I think Morphy games aren't the best for beginners anymore

I think I can make out the top four books in your picture in post #96, but I am curious to know what is below Euwe, Sergeant, Shibut, and Beim.

It looks like Rashid Ziyatdinov's "GM-Ram."

Thank you. I had never heard of this. In case anyone else is like me and interested, here is a link. http://rashidchess.com/gmram.html

Is there anything below that?

There seems to be something else lurking in that inpenetrable darkness.

I guess I can feel a little better if not even batgirl can penetrate the darkness. I know of some reprints of other books about Morphy by Loewenthal, Lange, Maroczy, and (partially) Staunton.

Perhaps Mr. Stripes will clue us in.

My first introduction to Morphy was from Phil Sergeant's book ( Games of Chess); I was 1162 uscf and I went through roughly hundred games of Morphy, from 1162 uscf to my first expert rating of 2019 uscf in three years, that is a testimony to Morphy's games.  

 Here is a review of  " A First Book of Morphy" by Frisco Del Rosario  

 By B. Fallon on October 18, 2004

  Studying Morphy's will games help in all level, not just for beginners. Even experts and masters will benefit from studying Morphy's games, his games are more than lessons in how to attack against the king or beating your weaker opponents through tactics, there is middlegame concepts, complicated endgame and accurate calculation that is a must for every very strong player. I also add Anderssen in the list in must study, just look at Fischer's tactics, it very good reason to study Anderssen's games. Analyzing, calculating and assessing a position is a must skill for any  player who wants to get better. Going over Karpov or Kramnik games as a beginner is not practical at all, there will be more questions than answers and these players are more for the advance level.

It is indeed. For the first half of 2015, I worked a training program with this book at the center. That included several Morphy games.

The stack of books in the photo appear to me to be sitting on a coaster.

Here's a blog post from last February that describes the study plan that I pursued from December 2014 to early summer 2015

11 February 2015

Game of the Week

 

I am going through one game each week with the intention of understanding it thoroughly. This labor is part of a study plan guided by Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000).

There was an earlier, privately published version of this book. It caught my eye in the USCF product catalog in 1999 or thereabouts. The catalog description, "positions only, no evaluation," intrigued me. I ordered it; it was back-ordered for a few months and then I learned that it was no longer available. Ten years later, I bought the Thinker's Press edition, which also had gone out of print.

Ziyatdinov offers some hints concerning a program of study, and his co-author, Peter Dyson, offers additional hints. Much is left to the reader.

The basic plan is simple: each of the 253 positions (133 endgame, 120 middle game) in the book, plus an additional 47 selected by the reader, must be mastered thoroughly. That is, these positions must become as letters of the alphabet. Children learning to speak struggle to master the differences between the letter m and the letter n. Most have mastered these sounds before they begin school. Within a few years, the memory of these difficulties is forgotten and the sounds and meanings are second nature.

This past Saturday morning, I was discussing and playing Diagram 2 from "Problem Solving Contest" with a young student. The student did not yet understand some of the nuances of the position. We were also looking at slight variations of the same position. The student would make a move, and then I would either respond with an instant move for Black, or I would state, "the game is drawn". Diagram 2 is a win if it is White's move. If it is Black's move, Black steps the king forward one square, producing Diagram 14 in GM-RAM. Black holds a draw.*

Another young player, observing the exercise, stated, "But, you've studied this position!" I responded with an enthusiastic affirmation and the suggestion that he should do the same. This endgame position has become second nature for me, as have a handful of others in GM-RAM.

The 120 middle game positions are sourced from 59 games that Ziyatdinov offers in his book. Beginning in December, I have been systematically going through one of these games each week (see "Training with Anderssen"). Because I have been teaching an evening class on Tuesday nights, my week begins on Wednesday.

Mastery of these middle game positions is not easy. I am far from meeting the standard that I have attained with the simplest king and pawn endings and the elementary versions of Lucena and Philidor rook endgames. Even so, I am making progress. Some games are pushing me into study of obscure and or unsound openings.

