This is why you should study Master games

First, take a look at this masterpiece:

It was my dream to recreate the same masterpiece that Lasker did. After many attempts, I finally got my chance.

So yes ladies and gentleman, the way to get better at chess is to undoubtedly look at the games of great players. fake it till you make it.

grandmastergauri wrote:

"...fake it till you make it..."

In the meantime the average player needs to build 5 visualization pattern memory banks into their brains through practice, practice, practice.  The 5 visualization pattern memory banks are:

1. Tactics visualization pattern memory bank

2. Mating net visualization pattern memory bank

3. Endgame technique visualization pattern memory bank

4. Opening visualization pattern memory bank

5. Middlegame visualization pattern memory bank

Very nice.

So in the hundred of games of chess you've played, you got one chance to recreate Lasker's well known double bishop sacrifice.  Not sure this is a good investment of time.

Please listen to gauri, you might learn something. Don't ridicule someone who has conquered the higher echelons. Spraying bulldust in forums will not make a better player of you.

This may not appear in your games ever, but in a game, it will save you mountains of thinking time if you know the ideas. And if you don't know the ideas you might lose a game to this idea. And the time invested learning one idea is not so much really, especially if you love chess.

For example, take a look at the game of Anna Ushenina, she could not checkmate her opponent in time with just a Bishop and Knight vs a lone King. A few minutes studying the idea could have gained her a half point in that tournament (and also not made her embarrassed).

Sometimes it's frustrating to know what games to look at.  Even in a world championship some games are more beneficial than others.  Is there any method you would suggest to find instructive games?  Do you look over many hundreds quickly and mark the interesting ones for later?  Is there a list somewhere?

I find that older Master games (pre-1950) are much easier to understand.

At least, for someone of my limited brain-power.

I agree.  For me at least, these are more instructive.

Yes, because chess is constantly evolving, it is a good idea to study these games firstly until you have the level needed to understand the modern grandmaster games. A lot of players switch on a computer to do this job, but when the engine is switched off they forget things, because they were being lazy, not exercising their brain muscle.

Right.

I have never owned or used an engine.

I have no interest in them. As far as I'm concerned, chess is a game for people. And maybe for cats.

The words you posted highlighted in bold red are what I call visualization patterns.  The OP remembered the Lasker game that he had played over and recognized the pattern in his game against babak99.

So, what I really did was back up what he is advising to  do. 

I like more difficult master games so I can think more in depth

Ok, perhaps I overreacted a little. Just annoyed with a lot of people in these forums that ridicule players that gained titles with a lot of work and effort. No hard feelings.

Whatever works best, and you can notice the improvement in your play . It is true that what works for one may not work for another. A good coach can pick out your strengths and weaknesses though.

Learning ideas that have a .00001% chance of happening in your games is a  waste of time.

The point of going over master games is NOT so you can pull off some once in a lifetime tactic and brag on the internet.

Considering that the OP is a Fide Master, his advice is probably worth taking.

No thanks.

Ok, we

Sounds good.