Well, if your premise is correct, then clearly very few people are studying the game, much less GM games. However, book sales and Internet site records would seem to contradict this.
It's not *just* the 1600 and up players who are studying correctly and regularly. Indeed, the vast majority of chess shopping and Youtube watching is from the lower half...since they comprise the vast majority of people who WANT to get better.
And it ain't working.
Sure they are fun to work through, but the games of someone like Capablanca or Fischer aren't going to provide the amateur or class player with much instruction.
They will give you plenty of innovation and imagination to admire, but those things can't be taught. So...other than for the simple pleasure of playing through them, why "study" GM games?
Just my opinion...but to get the most out of GM games, play blind fols chess with them. Play out the opening, and then cover the moves, and then do your analysis/calculations and decide what move you would play, and then see what move the GM played.
It will help you learn, and understand middle game planning, and increase your end game knowledge.
I'll cut to the chase. Studying GM games (as opposed to simply enjoying them) is a total waste of time if you are rated under 2000.
Class players who actually get better are studying tactics, learning a handful of openings well and sticking with them in their tournaments, and reading a few select strategy books like Silman's Re-Assess Your Chess (3rd edition) or maybe Nimzo's My System. They are also going through the tedious work of pumping their own games into Fritz or something similar and analyzing what went wrong (and right).
They are NOT wasting their time annotating or playing peek-a-boo moves with a game collection of Paul Keres or Anatoly Karpov. There is no profit in that...you can't emulate an understanding that is likely never within your grasp.
Again, most chess players don't have a systematic study habit and that can account for a lot of those players who haven't improved much while putting in hours of study. You also haven't isolated those who do study master games reguarly and their rating movements either. Perhaps those who have a systematic study habit and reguarly study master games are the few who are highly rated (or will be)!
Until a proper study research has been done it's subjective data and opinions on if it's benefitual or not. It seems that most high rated players have spent a good deal of time studying master games in their lives though, for whatever that's worth.
>Well-annotated GM games are a gold mine for helping some players who already have a reasonable standard of chess knowledge and understanding to become better and better all the way up to GM level. I don't know why you'd think they're not.<
Maybe because exactly no-one with a "reasonable standard of chess knowledge" is moving "all the way up to the GM level." For those incredibly few people that do, it's not from studying GM games.
Well maskedbishop, I gave you my opinion on the matter and in fact many GMs have stated that this is exactly how they became GMs. You can sit there and repeat "it's not from studying GM games" all you like, however you are full of bullshit.
Also there's a big difference between saying "under 2000" and saying "amateurs". There are an extremely small few people in the world that are full time professional chess players, being over 2000 doesn't mean you can quit the day job. If you're saying "under 2000" then maybe there's a grain of truth to what you're saying because then they might be better off using other resources like My System that they might be studying instead of just straight random GM games (of course My System and most tutorials are full of GM games anyway).
Well, if your premise is correct, then clearly very few people are studying the game, much less GM games. However, book sales and Internet site records would seem to contradict this.
It's not *just* the 1600 and up players who are studying correctly and regularly. Indeed, the vast majority of chess shopping and Youtube watching is from the lower half...since they comprise the vast majority of people who WANT to get better.
And it ain't working.
In some ways, you could argue that it was easier for a beginner and intermediate player to improve in the past, because the glut of information on chess in today's environment is very confusing for the average player. There were much fewer books in the past, so there was perhaps a stronger consensus on what the best books were for learning the game. Also there were not any engines, so you had to force yourself to calculate hard in complicated positions.
If you have a good coach to direct you on what to study and you are very motivated, you will not be under 1600 for very long if you are reasonably intelligent.
>GM games may also suggest new openings, you would like to try out.<
If you are studying GM games for opening variations, then you are likely also a GM.
False.
False.
False.
Many in the 70's, when faced with the Sicilian Dragon, would choose the Yugoslav Attack. Because that's what bBobby Fischer liked.
Players of all levels in the 70's loved the brand new Benko Gambit.
The KID experienced a strong resurgence in popularity among amateurs in the 80's and 90's, because Kasparov played it. Same with the Scotch.
Almost nobody would have chosen the Berlin Defence against the Ruy, until Kramnik showed it could be a powerful weapon.
I'll cut to the chase. Studying GM games (as opposed to simply enjoying them) is a total waste of time if you are rated under 2000.
Class players who actually get better are studying tactics, learning a handful of openings well and sticking with them in their tournaments, and reading a few select strategy books like Silman's Re-Assess Your Chess (3rd edition) or maybe Nimzo's My System. They are also going through the tedious work of pumping their own games into Fritz or something similar and analyzing what went wrong (and right).
They are NOT wasting their time annotating or playing peek-a-boo moves with a game collection of Paul Keres or Anatoly Karpov. There is no profit in that...you can't emulate an understanding that is likely never within your grasp.
Well maybe you should become a coach yourself, since you know what works. It contradicts the experiences of hundreds of grandmasters, but hey it might work... Presumably you are already over 2000 yourself, since you make statements regarding this level.
I remember seeing a remark from Greg Shahade that he could usually identify young players who would become very strong by their ability to recognize positions from master games they studied. It typically indicated a strong passion for the game and an enthusiasm to learn its culture. True, you can become strong without this culture, but it's not so clear to me it's a very effective path...
Since we are talking of beginners who try to study the very masters ... does it make sense for a 4th grade pupil, who learns multiplication up to 100, study the works of world class mathematics professors ?
