Kotov Method for improvement

Hello, I am 1300+/- player looking to get better at chess.  I have heard that the absolute best way to do this is to study master games.  Kotov suggests picking a good annotated game collection and working through the moves in a game until the position becomes fairly complicated where you put the book away and think long and hard for 15-20 mins to analyse all the possible variations. Then you would compare them with those of the annotator.  The problem is that good master games to use include good annotators that aren't heavy on strictly variations without words (e.g. ... 17.  Nf5 e7 18. exf5...on and on....), which can be laborious, but rather annotations that DESCRIBE WHY a move is good or bad.    My question is:  What are some good games/game collections that are good for this or what are some good annotators that I might be able to look for?  Any links posted might also help. 

Regards,... TheKnightOne. 

I thought its somewhat called Stoyko Exercise.

You made this same exact post six times? Come on man, we can't be having this kind of stuff on the forums. If you have a question, we'll answer it in this thread. But don't make five other copies of it trying to get responses. Hell, if you really have a question, you could ask IM Turzo in his Q&A as well. 

 
Yeah, pretty much the same thing but Kotov wrote about it first

I have a topic about it from a couple of years ago where someone mentioned that it came from Kotov: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stokyo-exercises

It looks like some people had accounts closed so the discussion is a bit disjointed and it looks like the part about Kotov is no longer their either

 
Nevermind, it was this topic that it was mentioned:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/improving-evaluation?page=2

TheKnight, that sort of exercise is good for strong players.  You will not learn much or learn very slowly unless you are at a certain level.

Hmm. I actually disagree easy. Chess isn't easy to learn. There is soo much that any amateur cannot get first crack. But being able to distinguish the "right" way and "wrong" way, however indiscernable at the moment, sparks an idea. A direction. That to me, is the most important thing, Something he can grasp onto. Real. As he gets more experienced, his perception may change, but at least he got an idea of just where he should focus. Of course, that is only my opinion.

najdorf, if you are taking the most complicated position from a master game to "study", then you are undergoing a task that even the master would have found difficult.  Learning is best done by increments.  You should apply yourself to exercises that challenge you but are not totally out of your depth.  I read Kotov.  He advocated the exercises when he was already grandmaster strength wanting to become a top ten player.  There is much in Kotov's book which others disagree with.  I think Silman is one to criticise the book.  Have a look at the exercises in the book and see how you go.  I remember one position with Alekhine as white.  It was one of his most difficult combinations.  Hardly the sort of thing for your average or below average player.

For me, without benefit of going over master games, seeing how ingenious, amazing, profound especially with annotations (by the master or some relatable writer) I frankly wouldn't have been inspired or learned or want to improve.

There are different levels of "strong" players. As an amateur, to me, you only get "strong" if you do what they do. Not by doing what other amateurs do.

Correct except that you will struggle to understand what they do.  You cannot learn something if you don't get it in the first place.

I'm sure you solved it, even when you weren't at your peak rating. Probably others who'd read that book. Maybe you're right in hindsight. You know more now than you did back then. You can say it is a difficult book to get through, after having grasped it's message, for an amateur.

One question though. What if the next person reading the book gets more out of it than you could, even at your level reading it the first time? Or even today?

How can one determine a player in this informational age who is an "amateur" (by today's standards or rating) cannot gain anything by a book written before they were born?

That's the gist of what I'm saying. The challenge.

If at first you don't succeed, you don't give up and leave it for the next 3-5 years til you've become "strong" enough to understand it. I don't believe that is how any individual should be taught. Otherwise babies would be crawling til they were at least 5 years old!

Cool. You say even masters couldn't grasp other master positions, true. When commentating on a live game I would think. But in the quiet of a comfortable environment, a cup of coffee (or some other drink of choice) I believe they could coherently verbalize or by writ, understand any masterly position. And be just as amazed, aww, inspired.

The amateur can learn the general stuff.  There is a chapter on positional play for example which is not difficult.  However, the calculation stuff is advanced.  And, besides, quite a few strong players have come out and said that is not the way strong players calculate.  It is the way computers calculate even though the book was written before the time of computers.  It is actually worse because the book tells you how analysis would look like in the decision tree format.  But it is not much help with the actual process of calculation such as selecting candidates and analysing the variations.  You get the impression that Kotov spent endless hours in exercises analysing to get where he did.  No doubt he did.  But he did not do it blindly.  He learnt from players (who were professionals) around him.  He got the feel for complications by learning from a combination of learning from other strong players and applying himself.  Some of his games are like Tal's with endless complications.  You cannot learn that sort of thing unless you are already a very strong player who can calculate accurately.  The worst thing people can do is try to play like Tal.  His games are too deep.  Kotov's games are not much better.  A better choice is Karpov's annotated games I would have thought if you had to study master games.  There seems to be more method which you can grasp as a developing player.

You see? That's what I'm saying. It is the idea. His idea. It could be he learnt a far far different way than the way he'd try to convey in his book. Or maybe he did. We can just speculate. But his ideas are there.

What we're not talking about is the learner's level of commitment. Like I said, how can we actually say to him that you're better off studying this n this (in your judgement) rather than letting him discover on his own vices if it is worth it or not?

I imagine anyone of us here who are experienced can say we learned from just one book, teacher, opponent but rather we got ideas from various sources. A lifetime of experiences, games. Do you really mean to say Kotov meant his book to be an end all be all?

Kotov was writing to the most ambitious players who wanted to become professionals.  The other thing you have to remember is that income for professionals in those days was limited and it was worthwhile financially writing a book, even if it was not going to 100% acceptable, at least that is the impression I get.  I know a professional player from that era and he told me how tough things were in actual fact.

Indeed. I believe you. But it is not for anyone to say his ideas if candidate moves, creating a tree, or some method of calculation isn't a viable idea for even amateurs to latch onto? To go over annotated games is just for "strong" players exclusively? Dunno. I'd never had the privilege to read his book because at the time, I thought like how you did. It was only for intermediate or "strong" players. Or that was the prevailing thing which I conformed to.

It would be redundant now for me because I have my own "system". More accurately, it would have been useless for me the year later that the book came out.

My admonition on this very issue stems from the fact players of today have soo much resources to draw from, that even an amateur such as the OP can read such a book, and get an idea. Research past games, recent games, create a database of his own personal games to annotate what have you.

Even from MLDM, Silman, etc to draw ideas.

Children are using computers very early. Geez. Progress. I don't doubt the OP will be great if his commitment equals his love for the game. Because there will be ups & downs.

I imagine going through both Tal's and Karpov's games will be beneficial to him. Both are complex players. I just think Tal's way of annotating & analyses of his game are more enjoyable than Karpov's.

Tal is harder to understand because his games involve more sharp tactics and even unclear tactics.  With Karpov you develop a better general understanding of the game.

Learn to win with minimum material. Then slowly add more and learn as you go. 

K v K.  You can have a philosophical duel.  Moral victory to the party who commands the centre.