Last week's "Game of the Week" is a case in point. I have not memorized the game. Nor have I come to a thorough understanding of the alternatives for both sides from the critical middle game positions. However, I have grown in my understanding of Louis Paulsen's opening ideas. In some of my blitz and rapid online games this past week, I have played Paul Morphy's move order against the Sicilian, and I have played Paulsen's defensive scheme from the Black side, albeit with improvements that I identified in my study.

Here are some of my notes on the game, the ninth in GM-RAM.

Morphy,Paul -- Paulsen,Louis [B40]
USA–01.Kongress New York (4.1), 29.10.1857

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3

Morphy's move order nuance offers Black some choices, but no refutations.

3...e6

3...e5 is interesting, when  4.c3 seems best.

a) 4.Nxe5?? Qa5+

b) 4.Bc4 Qc7

(4...Nf6 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 h6 7.Nf3 Bg4 led to interesting play in Cochrane,J -- Staunton,H, London 1842 [Staunton won in 24 moves])

(4...Nc6 [4...dxc3 5.Nxc3 Nc6 6.Bc4 d6 7.Ng5 Nh6 Bondarevsky,I -- Kasparian,G,Tbilisi 1937 (White won in 24 moves)] 5.cxd4 exd4 6.Nxd4 [6.Bc4 has scored better than the main line])

5.Bb3 Bb4+ 6.c3 dxc3 7.0–0 Nf6 appeared in Anderssen,A -- Harrwitz,D, Breslau 1848 (Harrwitz won in 30 moves).

4.Nxd4 Bc5

White to move

This move seems dubious to me, and yet a few Grandmasters have played it in recent years, especially Vladimir Epishen. Louis Paulsen played it five times in the First American Chess Congress. He won the first, and then faced Morphy. Morphy won three of the four games, and had a material advantage that he was unable to convert in the other.

After these games, Paulsen switched to 4...Nf6. His older brother Wilfried played 4...Nf6, and then tried 4...a6 in a few games.The three main moves, 4...a6, 4...Nc6, and 4...Nf6 each have their merits. All other choices must be regarded as sidelines.

5.Nb3

This move remains the main line today.

5.Be3 was Morphy's choice after the drawn game.

5...Bb6 6.Nc3 Ne7 7.Bf4

Black to move

7...0–0

7...d5 should be played 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 exd5 (9...Qxd5!?) 10.Bb5+ Nc6 11.0–0 0–0 and Black's position was good enough for victory against the World Champion in a simul: Anand,V (2786) -- Bluesette (2155), ICC INT 2007 (Black won in 50 moves).

8.Bd6 f5 9.e5 a6 10.Be2 Nbc6 11.0–0 Rf7 12.Kh1 f4 13.Ne4 Nf5 14.Bh5 g6 15.Bg4 Ng7 16.Qf3 h5 17.Bh3 Qh4 18.Nf6+ Kh8 19.Qe4 Qg5 20.g3 f3 21.Nd2 Bd8 22.Nxf3 Qh6 23.Rg1 Bxf6 24.exf6 Ne8 25.Bf4 Nxf6 26.Qxc6 Qxf4 27.Qxc8+ Rxc8 28.gxf4 Rxc2 29.Rac1 Rxf2 30.Rc8+ Ng8 31.Ne5 Rg7 32.Nxg6+ Kh7 33.Nf8+ Kh6 34.Nxd7 Rxd7 35.Rcxg8 Rxf4 36.Bxe6 Re7 37.R8g6+ Kh7 38.Bg8+ Kh8 39.Rh6+ Rh7 40.Rxh7# 1–0

 

This morning, I am moving on to the sixth game of the Morphy -- Paulsen match at the First American Chess Congress even though much work remains for me to do on the first game.


*Please see a correction to this paragraph in the comments below, and also in tomorrow's post.

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2015/02/game-of-week.html 

It is, and he makes rather grandiose claims for his study plan. He did become a GM after writing the book. 

I find his minimalist approach quite appealing and share his conviction that classical games are the way forward.

If I decided to study chess consistently, I would choose Capablanca games. There's just something about his games that gives me this feeling of "perfect chess."

I would also go over Tal and Bronstein games, for their magic.

