This might be a really stupid question, but for someone who is more at the beginner end (1300-1500), is studying games between grandmasters the best way to learn?
What I mean is, they are able to understand the board at a level that most of us cannot comprehend let alone achieve - calculating many moves ahead and so on.
Or, do the basic ideas they're working from apply to us mere mortals?
This might be a really stupid question, but for someone who is more at the beginner end (1300-1500), is studying games between grandmasters the best way to learn?
What I mean is, they are able to understand the board at a level that most of us cannot comprehend let alone achieve - calculating many moves ahead and so on.
Or, do the basic ideas they're working from apply to us mere mortals?
I think that studying games between nineteenth century masters is better than games between today's GMs. The tactics and positional concepts in those old games are a little more transparent.
That's part of why Chernev's books are so useful. Logical Chess: Move by Move, The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played, and Capablanca's Best Endgames are all worthwhile.
Chernev's book is aimed exactly at beginner's level and his annotations are very detailed and suitable for every beginner player. Most games are great and is a pleasure to play them on a board.
But there are also books with annotated games between amateurs (not beginners). Such a book is Heisman's. I haven't read it yet, but it is the next. I've downloaded it in forward chess app.
Interesting. The premise being to see what NOT to do?
I think that studying games between nineteenth century masters is better than games between today's GMs. The tactics and positional concepts in those old games are a little more transparent.
Good point. I came back to chess after a 30-year layoff and was fairly boggled when I looked at 21st century games.
Nezhhmetdinov's Best Games of Chess by Rashid Nezhmetinov (Caissa Editions)
Awsome book!
The whole book is like that. It is aimed at a lower level audience.
@pawpatrol
like us. We are no chess experts.
I am rated above 1800 USCF, but I know that I can learn much from Chernev, a master, and that I understand very little about the game.
Comparing Chernev's pulp to Reti's monumental "Masters of the Chessboard" is no less than an insult.
Ever wondered why the Russian schoolboys are so good at chess? The answer is simple: They have never read a Chernev book...
^Hehehe. So do you recommend Reti's book in any case?
I am going through logical chess move by move and I have seen that the first game is ok, as is the first game, but the second starts equaly commenting that e4 is a good move because bla bla bla. The first game didnt go further than the 17th move and I have seen that other games in the book also start with e4 is a good move because bla bla bla, and now I am wondering if everything in the book is like that or there are going to be good games for advance players, like real GM vs GM or just games to show tactics for beginners like in the first example. Anyone?
The games becore more balanced in the last half.
Comparing Chernev's pulp to Reti's monumental "Masters of the Chessboard" is no less than an insult.
Ever wondered why the Russian schoolboys are so good at chess? The answer is simple: They have never read a Chernev book...
Thank you
Ziryab talking about himself in 3rd person is funny.
I think the following authors have the best U1500 instructive annotated game books:
Steve Giddins Neil McDonald Irving ChernevI think Ziryab might agree with you.
^Hehehe. So do you recommend Reti's book in any case?
Yes, of course I do.
I am going to take your advice as true, but reading Chernivs is not going to hurt me, rigth?
No, of course it won't hurt- unless you take his sayings seriously, that is.
FYI not one of the Chernev books is recommended in four different "recommended books" lists by the FIDE Trainers Commission.
A lot of stronger players don't know what it is like to be a weaker player. I got plenty out of Chernev partly because I didn't treat him as a chess bible. He was just one of many chess authors I have tried to take something from. He isn't essential reading if you don't want to. You can just skip him and move onto McDonald.
If you go through Chernev's book properly you will be a better player at the end of it.
I would recommend reading Tarrasch first, then Nimzo second. After that read the two books by Reti and Tartakower, Alekhine ... if you're lower than 1500, read Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals.
The book that helped my understand the most was Blockade, by Nimzo but I'm not even an expert player. I was about 1500 when I read it.
Re: Chernev...
Yeah, I've compared his game annotations to engine output and it can be amusing.
But I've done the same with Capablanca and Botvinnik, and found they could be a bit too sure of their assessments as well.