Master Games
Sort:
I don't think that is true because you can learn from the games of any player that is considerably stronger. Master games may contain inaccuracies but generally it is the type of play that most club players are aspiring to reach. Therefore looking at their games can only be beneficial. In fact their games should be slightly easier to understand than games by Super GMs which are often highly theoretical.
"... there are major advantages to studying older games rather than those of today.
The ideas expressed in a Rubinstein or Capablanca game are generally easier to understand. They are usually carried out to their logical end, often in a memorable way, ...
In today's chess, the defense is much better. That may sound good. But it means that the defender's counterplay will muddy the waters and dilute the instructional value of the game.
For this reason the games of Rubinstein, Capablanca, Morphy, Siegbert Tarrasch, Harry Pillsbury and Paul Keres are strongly recommended - as well as those of more recent players who have a somewhat classical style, like Fischer, Karpov, Viswanathan Anand and Michael Adams. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)
Maybe he meant it in some other context? As it is, it sounds like nonsense. Studying master games is one of the best, if not the best, ways to improve one's game.
Jun 30, 2017
0
#5
Your mentor should not be teaching (or you misunderstood what he or she said). Study of master games is vital to improvement. Of course, most players--all those below 2000--get far more from classic master games than from those played by today's GMs.
It's also possible that your mentor meant that at this stage you won't gain much from studying master games. This is still false, but it does have a point: you need to build up a solid carcass of your chess play, before diving into professional games and being able to extract a lot from them. I hope this is the case, and your mentor doesn't actually believe that master games have no study value... If he does, then I'd suggest changing a mentor.
To clear up some confusion, my mentor is rated 1600(OTB). I was asking him who his favorite chess player was, he said Morphy, but he then said they are mostly for entertainment and they aren't helpful. He compared it to watching, Lebron James, you can carefully dissect his play, but it won't increase how good you play(or "raise your rating points" in his exact words)
Jul 1, 2017
0
#8
pfren wrote:
A post beginner can learn a crapload of chess from Morphy's games.
I strongly recommend GM Valeri Beim's book on Morphy.
Beim's book on Morphy has guided me (an A Class player--peak USCF 1982) while teaching dozens of promising young children, taking them from beginner up to C Class and beyond. If I work with a student one-on-one, that student will see Morphy's games (and learn some of Beim's analysis).
Jul 1, 2017
0
#9
Don't know why your mentor says that. Of course you can learn from master games. Well I did it in the past, and it helped me a lot to improve. Such games can be a real 'eye-opener'.
I largely agree with your mentor that studying master games is generally useless for increasing the rating or performance. But, at the same time, I would say that every chess player should study games of Morphy(specially the ones he played against no names). Morphy's games are more relevant to beginners because his opponents(no name ones) play similar to beginners or amateurs. I think it is best to study the games of players 200-400 rating higher than oneself. A low rated player studying the games of masters is useless because of the difference in skills. What can work at one level would be irrelevant at another level.
Solo96789 wrote:
To clear up some confusion, my mentor is rated 1600(OTB). I was asking him who his favorite chess player was, he said Morphy, but he then said they are mostly for entertainment and they aren't helpful. He compared it to watching, Lebron James, you can carefully dissect his play, but it won't increase how good you play(or "raise your rating points" in his exact words)
Perhaps part of the problem was the particular Morphy book that he had been reading. Some are more helpful than others.
Jul 1, 2017
0
#12
In general, I have to disagree with your mentor. However, I do agree that the subtle nuances differentiating 2200+ rated games from 1700+ rated games are simply not things that a player rated under 1200 would see.
There is something to be said for looking at weaker players' games: the mistakes they make are much more obvious, especially if the opponent is good enough to punish them. I sometimes learn more from games where a super-GM crushes a much lower rated player than from evenly fought games between two super-GMs.
This may well be why people find games by Morphy and other past masters so instructive: their opponents were weak enough to get crushed in very instructive fashion.
Hi everyone. Recently, I was talking with my mentor, and he said you can't learn from master games. He said they're nothing more than entertainment, and they can't really help raise your rating. What is your opinion on this? Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious to hear what others think