. Any decent player knows how to perform the fundamental tactics, such as in chess puzzles. However this is the easy part in my opinon, something like the highlight reel in sports. It's the moves that take place before the puzzle that are so crucial. Are you able to look deeper into the position than your opponent? Are your tactical ideas obvious and easy to defend or are they disguised well, multi-faceted, or impervious to countermeasures even if they see it coming. Possibly most importantly, do you see the tactics that your opponent is planning or are you too focussed on your own agenda to respond to their threats?

I'm a big fan of the Tactics Trainer but I wish more puzzles were devoted to the idea of fending of dangerous threats rather than winning material or checkmating the king. Of course this may not be as glamourous but it sure feels good when you've measured your opponents attack better than they have, and you're able to and turn the tables for a ho-hum victory.

I must highly disagree with this.  When I play the local 1800's at my club (my rating is around 2000) they miss stuff all the time.  When I play our local 2200 to IMS I miss stuff all the time that they see.

So after reading more of the follow-up posts I kind of repeated what others have said. One thing I noticed is peoople talking about positional play, which is kind of an abstraction to me. Would I be wrong if I said that positional play is really a way that good, evenly matched players cope with the fact that dramatic tactics are not likely to succeed against eachother?... That it's a game based on mutual respect relying more on the potential of tactics to methodically carve out weaknesses in eachother's position? 

I suppose I could look it up but since I'm here.... :)