Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Whose annotated games should a beginner study first?

Whose annotated games should a beginner study first?

  • Steinitz
  • Morphy
  • Capablanca
  • Alekhine
  • Nimzowitsch
  • Fischer
  • Petrosian
  • Karpov
  • Kasparov
  • Other?

Created on September 4, 2011 | 5323 Votes | 105 Comments

Comments


  • 10 months ago

    JoeTheV

    For anyone who comes up to this poll, the question is about whose annotations, not the annotator, would be most useful for a beginner to study.

    My vote would probably be Capablanca.  Sure, he had some tough games that he had to calculate deeply at the time of his champion reign, but he writes annotations that I feel make it simple but efficient to allow a beginner to examine them easily.  I haven't seen all his texts, but I believe he discusses on central topics such as outposts, weak squares, etc, all which a beginner can learn.

    Personally I don't understand why Fischer is at the top when his combinations are way too deep for beginners to understand - but people will just vote on their favorite player anyway.  Frown

  • 2 years ago

    SalmonChess10K

    I find Josh Waitzkin is the best for beginners..

  • 2 years ago

    chasm1995

    guys, Fischer is the ultimate grandmaster!  i doubt even Carlsen could beat him.  He didn't only play extremely well, he was also the youngest grandmaster.

  • 3 years ago

    WBFISHER

    Has to be Capablanca in regards to his simplicity and winning record. Too bad he grew bored with the game and went on to other achievements.  I have studied Lasker,  Steinez, Botvinnek, Fischer, Capablanca, Schiller and a few others.  I fancy myself somewhat of a beginner and find Capa's games easier to comprehend.

  • 3 years ago

    ethan31

    I don't get a lot of chess master openings. They're all about Gambits, which waste valuable pawns.

  • 3 years ago

    Napawnleon

    This is not the place for politics.

  • 3 years ago

    pbr59

    I've never posted on one of these threads before (so please forgive my naivete), but would someone please comment on Vahan2200's comments from about Sept?

    1) Is he right about this being a waste of time and money?

    2)  From whose perspective/criteria besides his own?

    3)  Didn't Kasparov choose the right/correct side politically in joining freedom's cause?

    4)  Does anyone besides me think that both Kissinger and Brezinsky were aweful as diplomats?  Great credentials- no results 

  • 3 years ago

    odessian

    I don't think a modern player can learn from Morphy, 

  • 3 years ago

    JoeTheV

    Morphy's are best for a beginner. Fischer's are too deep for a beginner.
  • 3 years ago

    AllogenicMan

    @ sanan22:

    Good point! - and that's often overlooked in teaching.

  • 3 years ago

    sanan22

    for 100% beginners: greco...because he shows blunders in the opening and how to punish them.

  • 3 years ago

    vidhan

    none of the grandmasters they should learn from some mediokre player on any sight

  • 3 years ago

    AllogenicMan

    Well of course[!] - mine! ...

    @ renumeratedfrog01:

    By the way, nice pic! - looks like an ugly post-mortem game analysis after the poor kid just got mated on move 13 upon losing his queen[!] (Would only like to hope that this represents a four-year-old Magnus Carlsen after failing to reach his final grandmaster norm ... )

    And that's the way 'I' see it! ...

  • 3 years ago

    Napawnleon

    I kind of agree with TigerOfChess. I wish I could +1 the comments I value the most...

  • 3 years ago

    vowles_23

    Karpov for me, balanced solid games and strong endgames, which are often the best to pay attention to for a beginner.

  • 3 years ago

    Marrus

    What about Philidor?

  • 3 years ago

    cmal

    Wish I could sort these comments by player rating...

  • 3 years ago

    MangoDurango

    Honestly I think Morphy is too agressive for a beginner player to understand. He misses oppurtunities for material winning and his aggresiveness requires many calculations. I would think either Kasparov, Fischer of Alekhine, because they are true masters of positional play, and even though the book "Bobby Fischer teaches chess" does not contain any actual games of Fischer, it is a really good book for a beginner.

  • 3 years ago

    drakpete

    Fischer of course. "My 60 Memorable Games" the book that made me into a serious chess-player. I looked at the games, played through them, and thought WTF?!

    This was a serious kind of genius that needed further investigation. And here I am, from that beginner.

    The only other player I had the same reaction to was Morphy, who came a close #2 in my vote here. If Morphy had been exposed to the modern chess games that Fischer had, you'd have seen a similar style of play from him. 

  • 3 years ago

    deshbondhu

    steinitz or Nimzo

Back to Top

Post your reply: