FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I want to get the most "study" out of mastering grandmaster games so therefore my idea is to play through the game alone and annotate it with my own notes and then use an engine on it.
1: Around how long per game. Are we talking 10-15 minutes or 55 minutes- an hour per game if i want the most out of my study time. This is basicall asking quantity or quality. 10 games per hour with moderate annotations or 1 game per hour with in depth.
2. How do i pick which games? I obviously am going to do in order starting at Morphy and make my way to Steinitz, Lasker, and so on with a few picks of my own but how do i select which games from each master to play through. Should i only do famous games? Should i do 100 won games as white and 100 won games as black?
3. WHat should i be obeserving in the games heavily if im trying to get better?
4. Should i be focused on tactical shots mostly? Style like slow and positional or dynamic? Should i look at alternative moves that could have been made?
5. Any world champions who i should steer completely away from?
6. Any advise so i can really benefot from these games?
1. I was told to play the game right through to the end in a few minutes time. Then whatever you didn't understand, see if you can figure it out through the annotations.
2. I was told to pick a name, or a personality that was interesting to me. I was given a brief adumbration of the chess player's personality.
3. Combinations and seizing open files.
4. The question is too complex for me. I can't teach chess.
6. Keep playing games against people your own rating or lower until you beat them comfortably.
Trysts' chess lesson of the day
see u can play thru the games quickli nd figure out the reasons for each move but the fact is at ull not make the same moves so maybe rite lines nd candydate moves for each position nd see y urs didnt work.
cos goin thru da games w/o thinkin is liek quickly readin a book jus befor u sit an exam thinkin its obvios..
About point 1:
One of the worlds top players spent a few hours playing this game, to understand it fully would take me weeks, or longer. 1 hour seems short.
One of the best ways to study is to get a game that is already annotated and then to play guess the move (i.e. Solitaire Chess).
You will find moves that appear in the game that you never expect, and the move you do expect often won't be covered in the notes. So now you get to go through and figure out why your move isn't mentioned at all. Using an engine will help with this.
I usually take about an hour for a game of guess the move.
btw bout da games kingcusher got a series caled evolutin of chess were he goes thru in order so if u go too his vids, copy pgn nd play solitire chess then u cen watch his vid for analysis...
The late SM and Chess Digest publisher Ken Smith believed in a particular method which I found very helpful and productive. He stressed quantity.
Play quickly, taking 15-20 minutes a game. You aren't trying to analyze deeply, but you don't want to just blitz through either. Just enough time to see what it happening and comprehend it in a broad sense. Of course, if some games strike you, you can always mark them to go back and look more deeply later.
Play over all the games of the players or openings you choose. Include wins, draws, and losses so you get a fair picture of what happens in the real chess world. Over time you will pick up the patterns, you will recognize recurring ideas, and also see all the middlegame plans and common tactics which work or don't for both sides. You will also see the practical play of endings by strong player.
It is not at all difficult to believe that different methods may work for different players. I can only relate my own experiences and what has worked for players I know. The "jempty_method" may work just as well for others.
To follow on that line of thought, if you choose to go through more games at a faster pace, you might do well to concentrate on games that match your opening repertoire that also end in wins for one side or the other. In this way, you eliminate grandmaster draws that at times are devoid of instructional value, and you don't waste time looking at openings you won't face.
With this idea in mind, you may find that Morphy is not a good starting point.
You could cut the draws under 25 moves, but most of the draws aren't "grandmaster draws" and if you don't go over them you will miss a lot of top-notch play. A well-played game by both sides should end a draw anyway, eliminating draws from the games you see means cutting out the best played games.
Good points! I can't help but feel that targeting your own opening repertoire when selecting these games will have a greater impact, but it's true that it seems most games start off going down lines you haven't prepared for very early, anyway. Hmm. That fact makes it harder to justify this approach in the first place, but I don't want to downgrade the value of "solitaire chess" exercises.
I've heard it suggested before that Capablanca is a great place to start. Just throwing that out there.
Should i be going for famous games? tournament games? world championship games?
Few actually understand G.M. games...In the same sense a lanquage u don't speak is beyond your understanding. Chess players should seek material that is within their expertise.
Annoted games are the best and I strongly recommend trying Solitaire Chess. I believe GM Kaidanov has a great video on this site on exactly this topic.
Okay here we are again.
Let me have this straight solitaire chess is like guess move right?
And do you mean annotated by the guy who played it?
Yes, solitaire is guess the move.
Perhaps some more explanation is needed here. At face value what you appear to be advocating is to never try to learn things that are more advanced and therefore never gain expertise in new areas. There is far, far too much mistique about G.M. games in your comment and your analogy does not seem fitting. A more appropriate analogy in my opinion is that of the differences between athletes of different levels. You can be a talented athlete playing at the highschool level. As you play and mature in the sport you will move up into the ranks of the more skillful college players and may well one day make it into the ranks of the professional players... if you have enough talent. Still you might not be a starting player for your team at the professional level and may spend most of your time on the bench preparing to fill in for an injured player. Some professional sports have 3 or more levels of backup players of varying skill levels or even simply different skill sets. My point is that you can learn skills and habits that can take your game to fairly high levels if you have a moderate amount of talent, but the thing that will always separate masters from amateurs is just how talented you are. Time and time again while watching professional sports I've heard announcers and coaches say the phrase, "you can't coach that" when talking about a great athletic play some one made. I think this same aspect is found in chess.
This does not mean that you cannot understand GM games. If you have never studied chess and no one has ever taught you any principles of play in chess, then yes, it would indeed be very difficult to understand GM games if you're also not very talented. However, in this the information age, what chess player who wants to improve has never asked for advice, studied annotated games or read instructional materials on how to play better? If you only stuck to material that was within your expertise you would never improve.