study of grandmaster games
Sort:
Sneakmasterflex
May 21, 2016
0
#1
I found a Bobby Fischer quote online that says the best players to study for improvement are Tarrasch, Bronstein, Keres in that order...Anyone can relate to this?
i'am jst a beginner but wonder about stuff like that too... i mean, he said that almost 50 years ago? that was then and this is now. curious to see what more experienced players think
May 21, 2016
0
#3
It still applies. They say that Magnus Carlsen has 10 thousand master games memorized.
And Zurich 1953 is one of the worst books you could recommend for a beginner to study for learning how to play properly. Because it's wayyyy too advanced for a beginner.
Beginners need to learn simple concepts and simple non-losing middlegame ideas. These are completely assumed in Zurich 1953, and Bronstein only comments on moves requiring a lot higher level of analysis. Anything beginner-level is completely skipped, and assumed, including standard lines of popular lines like the Kings Indian played out 12 moves deep.
You'll do a lot better if you're a real beginner (like <1200 here) by watching ChessNetwork and John Bartholomew on youtube and see how they destruct their class-level opponents with logical, methodical play that does NOT require complicated tactics and stifles counterplay with timely responses. Heck, even if you're not a beginner, you'll still learn a lot from these guys (NM/IMs) but most importantly, they do not just assume high-level chess knowledge, and most of the time, explain everything, move by move, even the obvious (to them) stuff.
I'll guarantee that as a <1200, if you memorized 30 Zurich games without a coach helping you, vs memorizing 30 5-min blitz games of John Bartholomew vs class-level player, you'll learn and benefit far, far, more from John B's games than the Zurich games, which will seem so opaque you won't even be able to figure out more than a handful of the moves (and of which your reasoning will probably be wrong.)
May 21, 2016
0
#5
Amanda2018 wrote:
i'am jst a beginner but wonder about stuff like that too... i mean, he said that almost 50 years ago? that was then and this is now. curious to see what more experienced players think
Very much still holds true. Truth is, they are particularly instructive because the difference between the top players of that time and the very good players at that time means that you can see plans...and the exploiting of the idea better than you can today. Today, the very good players know a lot more about chess than the 'very good' players of that time...so they make less mistakes now and you do not get to see the instructive element as well.
May 21, 2016
0
#6
jengaias wrote:
Amanda2018 wrote:
i'am jst a beginner but wonder about stuff like that too... i mean, he said that almost 50 years ago? that was then and this is now. curious to see what more experienced players think
Beginners were the same in all times and all eras.They always had the same needs in knowledge.What changes is how fast they improve.50 years back , with less tournaments and no engines it was more difficult to improve than today.Today an engine offers a grandmaster level opponent available every day all day.True , it's better to play against humans but not having strong tournaments in your area is certainly less of a problem today than it was 50 years ago.
So if Tarrasch , Bronstein and Keres were good in Fisher's time , they are good in every time.
I would say that these players are not randomly chosen.They represent the evolution of chess from the "classic" Tarrasch to the man that revolutionised chess in many ways , David Bronstein.
If you want to study Bronstein , the best book is still Zurich 1953 because you will find there 240 games(if I remember correctly) annotated by him.I am not sure if there is a good collection with Bronstein's games. I will wait to see what others have say on this.
There is a collection of Keres games annotated by Keres but recommended or mentioned by none.Can a book annotated by Keres be bad?Seems that Keres never really annotated the games , at least not all of them.And seems that the ones that are supposed to have Keres annotations , Reinfeld took them from magazines(or that is what many think , I am unable to say if it is true or not). One more interesting subject for discussion.
Seems also that there is no good collection(with good annotations) of Tarrasch games(hopefully others will enlighten us on this).
So the problem for today's student is not so much which players will study but which ones offer high quality annotated games(of course take any player's games and analyse them yourself is always an option).
THREE HUNDRED CHESS GAMES by Tarrasch - lots of notes...some pretty good ones to. Instructive because...well, see my previous post.
May 21, 2016
0
#7
Thank you all for the input. I have found 300 CHESS GAMES BY TARRASCH, The sorcerer's apprentice by Bronstein to be very good books for learning and understanding the mechanics of stronger play. I also have Keres The road to the top but have not started reading it yet, altough people say anything annotated by Keres is pure gold, still to this date the best annotator. I keep wondering wether Fischer himself studied the games of these 3 players before he got strong...
May 22, 2016
0
#8
The First Book of Morphy is comprised of Morphy's games and is broken into three sections: Opening Principles, Middlegame Principles, and Endgame Principles. This might be the best book of complete games for beginners. A close second may be The Art of Checkmate I think these two are prerequisites for reading Tarrasch, unless you are not a complete beginner
May 22, 2016
0
#9
Quick browsing of mastergames on your computer is indeed a joke. But going through Tarrasch 300 games, by hand on a real board, is different. Last time did that I almost immediately went from otb 1650 to otb 1820. Altough I yo-yo:ed back to 1700 after that because I quit studying after that, which of course was a mistake.
