Do GM Games Make Ours Boring?

I wonder what impact databases of GM games has had on play at all levels, particularly in the openings. My copy of Fritz comes with hundreds of GM games over the decades, but very few amateur games.

Obviously, there is a difference between the playing styles of master and amateur. An opening that would be smashed by a NM might hold up well against a 1600. On the one hand you would think that playing like a GM would be a good thing. But this is a game of imagination, not imitation. When you avoid an opening because among GMs it is refuted, you may be denying yourself an entertaining and solid game at the amateur level.

So, what do y'all think? Do GM databases really affect your play that much or do you choose a style that fits for you?

 That's not off of the topic at all...

Personally, I don't really care what is played at the GM level.  I usually play openings I enjoy, whether or not a GM could gain a .5 pawn advantage against them.

I pay no attention to what's considered best by GMs. For instance I play a line of the Torre Attack which is considered to give Black easy equality, and yet so far I almost always come out of the opening with a better position in that line. I believe familiarity with the structures is most important at my level. And I generally have more of it by playing that kind of stuff than my opponents.

I think that a 1600 would learn more playing 1800s than GMs. The GMs knowlledge is too superior and the thought process too advanced. The 1600 would keep getting demolished and never know why.

Good question, Ivandh. When I bought the MCO, I started memorizing openings but not understanding them too well. So I started playing through GM games, but really didn't understand most of those either. It wasn't until I played a lot of games myself, that I started to get it. I admire the GM games, and master games, but I never follow their trends, or fashions because I'm learning as I'm playing other people now, more than I ever learned trying to play as a GM would

i agree with the sentiment, although, i have never studied openings.  but just looking at some of the puzzle answers and some of the analysis tools that use GM level stuff doesn't make sense to me.  i am not trying to argue the merits of computer analysis, but simply looking at it i often think "okay, that may be the best move for playing a GM, but my opponent never would have responded that way".  so, while i think we can obviously learn from people way above our levels, trying to make GM moves in a novice game can be kinda silly. 

The disapproving engines discourage the Playing of The Game.

If you copy database moves without knowing something about the position (or at the very least liking that type of position) you will do very poorly in the middle game (I know from experience ).  So my answer is I copy & and fit my style.

If a line is generally avoided for being too drawish or too whatever, but it fits me, I play it anyway.  Like you said at the amateur level GM trends have no practical significance.

lmao

I think GM data bases are a great tool! Even if I do try and imitate GM play (not very well) that doesn't mean that I can't use imagination in a game. In my opinion openings should be sound. If an opening has been refuted at a GM level why play it? Who knows maybe your opponent has studied and understands why it doesn't work.

i honestly  do believe gm games have changed how we play. Many players especially under 1600 avoid playing an opening because it is"refuted" but with no idea why but just because "kasparov or fischer or that one GM said so".

I am interested in GM games, especially when they are in the openings that I use. I try to follow "book" in variations that I am familar with and  understand the meaning of the moves. I don't consider it imitation and one can be inventitive and original within the structure of any opening. One would be foolish not to consider moves or ideas that a GM would make in an opening, middle game motif or ending.

A new experiment I've been starting is to take a game from the database ( I wanted a challenging game so picked Kasparov) and, starting from the first new opening move I see, pretend I'm playing on one side, figure out what move I would make after long thought (as if I'm playing a classical time control game, which is likely the conditions the GM game was played in), then see the actual move, and compare it to my move with some analysis, which I would finally play out on the board. I may or may not consult the computer to get a better idea of the right move(s). I know that it will probably think my idea is idiotic, but it's really letting me not only think more concrete, computer-like, but also putting me in the shoes of the grandmasters, thinking through lines like they would be. Anyway after 1 ply is made I pretend I'm the other side and do the exact same thing. I've only played 8 moves of that Kasparov game so far, yet I feel I've come closer to being like them more than with any other exercise. Of course you have to be at least a pretty decent player to have any chance of understanding the game, but so far with a lot of thought the move played was usually my first or second choice.

Silman just says play through them in the blink of an eye, and sure, that could be a little helpful for vague patterns, but that would offer nothing else and if you do it that way the patterns will confuse you anyway (you won't have any idea of how to do them!). Actually when I was like 12 I did try to blaze through a bunch of kasparov games, and I kept seeing him play h4 for some reason and move his king to e2. So guess what I did! In the next few games I just play a d4 opening (the openings where I had saw him do it) and move my king to e2 and pawn to h4 within 10 moves! I had thought I had acquired a secret about good chess that only I and Kasparov would know! How pathetic . I didn't understand why it didn't work when I did it but it did when he did it! He obviously had very good reasons for his decisions, while I picked the wrong time to play those moves (in my defense 99.9% of the time on a given move that decision will be wrong!) and it was embarrassing.

I do think the best ways to improve are ones that require effort and your own thought. It really helps to compare the way you pick moves to the correct ways and practice with strong cpus and gms to look over you (my exercise). Besides, when you're playing an active role in the game and not knowing what the gm played it feels like playing yourself in many ways as well.