Reviewing high level games

thaynethomas

So I was gifted a book of annotated master level games recently. I was wondering is there a minimum level of skill that someone needs to have to benefit from reviewing master level games, or is it universally beneficial?

Your obedient,

Thayne Thomas Keele

thaynethomas

If it is a dumb question I am sorry.

kindaspongey

"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

"... 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)

"... In many ways, [Batsford's new edition of Logical Chess: Move by Move, written in 1957 by Irving Chernev] would a wonderful 'first' book (or first 'serious' book, after the ones which teach the rules and elementary mates, for example), and a nice gift for a young player just taking up chess. For one thing, the games are clearcut and instructive. ... they contain powerful thematic lessons for the beginning player. My only warning would be that the impressionable student should be gently reminded by a friend or mentor that most of the rules and principles Chernev so dogmatically states do not actually have any consistent validity in real-world chess, so that the book should be looked at as a way to get started thinking about positions, not as a reliable guideline to what chess is really about. With that proviso, I would recommend it heartily to anyone just starting to explore the game, ..." - IM John Watson (1999)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books

FlashyFerrari

Nope. True, there are some games that are more complex than others, but you can learn from all of them, whether it's picking up a knight maneuver or a new mating pattern. Ever seen Paul Morphy's Opera Game or the Evergreen Game? Those are suitable for players of any skill level. It's up to you, really. I would play through them and just enjoy the beauty.

DeirdreSkye

 Anyone that has develop some kind of thinking process(not total beginner that has just learned the moves) can be benefited by studying annotated games.

It would be better though if you didn't start with a random book that a friend gave you but with a good book. Hopefully the book your friend gave you is a good book. In any case there is a difference between studying and reading. If you really want to improve you need to a real board and try to focus in what the author tries to explain. Try to understand the position , the important moves and the plans. Write down questions. If you are doing proper study you must have a ton of them. If you don't have questions you must worry.Either you are a genious that understands everything or you are not focusing(in 99% of the cases it's the second).

    Good luck!

thaynethomas

Thank you I’ve been going through them with my pocket set and playing out all the variations I’ll start keeping track of questions on a sheet of paper.  The books were Bobbie Fishers 60 memorable games and The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played By Irving Chernev. Are they good books and if not what would be good books?

I will also look over the opera game.

Your obedient

Thayne Thomas Keele

kindaspongey
thaynethomas wrote:

... Bobbie Fishers 60 memorable games and The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played By Irving Chernev. Are they good books and if not what would be good books? ...

To a large extent, you are the ultimate authority.

"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis

If you already have a book, you can look at it for yourself and make a judgment. Nevertheless, here is a comment on the Chernev book:

"... The Most Instructive Games of Chess Every Played ... contains sixty-two well analyzed games, each one possessing both artistic and educational value. ... Chernev’s annotations are pedagogically precise, eminently readable, and his choice of games is inspired. ..."

https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/

It would be easier to suggest other books after seeing how you feel about the two that you mention.

kindaspongey
thaynethomas wrote:

... I will also look over the opera game, ...

Might want to consider A First Book of Morphy by Frisco Del Rosario.

https://www.chess.com/blog/Chessmo/review-a-first-book-of-morphy

DeirdreSkye
thaynethomas wrote:

Thank you I’ve been going through them with my pocket set and playing out all the variations I’ll start keeping track of questions on a sheet of paper.  The books were Bobbie Fishers 60 memorable games and The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played By Irving Chernev. Are they good books and if not what would be good books?

I will also look over the opera game.

Your obedient

Thayne Thomas Keele

Both are good books but start with Chernev since he is significantly easier.

If you can find Reti's "Masters of the chessboard" it would be a good second book. Reti is not easy , but he is simple and he deals with a wide varriety of themes , from opening ideas to rook endgames. Fischer is a bit complicated and difficult to understand if you are inexperienced but his 60 memorable games are some of the best games ever played.

kindaspongey

Masters of the Chessboard by Richard Reti

http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2012/4/1/book-notice-richard-retis-masters-of-the-chessboard.html

kindaspongey
FlashyFerrari wrote:

... Ever seen Paul Morphy's Opera Game or the Evergreen Game? Those are suitable for players of any skill level. ...

I think games like that can be seen in Instructive Chess Miniatures.

http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Instructive_Chess_Miniatures.pdf

O-Ren-Ishii-Gambit
Those two books should be good for you to study annotated games from, IMO. I'll also suggest to you, "Three Hundred Chess Games" by Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch.

Good luck!
MitSud
Those two book have been recommended many times before, although Bobby Fischer’s 60 Memorable Games is advanced for most players
kindaspongey

"... '300 Chess Games' offers an excellent perspective on late 19th-century play, and includes many classic illustrations of how to exploit positional advantages.

I'm not sure which players would benefit most from playing through the games and notes of this book-probably those from about 1200 to 2000. For those who value the study of classic game collections, I think that the games in this book have more educational value than those of any great player up to Alekhine, because the positional themes and types of complex maneuvering which arise in Tarrasch's games are more universally applicable to a developing player's needs. Nevertheless, the book's main appeal will be to collectors and fans of the old masters. ..." - IM John Watson (2000)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/looking-back-part-1