But , anyways, I was reading Silman on this topic, and he was saying to just "run through the games quickly, in REAMS, like dozens of games a day if not even hundreds, doing it as fast as you can". He claimed that after doing this for a while day in, and day out, it would REALLY open your mind up to chess(or however you wanna put it).
I thought it seemed a bit pointless(without analyzing). Has anyone else studied master games in the manner I claim Silman recommened?
I've run into that idea elsewhere. FM Ken Smith recommended it (among many other things). A Russian GM whose name I've forgotten said he played through thousands of games quickly when he was learning a new opening.
I don't think you can mechanically move pieces around and expect much learning to accrue. However, if you are mentally engaged with the games, asking questions, noting patterns and whatnot, I imagine it could be useful.
I suspect, though, that this exercise works better the stronger you are as a player, because stronger players have a larger store of knowledge and can see what's happening on the board without having to think as much through.
I've done it occasionally when I'm studying an opening and start blazing through games just because it's so easy to do with a computer. I can't say it's improved my play but it gives me a better sense of what positions can arise.
@RCMorea,
I never said Chernev's book was perfect. Every book has its flaws, but Chernev's book instills logical reasoning and planning into a beginning/intermediate chess player (including 1500).
I just do not want to spend time sorting out which parts of Stripes' analysis is right and which is flawed. I would rather read GM John Nunn's criticism.
do you know where John Nunn said what he said?
I think he said most of it in the forward of "Grandmaster Chess Move by Move."
I do agree it's a good book for a beginner, most of it is right, and no book is perfect...it's just that I personally remember as a kid saying to myself "but I don't see what's wrong with this move" and even restraining myself from moving pawns in front of the castled king, when it actually would have been right to do so, and now many years later with the benefit of an engine, I realize there actually was nothing wrong with some of those moves. So maybe it's a little personal to me. But if you go in knowing that he's harping on certain points to get your attention, and mostly that's a good thing as long as you don't overdo it, you should be fine.
I think that after Chernev's logical chess, an aspiring player could do worse than reading McDonald's Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking, and after that Nunn's Grandmaster Chess: Move by Move. It is worth noting that Chernev is the author of the genre. McDonald and Nunn follow the path that he forged.