> gave you my opinion on the matter and in fact many GMs have stated that this is exactly how they became GMs.<
Well of course...for that 1% of people who are GMs, I'm sure it does help.
I'm talking about everyone else.
only playing on defense is a touph posistion. I never try to get my eyes to meet my enemies at the same time. Joules or what-ever physical saying can interupt ones thoughts enouph to be able to make a move. Please be relevant, helpful & nice! How to choose what piece to move first?
1) choose it before hand
2)choose the piece you're going to sacrifice.
3) lose game
>If you have a good coach to direct you on what to study and you are very motivated, you will not be under 1600 for very long if you are reasonably intelligent.<
Must be a rare thing, since almost 2/3 of all chess players are either not motivated or not reasonably intelligent.
I'll cut to the chase. Studying GM games (as opposed to simply enjoying them) is a total waste of time if you are rated under 2000.
How would you know?
Your appeals to various statistics about the ratings of people in your country are meaningless, because you can't possibly know if they are studying master games or not, or if those rated higher does.
Since we are talking of beginners who try to study the very masters ... does it make sense for a 4th grade pupil, who learns multiplication up to 100, study the works of world class mathematics professors ?
Horrible analogy. I hope you were joking. Chess stays the same no matter what. Mathematics does not.
>If you have a good coach to direct you on what to study and you are very motivated, you will not be under 1600 for very long if you are reasonably intelligent.<
Must be a rare thing, since almost 2/3 of all chess players are either not motivated or not reasonably intelligent.
I don't think most players under 1600 are going to make this serious of an investment with their time and money. For most, it is just recreation and not a career path that requires serious study. Is this shocking to you?
>because you can't possibly know if they are studying master games or not, or if those rated higher does.<
Everyone studies master games. That's all that's available in Chess Life (given a few exceptions for amateur events). Watch the book sales at the tournaments...almost all of them are either openings or game collections.
Most of the chess teaching culture is based on "study master games. Cover up a move and guess what they did." You see this all the time. And I say, based on how low the ratings are for almost every active player, that it is NOT WORKING and a WASTE OF YOUR TIME.
I'll cut to the chase. Studying GM games (as opposed to simply enjoying them) is a total waste of time if you are rated under 2000.
Class players who actually get better are studying tactics, learning a handful of openings well and sticking with them in their tournaments, and reading a few select strategy books like Silman's Re-Assess Your Chess (3rd edition) or maybe Nimzo's My System. They are also going through the tedious work of pumping their own games into Fritz or something similar and analyzing what went wrong (and right).
They are NOT wasting their time annotating or playing peek-a-boo moves with a game collection of Paul Keres or Anatoly Karpov. There is no profit in that...you can't emulate an understanding that is likely never within your grasp.
Well maybe you should become a coach yourself, since you know what works. It contradicts the experiences of hundreds of grandmasters, but hey it might work... Presumably you are already over 2000 yourself, since you make statements regarding this level.
I remember seeing a remark from Greg Shahade that he could usually identify young players who would become very strong by their ability to recognize positions from master games they studied. It typically indicated a strong passion for the game and an enthusiasm to learn its culture. True, you can become strong without this culture, but it's not so clear to me it's a very effective path...
What player has ever become "strong" without following GM games? The entire reason that players became vastly better over the centuries is by studying other GM games. Did Fischer say "I'm not going to study other GM games by those dumb Russians, I don't need to do that", in fact Fischer studied other GM games until the day he was dead.
Sure the odd flashy player may reach the lofty heights of 1800 or 1900 while still playing the Parham attack and hold a reputation at the local club, they will never become very strong and in my opinion are a bit of a joke.
I think MaskedBishop makes a good point about it being much more effective for experts and up, and much less effective at lower levels. I think this has everything to do with tactics versus strategy.
You don't see "tactics" like you would in a tactics book, in a collection of GM games, unless they are specifically annotated with analysis of tactical roads not taken. This is because games are not won via tactics unless the opponent makes a mistake. The vast majority of games below 1800 are won or lost via a tactical sequence rather than a deep long-term strategic idea.
Learning the deeper strategy is something you must do to improve beyond expert level, because you can no longer count on wins due to tactical mistakes by your opponents. Until you get to Class A (1800-2000) level at least, the best thing you can do for your game is to eliminate your own tactical mistakes.
Studying master games might improve your play in this regard, through some sort of osmosis, but won't be nearly as beneficial as studying your own games, or even just playing more games with slow time controls.
HOWEVER, there is a way to study that helps you develop your board vision, which is to memorize games until you can play it out in your head. Short games are better for this, and I like memorizing the dazzling romantic games of the 18th century masters (Anderssen, Morphy, etc.).
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/does-memorizing-masters-games-good?page=4
Yes. It's not like every move by a GM is absolutely brilliant and mysterious. Many (if not most) moves are quite standard and can be understood with some effort and guidance. Computers can be used to resolve tactical difficulties you encounter in personal analysis. If you develop a defeatist attitude to game analysis, you stop trying to expand your comfort zone and you prematurely plateau. It's probably better to start with older games that are easier to understand. Logical Chess: Move by Move is a good game collection for the beginner. Get a board out, set up the positions, cover the remaining moves, and at each turn try to figure out a move for one side before reading on. Puzzle books can help with calculation. Review games repeatedly and you will see more each time. You're not going to understand everything overnight, but you will make progress. A large percentage of players will just browse games they see online. This is a more passive approach to study and is not the same thing.