Yeah, that's a cute novelty but pretty pointless if it doesn't help you understand why moves are good or bad.
Gosh, what might one do about that?
Ah, you could choose games that are well-annotated and play GTM before reading the annotations.
I always go over a GTM game afterward with the annotations and a chess engine.
Yeah, that's a cute novelty but pretty pointless if it doesn't help you understand why moves are good or bad.
Gosh, what might one do about that?
Ah, you could choose games that are well-annotated and play GTM before reading the annotations.
I always go over a GTM game afterward with the annotations and a chess engine.
Ah, right. Of course. 
In that case, do you know a good source for well annotated GM games in PGN format? Everyttime I try to search, all I get are games embedded in websites.
I find the annotations might much more sense after I've struggled with the naked positions on my own.
I'm surprised at the variation of my GTM scores. Tactical blunders aside (and GTM will whack you for those) I discover I am much more in tune with some games than others. In one game I feel I am almost there with the GM and in the next game I am clueless and wonder why the GM even allowed the current position and how he would find any resources there.
Of course I am not anywhere near a grandmaster but I can find satisfation in guessing some GM moves and over time seeing my percentage improve.
So if you don't let it bum you to make your inevitable mistakes, you can get excited when you guess a GM move.
In that case, do you know a good source for well annotated GM games in PGN format? Everyttime I try to search, all I get are games embedded in websites.
Another trick: books.
I usually start from a game in a book then find the game's pgn on the web. Most games well-known enough to be annotated for a book are on the web somewhere.
first it feels like
and then it feels like
Here's a fascinating quote from a link Fred provides:
After interviewing two large samples of chess players of varied skill, the paper's authors found that "serious study" -- the arduous task of reviewing past games of better players, trying to predict each move in advance -- was the strongest predictor of chess skill.
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.
The main question is how deeply should you analyze the game and not let it consume you?
I hate to put myself on somebody else’s' shoes and I don't want to meant to be judgemental, but honestly, given your current rating, I think it will be too deep for you to study such games especially games played by current grandmasters. Maybe the case would be less if you study a game by grandmaster vs. an amateur because then due to the discrepancy of their playing strength might produce relatively easy to undertand lessons.
Anyway, just to answer your main question, from my experience it is useful to identify those moves that are forced and those that were discretionary. But here is the trick: some forced moves aren't really directly forced, but to are practically forced so you have to be astute on identifying those cases. Discretionary moves may differ from player to player so it's up to the level of their intuition which moves to chose. Also, recognizing the critical moment of the game is very important. Questions of where to proceed or how to proceed, or asking oneself like "is it ripe time to blow off the bridge and go for an all out attack" comes to mind in guiding you appreciate the turning point of the game. Needless to say the amount of time to alot for each case differ from one another so perhaps it's up to the difficulty of the move and your patience to decide when to stop the analysis.
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.
The main question is how deeply should you analyze the game and not let it consume you?
I hate to put myself on somebody else’s' shoes and I don't want to meant to be judgemental, but honestly, given your current rating, I think it will be too deep for you to study such games especially games played by current grandmasters. Maybe the case would be less if you study a game by grandmaster vs. an amateur because then due to the discrepancy of their playing strength might produce relatively easy to undertand lessons.
Anyway, just to answer your main question, from my experience it is useful to identify those moves that are forced and those that were discretionary. But here is the trick: some forced moves aren't really directly forced, but to are practically forced so you have to be astute on identifying those cases. Discretionary moves may differ from player to player so it's up to the level of their intuition which moves to chose. Also, recognizing the critical moment of the game is very important. Questions of where to proceed or how to proceed, or asking oneself like "is it ripe time to blow off the bridge and go for an all out attack" comes to mind in guiding you appreciate the turning point of the game. Needless to say the amount of time to alot for each case differ from one another so perhaps it's up to the difficulty of the move and your patience to decide when to stop the analysis.
Well the games here, most of the games played here are kind of meaningless to me since i do not reflect on them. I intend to stop playing for a while and consume GM games and consider the points you made.
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.
Even the positions that makes you feel anxious?
Here's a fascinating quote from a link Fred provides:
After interviewing two large samples of chess players of varied skill, the paper's authors found that "serious study" -- the arduous task of reviewing past games of better players, trying to predict each move in advance -- was the strongest predictor of chess skill.
http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/01/06/the-grandmaster-in-the-corner-office-what-the-study-of-chess-experts-teaches-us-about-building-a-remarkable-life/
So predicting the moves of your opponent would make you a superior player?
surely not revitalized ? lol
-----------------
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/unavailable-letter
Lol! Daimonion, that is exactly how I feel sometimes when I study chess.
Well I don't intelligent, that;s for sure.
---------------
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/unavailable-letter
So predicting the moves of your opponent would make you a superior player?
Riv4L: Seriously? Of course. If you can't predict your opponents moves, his good ones anyway, your analysis will be "hope chess," as in "I hope my opponent doesn't find a good move."
I wouldn't take Perseus's comment too hard. Feel free to experiment with grandmaster games. Current grandmasters can be tough since they have often been influenced by computers. But there are plenty of pre-computer grandmaster games around, where you can see the clear human thought behind them.
Judge for yourself which games give you the most reward. Likewise the amount of time you spend on them. A full week sounds excessive, if for no other reason than you can only play fifty games a year at that rate. Me, I would get bored.
I try to stick with a game until I understand the overall flow of it, its key points, and those where I got confused. Playing Guess The Move before looking at analysis is a great approach. After that I am happy to use reference materials and an engine as need be.
Aside from the challenge of looking at a GM game, there is also the sense of touching the history of chess and knowing the great players more closely. There are some beautiful chess games out there.
Unless you're already really good current GM games won't help all that much since a lot of it may just go over your head anyway.
It's easier to go over games from the older masters like Alekhine than Carlsen. The only exception I noticed was games in which GMs are playing class players in open tournaments. Those games are usually landslides and you can notice when the GM takes control of the game.
Here's a fascinating quote from a link Fred provides:
After interviewing two large samples of chess players of varied skill, the paper's authors found that "serious study" -- the arduous task of reviewing past games of better players, trying to predict each move in advance -- was the strongest predictor of chess skill.
http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/01/06/the-grandmaster-in-the-corner-office-what-the-study-of-chess-experts-teaches-us-about-building-a-remarkable-life/
So predicting the moves of your opponent would make you a superior player?
Aside from calculation, positional assessment etc., one of the most important arsenal of a good chessplayer is his/her intuition. Playing solitaire chess an excellent, time-tested way to train your intuition. A good start would be to study classical games for reasons that they where easy to understand and perhaps heavily analyzed (assuming their popularity, they were probably had been subjected to rigorous study from the most scrupulous eyes). Also, i suggest you pick games from the game collections of a particular grandmaster that more or less reflect your playing style.
Aside from calculation, positional assessment etc., one of the most important arsenal of a good chessplayer is his/her intuition. Playing solitaire chess an excellent, time-tested way to train your intuition.
Amen. Unless you've got chess ESP, your intuition has to work with chess patterns you've planted in your brain previously. GM games are the place to find high-quality patterns.
Otherwise all you've got is the mediocre patterns from your own play. They may be all right, but they won't make you stronger.
You should feel inferior unless you analyzed it thoroughly, then, you should feel exhausted and inferior.