How far back in time is it useful to go?

In the hopes of resurrecting both my German and my chess, I have just got hold of a copy of a book by Siegbert Tarrasch (Das Schachspiel, The Game of Chess).

I realise that Tarrasch was in the at the time new positional school of chess that kind of evolved from the romantic era, but then in turn he clashed with the hypermodern school of people like Reti and especially Nimzowitsch.

Am I stitching myself up by reading such an old book? (in the hopes of improving my chess I mean, it really is a German education, let me tell you!)

Also I've heard that following the games of people like Morphy is good for beginners, but is he from an era too far back to be useful?

Absolutely will be beneficial to study the ancient masters and read the book of Tarrasch. I mean, you simply want to improve your chess not go from 2500 to 2700 elo right? If you enjoy the game you should take some enjoyment from these things in any case, and if you enjoy what you are reading/studying there is a much greater chance that you will retain some useful information. 

Starting with early masters is good because in a sense, they played the most logical chess... what I mean is the ideas that are easiest for humans to discover were, of course, discovered first... and by following the historical progression you're also loosely following the logical progression. Of course this isn't my idea, it's been said by players as great as Kramnik (that you start with the early masters and work your way towards the present).

As for Morphy, I think Kasparov had a quote about him? Something like in the 100+ years since Morphy hardly anything has been added in terms of excellence in open positions. So combinative play, initiative, open lines, coordinating pieces, Morphy is an excellent teacher.

---

Anyway, even going back 100 years, the root of correct play is piece activity... which I'd loosely define as a combination of general mobility and being in contact with important points like weak pawns (of either color) or the squares around a king (again, yours or your opponent's). So even if you pick up a logical strategy that players later discovered can be drawn against or beaten, you're still coming into contact with the truth of chess so to speak... that mobile pieces doing useful jobs = a healthy position. That sort of knowledge and experience will never betray you in your games.

Also even when a plan is objectively not the best, when you have a logical idea that unifies your moves, your opponent is under a lot more pressure... plus you'll be primed for learning the next step in chess evolution, whatever that may be.

Also, if you're a beginner, by all means get a book on strategy. That will help you out. Or use annotated games like in Reti's Masters of the Chessboard.

As a new player it's useful to see one or two GM games a day... even more if you're interested, but probably not so useful (to say the least) to try and learn purely from playing over games with no notes.

@llama. Really useful comments. Thank you.

I would like to second that - from my position it is very useful, and so inspiring to see such instructive and helpful comments. I came here looking for a little advice, I got that and more!

The looking at one or two GM games a day is a good idea for me, I have the Graham Burgess World's Greatest Chess Games, to be honest I had yet to open it, on this piece of advice though I have the first game (McDonnell - Labourdonnaise) up on my chess board, and following it through - the annotations are quite good, maybe a bit advanced for me, but good to see the flow of a game.

Edit: just to say my comments are for both LLama and Strangemover.

👍 It's a great book. If you wish to be inspired by the power of pawns then the final position of McDonnell - Labourdonnaise should serve you well 😲

I'm getting there!

Another perhaps stupid question, I am putting the moves out on an actual board, am I right in thinking that this is better that on a computer screen (certainly better than having an engine pick the best moves in the position)? I like to over over the commentary and come up with a few ideas....and see if I'm right.

And yeah, I think it is a good collection of games, I've just noticed it has three authors, and they all seem to write very well in an easy to understand style.

If I'm not mistaken, Tarrasch really liked space and piece activity, and although the hypermodern people said its fine to have less space and less activity, hypermodern styles are usually harder to play. Most of Tarrasch's principles still hold.

Tarrasch's game annotations are a gold mine for an improving player. A lot of the opening variations are quite out of date, but you know what? most of those old-fashioned lines are perfectly logical and sound. And his middle game and end game annotations are terrific! It's true that there are new ways of looking at these positions, but you will get a great grounding in basic principles. 

Are there any other books anyone recommend on the different periods of chess history and their styles. Or annotated games collections exclusively from certain periods?

Reti was a contemporary of Tarrasch. His book Masters of the Chessboard is a collection of annotated games, and is a good book I recommend even when not prompted by "give me a book of historical games"

Then for mid 20th century a well known and often recommended annotated game collection is Bronstein's Zurich 1953.

I am very grateful for the replies to this thread. I'm enjoying my Tarrasch book, and thanks to advice I have added going through a chess game a day on the board to my routine. As I mentioned for some reason I had in mind that annotated games were above my level, so I got a few books, but I had always thought they were something I would get to later. Of course I don't understand everything, but actually putting some of these games on the board and thinking what I would do next is very enjoyable.

I have also ordered a copy of the Reti book too! Looking at the contents it looks like a very interesting book.

It seems to me that Tarrasch, Reti and people like them were very enthusiastic about passing knowledge of the game they loved on to other people - this forum continues in that tradition.

@boyd4891 Logical Chess by Irving Chernev is a collection of annotated games. It is aimed at beginners, the annotations aim to teach basic principles. Every move is annotated. The games are late 19th to middle 20th century and straightforward to follow, hence the title. My copy uses old coordinates which is a little irritating. I think later editions use algebraic notation.

Beginners, and low rated players would benefit so much more from studying the old masters, instead of the current GM's.  Old school games are easier to follow, understand, and have easier tactics.  Modern GM's are so engine driven, they dont help the lower rated player.

I think al-Adli ar Rumi´s Kitab ash-shatranj (Book of Chess) is essential reading for all aspiring chess players and hobbyists. It was written almost 1200 years ago, but still contains much information of use to the modern player. Unfortunately, there are no surviving copies of the book.

As OP I really do need to add to this discussion a note about how grateful I am for the interesting discussion and wonderful advice - yes, you have all given me tens if not hundreds of hours of study to do! But it is study of such good stuff.

I would also add, knowledge and experience are things that take a long time to acquire - the fact that people come online and share their knowledge and experience with me and the wider community is amazing.