Take one game at a time. Try to memorize the moves as well as why they were played.
Not that I am able to do this but I believe this is what should be done.
How to learn from GM annotated games?
Sort:
that is very difficult actually brasil
Dec 6, 2014
0
#4
"My 60 Memorable Games" by Bobby Fischer was the second chess book I ever owned. (The first was "How to Win at Chess" by Al Horowitz.) I learned on my own from those two books. I learned a lot from Fischer's book, both general, specific, and very specific. For generalities, I learned that chess is inherently a draw, via quotes like these...
----------
(p. 121)
4 P-KR4 . . .
The only realistic try for any advantage. There is no longer
anything "romantic" about the Muzio Gambit, which has been
analyzed to draw after 4 B-B4, P-N5; 5 O-O (if 5 N-K5,
Q-R5+; 6 K-B1, N-QB3!), PxN; 6 QxP, Q-B3, etc.
(p. 234)
38 Fischer - Keres [U.S.S.R.]
CURACAO 1962
RUY LOPEZ
Detective story
Occasionally one comes across a miraculous victory in which,
despite intensive post-mortems, there seems to be no losing
move or pattern, no blunder on the part of the vanquished. But
how can that be possible? A loser must make a mistake
somewhere, however, infinitesimal, however it may evade
detection. Is it Keres' opening novelty which leads him to
disaster? Could his defense have been improved afterward?
If so: where? Whatever the answer, the reader is
invited to share the magnifying glass with Fischer and hunt for
that elusive error.
Fischer, Bobby. 1969. My 60 Memorable Games. New York: Simon and Schuster.
----------
I also got a feel for how many moves one needs to look ahead, and just how many traps existed everywhere.
For more specific knowledge, I learned to play K-QN1 after castling long, to hang onto your two bishops if possible, and to play P-KR3 upon getting a pin on the kingside.
For even more specific knowledge, I learned the openings, and upon trying to find an improvement, realized how much I could trust the openings of masters, who had already analyzed those openings far more than I had.
I agree with hikaru, below 2000 study is a waste of time, just playing will teach you more.
Once you become more advanced you can gain more from these games
JGambit wrote:
I agree with hikaru, below 2000 study is a waste of time
My experience says that is not correct. I KNOW I would not have improved as much if I had not studied a little. I'm also certain if I studied more, I would imporve more quickly.
rdecredico wrote:
The person that remembers the most plays the best.
Funny you should say that.
Just the other day I was remembering a quote about correspondance chess; "The one with the biggest library wins."
It made me realize that OTB chess is the same way. Whoever has the biggest recallable pool of information wins.
Dec 7, 2014
0
#8
petrosianpupil wrote:
I am a big fan of reading the thoughts of the greats but personally learnt little from bobbys 60 memorable games I got far more from capablanca and Nimzo as they explain general principles better IMO.
Are there any specific books you recommend? Fischer's book was a big influence on me, but it's true it wasn't intended for beginners, so I'd like to check out similar books that cater a little more to beginners.
----------
(p. 20)
16 B-N3! . . .
He won't get a second chance to snap off the Bishop! Now I
felt the game was in the bag if I didn't botch it. I'd won dozens of
skittles games in analogous positions and had it down to a science:
pry open the KR-file, sac, sac . . . mate!
(p. 182)
6 P-KR3! . . .
It's important to kick immediately, otherwise after. . .Q-B3
followed by . . .BxN White's Pawn formation could be
smashed.
(p. 268)
21 . . . R-B1
22 KR-K1 P-R3!
A handy luft, as becomes apparent later.
For example, My 60 Memorable Games by Bobby Fischer. How would I learn when reading it? WHat would I do?