Teichmann70 wrote:
You cannot learn chess by browsing through master games. Watching video and going through chess games are for entertainment not learning.
Sure you can.
May 22, 2016
0
#11
jengaias wrote:
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Teichmann70 wrote:
You cannot learn chess by browsing through master games. Watching video and going through chess games are for entertainment not learning.
Sure you can.
You can if your only aim is to be a good on line player.
You can't if your aim is OTB.
Four years ago I was preparing to play in the World Open with my 1790-something rating using various methods, one of them being to memorize the games from the 1960 Tal-Botvinnik match. How did I do?
I was playing for a tie in the last round of the Alabama Quick Chess Championship and was even a rook up, but lost in time trouble.
In the World Open itself I finished 6-3 with two of my three losses being to the overall winner, and the winner of the under-1700 prize.
In my next tournament which was my first ever FIDE tournament, I drew an NM in the first round, and drew an expert in the last round, to get a provisional FIDE rating over 1900.
So I'd say the above was at least anecotal evidence that studying master games DOES improve your OTB play -- at least it's better supported than merely stating an opinion as though it were fact.
Stating opinion as fact is the reason Al Gore invented the internet.
jengaias wrote:
"... I am not sure if there is a good collection with Bronstein's games. I will wait to see what others have say on this. ..."
Perhaps consider the 2015 book, Bronstein Move by Move by FM Steve Giddins.
May 22, 2016
0
#14
jengaias wrote:
Memorising games doesn't help at all.
If you had better results , memorising the games from Tal- Botvinnik match wasn't the reason.
If only was that easy.
You need to do personal work.
You need to take a real board , the book and pen and paper.If you don't have pen and paper to write down your thoughts , your analysis and your questions , don't expect much.
Agreed 100%. STUDY them for the methods used, Tal's comments on what he was THINKING...a sense of what is like to play top level chess. But 'memorizing' if ridiculous.
May 22, 2016
0
#15
There is a good collection of bronstein games called The sorcerers apprentice. Also his 200 open games is a good book. You guys shud know this
John Edwards (He won the 10th US Correspondence Championship) states the following about his training of young students: "I remain convinced that young learners will gain measurably in strength for every masster game through which they play. One game a day will make them the best player in their school. Fire games a day and they will come to win scholastic champonships. Ten a day and thay will fare well at every adult tournament."
He first has them play though every Paul Morphy game, then all the games of Capablanca, and then Tal's games.
For just over two months now I've been playing one Paul Morphy game most days, which consumes about half my study time. My live chess ranking has gone up over 200 points.
May 22, 2016
0
#17
For all purposes, a 1700 like the op and myself are beginners, least when compared to where we eant to go, meaning +2000... The book is exactly a collection of bronstein games, with a sacrifice in every of those games.. If the point is didactic, so much the better
"... Candidates tournament of 1953 ... David Bronstein's book (we now know that Boris Veinstein was an uncredited collaborator) ..." - IM John Watson (2013)
May 22, 2016
0
#19
alex-rodriguez wrote:
Sneakmasterflex wrote:
I found a Bobby Fischer quote online that says the best players to study for improvement are Tarrasch, Bronstein, Keres in that order...Anyone can relate to this?
Actually the best player to study for improvement would be Fischer. For example he was really good at endgames.
WRONG!
The best player to study depends on the rating of the reader.
Lower rated players should study older players, like Morphy, Steinitz, Capablanca, etc. They had a very logical, basic concept, and played what many call "simple chess". Capablanca always traded down to endgames any time he could. Morphy was all about piece play. Steinitz was known for many positional concepts we use today, like his restriction method when you hold the Bishop pair and your opponent has one or both Knights, etc. Each of the early GMs had a set "style". You can learn tactics from one, positional play from another, etc.
Higher rated players obviously wouldn't hurt themselves studying older players, but they are ready to tackle the games of Spassky-onward. Botvinnik and Spassky were pretty much the start of the "Universal Style" generation. This is when play got significantly stronger. Spassky could grind you down, or put a firework under your King's a$$. He wasn't dependent upon any one single style of play like the earlier GMs. Computers started coming into play, from your basic programs in the 70s to very strong machines by the mid 80s and 90s. Opening theory expanded, and it became far more difficult to "out-prep" your opponent on opening knowledge alone.
I am currently studying Stein's games, but on the list to study are Spassky, Bronstein, Fischer, Petrosian, Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Anand, Carlsen, and others from the post-Carlsen era as time moves on. A 1300 player isn't ready to study any of these players, and should be going for Morphy, Steinitz, Capablanca, and Alekhine.