Indeed. I give a pass to the generation after mine. Namely because they were probably brought up in the Internet age. Where Garry Kasparov lead the charge for a new change in Chess thinking. He only reflected upon Karpov n the older generation til well in the 2000s. Bobby Fischer was an icon who surpassed through the ages soo his name is always memorable. But before that? Pfft.

I remember the days of descriptive notation. Some posting here who hadn't, of course don't share happy memories of pouring over Morphy's games. As batgirl shared, the aesthetics, the wizardry. Not unto like Bronstein, Keres, Fine.

Cannot ever revel in the fireworks of Spielmann, Keres, Pillsbury, Marshall, Tarrasch.

" It is not the move, even the best move, that you must seek, but a realizable plan."~Eugene Znosko-Borovsky

" It is remarkable, and deserves special attention, that the great masters, such as Pillsbury, Maroczy, and Janowsky play against Lasker as though hypnotized."

George Marco.

Last one.

" An ancient writer said that if there were no flowers and moon and, beautiful women, he would not want to be born into the world. I might add that if there were no pen and ink and chess and wine, there was no purpose in being born a man."~Chang Chao

From the age of 12, Morphy dazzled the world with the brilliance of combinations play, the fertility of his ideas and the vividness of his imagination. It is no wonder that admirers of attacking play consider him the most famous player that ever lived.

More than any.other master of his time, Morphy realized the importance of sound positional play in the opening, quick.development of the pieces, and avoidance of premature attack. The combinations which he had evolved had the merit of being sound as well as brilliant.

~Irving Chernev from Combinations, The Heart of Chess. (circa 1960)

I find his minimalist approach quite appealing and share his conviction that classical games are the way forward.

Ziryab: I read about GM-RAM a while back and it sounded intriguing, but there are plenty of play-better-chess programs out there and I didn't follow up.

If you would, say more about it.

I agree, you have to have some fanatic chess love to want to read or study Classic Chess Icons. I share ipcress's sentiments. It isn't essential to study Morphy's games to improve. I guess I simply cannot believe that anyone who has been involved in Chess can't have some reverence to the New Orleans native. I have over 200 books in my library. I can't recall a book that hadn't mentioned him or his contributions to theory in some form or another. Anyone who plays the Spanish plays his logical prophylactic move.

I don't know. I feel empathetic to the OP or anyone who hadn't or didn't want to appreciate Morphy's body of games.

There are several thousand words at http://chessskill.blogspot.com/search/label/Ziyatdinov.

The closest to a book review is from 2010:

13 February 2010

GM-RAM: Essential Knowledge

 

Essential Knowledge

The catalog description of GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Chess Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov with Peter Dyson intrigued me and I decided to order it as part of an array of chess books and equipment. When I received the order a few weeks later, GM-RAM was not in the shipment. It was out of stock. Ten years later, I searched online through the collections of several used books stores and bought a copy still in pristine condition. The used price was a few dollars more than it had cost new, but the bookstore shipped it the first business day after my order. It arrived in the mail last Wednesday.

Although I found the catalog description appealing, others failed to read it, ordered the book, and then disliked what they received.

Contains positions only, no analysis.
USCF Catalog, c. 2000

The publisher, the author, and some reviewers— positive and negative, describe this distinctive feature of this book: it contains diagrams without analysis. The author does not indicate the player on move. For some positions, one diagram thus becomes two elementary positions.

White wins.


Black to move draws; White to move wins.


In the middlegame positions, the rationale for excluding the knowledge of who is on move differs. The authors offer a useful explanation at the head of a chapter containing 120 positions and fifty-nine game scores.

The first part of the chapter gives the positions. Certain of the games have more than one position included. These positions are like the fingerprint of the games—from this fingerprint, the associated game can be identified. Following the positions, the full game scores are given.
GM-RAM, 77

If I study the games, if I make the effort to memorize them, then I know when I see the position whether Black or White is on move. Moreover, in some positions there might be some useful insights gained from an extra tempo. If the position derives from a game where White was on move, but we look at the diagram as if it is Black to move, the result might differ. Such a thought experiment could reinforce the need for vigorous play, for the element of time in chess strategy.


