First
Best Master to Study Games From?
Sort:
AmericanChadAGC wrote:
This is a real question, and here's my answer.
It depends on how you play. If you're an attacking player, you would be best off with Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, or Kasparov. If you're a positional player, you'd be good with Lasker, Anand and more.
I'm not sure about the other types of players though.
I just want advice for good games to look at, thanks!
HORRIBLE advice. The GM or GM's you decide to study will depend on your rating range. Using you for example. You want to study the games of the old Masters like Morphy and those from that era and even earlier. Why? Because they are much easier to understand and are full of tactics.
Studying the games of Tal while fun, but will lead to illusions of grandeur, and attempts to play like him which is a recipe for failure.
Claude Bloodgood was a really good attacking player with a peak rating of 2789 and I think all levels greatly benefit him from studying his games
0
#10
Each time a new prisoner came into the prison, Bloodgood would arrange for all his other rated prisoners to lose to the new prisoner. The new prisoner would now have a high established rating. Bloodgood would then play a rated game against the new, high-rated prisoner and win. In this way, Bloodgood gained more and more rating points in this closed pool until he was #2 in the nation.
Lol
uhh
SarasBisht wrote:
Each time a new prisoner came into the prison, Bloodgood would arrange for all his other rated prisoners to lose to the new prisoner. The new prisoner would now have a high established rating. Bloodgood would then play a rated game against the new, high-rated prisoner and win. In this way, Bloodgood gained more and more rating points in this closed pool until he was #2 in the nation.
Lol
[EDIT-4K]
0
#16
Honchkrowabcd wrote:
SarasBisht wrote:
Each time a new prisoner came into the prison, Bloodgood would arrange for all his other rated prisoners to lose to the new prisoner. The new prisoner would now have a high established rating. Bloodgood would then play a rated game against the new, high-rated prisoner and win. In this way, Bloodgood gained more and more rating points in this closed pool until he was #2 in the nation.
Lol
Says the person hard cheating
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/144232328490/review
Don't diss my glorious king you smelly cheater
Thanks for the compliment, get a job
SarasBisht wrote:
Honchkrowabcd wrote:
SarasBisht wrote:
Each time a new prisoner came into the prison, Bloodgood would arrange for all his other rated prisoners to lose to the new prisoner. The new prisoner would now have a high established rating. Bloodgood would then play a rated game against the new, high-rated prisoner and win. In this way, Bloodgood gained more and more rating points in this closed pool until he was #2 in the nation.
Lol
Says the person hard cheating
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/144232328490/review
Don't diss my glorious king you smelly cheater
Thanks for the compliment, get a job
bro is mad, It took like 1 minute to click ur profile, choose a random game and see 100% accuracy with 5-10 seconds spent on legit every move, including taking free pieces. I'll just let you know that if some random person can detect it in 1 minute there's no reason why chess.com can't, maybe make it less obvious next time. But enjoy the time you have left, keep coping and denying it's not gonna do anything bud
Honchkrowabcd wrote:
SarasBisht wrote:
Each time a new prisoner came into the prison, Bloodgood would arrange for all his other rated prisoners to lose to the new prisoner. The new prisoner would now have a high established rating. Bloodgood would then play a rated game against the new, high-rated prisoner and win. In this way, Bloodgood gained more and more rating points in this closed pool until he was #2 in the nation.
Lol
Says the person hard cheating
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/144232328490/review
Don't diss my glorious king you smelly cheater
yeah bros getting reported
I’ve heard great things of Kasparov and Mikhail. I’m also reading Bobby Fischer’s My 60 Memorable Games. So, yeah, it depends on your style and whose style you want to play. I’ve also read some books by Seirawan, Evans, and Lane, but I’m not sure if they’re Masters.
LieutenantFrankColumbo wrote:
AmericanChadAGC wrote:
This is a real question, and here's my answer.
It depends on how you play. If you're an attacking player, you would be best off with Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, or Kasparov. If you're a positional player, you'd be good with Lasker, Anand and more.
I'm not sure about the other types of players though.
I just want advice for good games to look at, thanks!
HORRIBLE advice. The GM or GM's you decide to study will depend on your rating range. Using you for example. You want to study the games of the old Masters like Morphy and those from that era and even earlier. Why? Because they are much easier to understand and are full of tactics.
Studying the games of Tal while fun, but will lead to illusions of grandeur, and attempts to play like him which is a recipe for failure.
also studying Tal's games would have much MORE tactical stuff than Lasker or Morphy, etc.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
This is a real question, and here's my answer.
It depends on how you play. If you're an attacking player, you would be best off with Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, or Kasparov. If you're a positional player, you'd be good with Lasker, Anand and more.
I'm not sure about the other types of players though.
I just want advice for good games to look at, thanks!