The problem with studying master games
Sort:
Yes its even better when u cover over the masters moves first and try and guess what they might have done for a few mins and then uncover them and see if your right. Then you could rate how many of them u got right and how many u got wrong and track your progress if u wanted to that is....
This isn't a problem with studying master games (there is much more to learn from master games than an opening line or two)... this is the problem with studying opening lines... and everyone has encountered this problem.
Solution A) if you are serious chess talent, competing in tournaments and trying to climb the ranks into the exalted company of IMs and GMs you have to STUDY CONSTANTLY.
Solution B) if you're like everyone else, you memorize a few pet lines in the fond hope of someday actually meeting someone who stays in them long enough for you get in your prepared moves, and you try to develop a small repertoire that you're comfortable with -- in developing that repertoire you not only learn prepared opening lines, you learn the key elements of the positions the opening moves thru and develops into so that you understand what's going on and can improvise when you encounter the inevitable deviations (it's easier said than done!) ... You do this one opening at a time, and if you have an ordinary memory, it takes some time!
As for how to refute a non-book move... here's some ideas:
A) Many non-book moves aren't refutable but seem pointless because that's exactly what they are, pointless... they aren't actively bad moves, they don't create a weakness or hang a piece to a combination ... the non-book move isn't played _ever_ by masters because the non-book move is a passive, besides the point, hunh? sort of move, which not only does not accomplish anything... but obviously doesn't accomplish anything. Masters are all about not making those kinds of moves... (in fact that is probably the main thing I have learned from studying master games: strive like the devil to avoid pointless initiative-shedding moves!) So, your opponent has in effect handed you a big fat juicy tempo... there's nothing to refute... just use the tempo to some purpose!
B) If you're playing Correspondence, check the database... if a move seems natural or commonsensical or normal... and no one plays it: look for tactics immediately... there's something wrong with it. Use the database to determine what sorts of plans and tactics develop in the opening you're in... ask yourself... has your opponent's move failed to accomplish something the book moves do? (Often a critical square has been left undefended)
If you're playing "live" look for tactics (always look for tactics!) undefended "loose" pieces, overworked defenders, checks, mate threats, pins skewers discoveries... any forcing moves that might drive the game down a direction beneficial to you.
When analysing... run the PGN thru a computer and pay attention to the evaluations -- does the evaluation jump at the move that departs from book... ? There's tactics there. What line does the computer suggest there?
Don't stop studying master games, or being excited and inspired by what you see! You don't study master games for _moves_... you study master games to interrogate a game, to probe at each move -- what are they doing? why? how did they see that? what are they seeing? what else might they have done? And you study master games to see the tactics they use... to see the overall plans of attack they use, and how they defend (counterattack), you learn basic mating themes, and the threats that arise attacking common pawn formations around the king.
And there's more to learn from master games...!
It is important not just to memorize the moves in the opening but to understand why each move are being played at all...this will make you ready to reply acoordingly to your opponents deviation.
Jun 27, 2008
0
#24
Even if you knew every opening then you would not have anything close in your memory to the possible combinations of just 10 depth. You should always just use basic principles, calculate based on what you see before your eyes if something deviates from the norm.
According to my calculations at a depth of just 10 the possible permuatations from start to every possible position is 10 to power of 850, and this will only increase exponentially with every 1 depth.
I once studied the paintings of masters so that I could improve my painting skills....and this is how far I got.
I find the value of opening books to be that (a good one at least) should give you the ideas involved in the openings. I actually find an 'overview' book far more valuable than one that spends 200 pages on one specific variation of one opening.
Then, once I have some grasp of why someone would play a particular opening, I can learn from playing over annotated master games using that opening. From those I can learn what kind of middle game that opening usually leads to.
My usual opponent is a far stronger player than me. I may begin by playing an opening by ear and see what develops. If he knows what opening that was I was playing, then I'll look it up and see what others did with it.
Ironically I often find that the type of game I play the best is not necessarily the kind of game I feel the most comfortable with. And that poses a problem; do I play what I play best or do I play what I like best.
