http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Chess-Explained-Algebraic-Edition/dp/0713484640
How are you supposed to feel like after you've reviewed/studied a GM game?
Sort:
You are supposed to analyze positions (and evaluate the end of the forcing variations) in your head so mentally exhausted. Every position should be treated like a critical position.
How are you supposed to feel like after you've reviewed/studied a GM game?
An unannotated modern GM game by yourself?
Totally fking confused (unless you're a decent player already)
Sore and rug burned?
Answering the question in the title: humbled, realizing the Donald Duck level I'm playing chess at, no matter how hard I try to improve.
Answering the last question in your post: don't be too hard on yourself. Understanding certain moves is totally different from applying those concepts by yourself. It's kinda like the math problems I had when I was young: when my math professor explained intricate mathematical theories, it all seemed so easy and obvious. When faced with the assignments at home addressing the exact same theories, I felt lost and helpless.
Try to pick up general chess aspects from the annotations and try to apply these concepts to your games. There must be some, e.g. positional advantages, how to exploit weak color complexes etc. Work from there, and don't let GM matches consume you.
you will know you are getting good, when instead of thinking "I saw that move and would have played it"
you start realizing how many times you would have lost even if someone handed you the winning side of the game
Not the best example (is from an old training) but here's a PGN of one of my whole game drills:
The idea is to see where we deviate from the GM and what we do wrong either in analysis or evaluation.
Like you might have just wasted some time, but you're not sure.
Turned on.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
Not the best example (is from an old training) but here's a PGN of one of my whole game drills:
The idea is to see where we deviate from the GM and what we do wrong either in analysis or evaluation.
That game is ridiculously complex. I remember the commentators were clueless, and in the press conference both players were unsure as well.
Not that there aren't lessons for us mortals in it, but this type of game is not necessary for progress at our level I think...
Empowered.
A couple of weeks ago I went over the analysis of a Morphy game for the first time. I immediately began seeing some new ideas in my own games.
LIKE A SUPER SAIYAN!!!
leiph18 wrote:
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
Not the best example (is from an old training) but here's a PGN of one of my whole game drills:
The idea is to see where we deviate from the GM and what we do wrong either in analysis or evaluation.
That game is ridiculously complex. I remember the commentators were clueless, and in the press conference both players were unsure as well.
Not that there aren't lessons for us mortals in it, but this type of game is not necessary for progress at our level I think...
I yanked it raw out of a database so I was doing it blind too. I was quite superficial (relatively speaking) calculating it however so I could fix that but after 14 ply (7 moves) things get too fuzzy to properly evaluate for me. I need to remedy that by doing visualization exercises. I'll look at a position, place pieces on an analysis board according to what I visualize after seeing 10 moves ahead, play out the variation on the main board and deviations would signal visualization errors I'll need to weed out.
Jan 1, 2015
0
#18
Riv4L wrote:
I've been looking at a game for an entire week as an experiment
Not nearly enough. Analyzing a single game should be a full time job (40 hrs a week) for at least a few months. Otherwise you'll never learn anything.
Run, don't walk, and download Fred Mellender's GuessTheMove from https://sites.google.com/site/fredm/ (Scroll to thebottom of the page for download links. Click the little blue arrow at the extreme right to download.)
Fred's GTM allows you to input any grandmaster game's pgn and play the game from the side of the winner. You get 30 points if your guess matches the GM's choice. You get fewer points, or possibly more, if your guess is different, depending on how the chess engine scores your move.
Fred's GTM also allows you to save your game play to a file which includes your choices in the comments, so you can do a post-mortem as though it were one of your own games.
GTM forces you to think through every single move using your own wits. Thus it exercises your chess muscles for every phase of the game and every situation, not just at the decision points which are highlighted in an annotated game.
I still do tactics exercises and study openings and endgames, but going over GM games this way is becoming my meat and potatoes.
It's not for new players and it can be humbling, but I think most class players would benefit from GTM.
You can also hook up a different engine to GTM. I use:
http://www.chess.com/download/view/houdini15
I've been looking at a game for an entire week as an experiment but I will not post the game here. I don't feel satisfied that I'm getting something out of it. How do I know when it's a good time to stop analyzing it? I could easily flip through games and "thinking" that I understand every move but that's like flipping through a book without thinking seriously about it. That's my goal here, to understand each and every move without flipping through so quickly.
I could watch a GM play blitz/bullet against another top GM, I see their moves on the board, but for some reason I "THINK" I understand it but in reality, I don't. Because if I understand the moves then I should be able to come up with good ideas in my game but I do not.
The main question is how deeply should you analyze the game and not let it consume you?