The Legendary 300

On the back cover of the book, the publisher offers an extract from the introduction.

In Russian folklore it is said that there are 300 positions which comprise the most important knowledge an aspiring player must acquire. About two-thirds of them are from the endgame and the remaining third are from the middlegame.
GM-RAM, 12

In the introduction, Ziyatdinov explains that opinions differ as to the precise identity of these 300. He mentions Lev Alburt’s Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions & Ideas (1997) which contains a substantially different collection than the 253 in GM-RAM(forty-seven are left to the reader). Ziyatdinov’s selection favors endgames and middlegame positions from the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Botvinnik-Tartakower, Nottingham 1936 is the most recent game in the fifty-nine. Alburt’s collection favors more recent grandmaster practice.

Ziyatdinov also offers a more ambitious assessment of the value of complete games from the nineteenth century.

If you know just one of the important classical games, you will be able to become a 1400 level player, know 10 games and you will be 2200 level, know 100 and you will be 2500.
GM-RAM, 77

That’s it: my road to expert is much shorter than I thought. If I know ten nineteenth century games, I’ll blast right through expert and make master. But, wait, I’ve known more than ten of these games for years, and I only recently broke into class A. What holds me back from realizing Ziyatdinov’s promise?

My knowledge of such games as Anderssen’s “Evergreen Game” must lack depth. Ziyatdinov explains how infants acquire language, “when we start to speak, we repeat many times the words we are hearing from other people” (7). When he speaks of knowing a game, he does not mean the way I have memorized a handful of poems, or part of Ahab’s soliloquy in Moby-Dick(1851). Rather, he means learning those games the way we learn the alphabet, and the combinations of sounds that make up the words we use every day without needing to think about them. He likens this “tacit knowledge” to the information stored in a computer’s RAM. Possession of this knowledge renders playing second nature.

Alburt’s promise is more modest. His 300 includes twelve key king and pawn endgame positions, and claims these are all that are needed to become a strong player. On the other hand, a master must know fifty positions.

Here’s a promise: To be a strong player, you do not need to know hundreds of King and Pawn endgame positions—but only 12 keypositions. Of course they have to be the right positions—and they’re in this book! To be a master you do not need to know thousands of King and Pawn endings. You need to know 50 key positions.
Alburt, 9

While I was waiting for GM-RAM to arrive last week, I created forty-eight flash cards of pawn endings. These forty-eight are all of the blue diagrams in the first chapter of Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (2003). The two dozen pawn endgames in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledgeinclude a few that are not among these forty-eight, but perhaps all the essential ideas are in both sets. Knowing Ziyatdinov’s two dozen, and Dvoretsky’s four increases my number to about sixty pawn endgames. That’s not too intimidating.

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2010/02/gm-ram-essential-knowledge.html

The thing about GM-RAM is that is does a better job of enforcing the work ethic than most other books.

Most books allow the reader to feel like we are really working.  You play through a game, and even the notes to the game, and you get a benefit from that.  But you don't get the maximum benefit unless you are doing some work.  You don't understand why a move was made so you have two choices.  You can either really try to analyze and figure it out or you can just accept it as it is.  I know that I often guilty of the second choice.

Then you get to your standard exercises and you look at one for a minute or two.  Maybe you go so far as to set up the position on a board.  You think for a short time without writing anything down and then you decide "Oh, it's probably Nxe5" without having done the work.  Then you check the solution and "oops, it was Bd4."

Speaking for myself I know that I have been guilty of the above countless times.

GM-RAM does not allow that.  It gives you a position.  No hints, not even who's move it is.  You have to do the work.  You have to analyze and try to understand the position as best as your ability allows.  There are no solutions page to turn to either.  So you can't guess around and then check only to find out that you wasted your time.

Yes, you can throw the position in an engine and check it with either side to move.  But you have to intentionally do so.  You can't give in to a moments temptation and then peek.

I was getting together with a friend and we were solving one or two of these in an evening. We'd spend 30 minutes analyzing and calculating and writing everything down and then at the end we would compare notes.  We'd then do a quick post mortem and then eventually check with an engine.  It was an amazing experience.