What are the best games to study and in what order of difficulty ??

Classical master games, amatures around your strength, my own games, modern master games, world champion games, famous games throughout history,anyone 200 pts above you, GM games, upset games, miniatures, marathon(50 moves or longer) games, what type of games should I study ? Should I study all but in a certain order ? Why study these sets of games and in this way ?

Over the years people have told me to study one of the above categories for one reason or another and all made quite a bit of since so I wanted to know what the community thought .

Each of us has different weaknesses and strengths, different learning styles, etc.  For me, with all of my weaknesses, I believe that the analysis of my own games, particularly losses, is probably the most helpful single thing to study.  That covers all of my weaknesses at one time as they appear.  If I can find another very strong player to analyze them, great.  If not, then running them through a strong engine is a good second choice.

True but from all the things I listed do you think you could list them from importance ?

It might be different for each player.  Perhaps tactics is the most important, because even if you don't know openings, a strong tactical base would keep you out of most problems at the beginning.  Once you quit giving away pieces, you can make it to the endgame where a solid basic knowledge of mating techniques with the different pieces can be a real help when you might be in time trouble, and that, of course, depends on whether you are playing live or correspondence where endgame might possibly be less critical when you have time to think.

I've really enjoyed playing through some classical games, time period around the first few world champions.  The ideas seem more accessible... it's like watching amateurs play... if the amateurs had world class skills... if that makes any sense :p

It seems like an unfiltered game of chess.  Queenside expansion looks good?  Well I'll try it!  They don't know that after 50 years of play and study that the this idea will be neutralized... and frankly neither do I!  It's good to see these raw ideas tried by players with very high tactical and technical skills.  At least I think it's instructive.

waffllemaster wrote:

I've really enjoyed playing through some classical games, time period around the first few world champions.  The ideas seem more accessible... it's like watching amateurs play... if the amateurs had world class skills... if that makes any sense :p

It seems like an unfiltered game of chess.  Queenside expansion looks good?  Well I'll try it!  They don't know that after 50 years of play and study that the this idea will be neutralized... and frankly neither do I!  It's good to see these raw ideas tried by players with very high tactical and technical skills.  At least I think it's instructive.

I agree

Amateurs in every endeavor are of little interest.

In skimming a book from 1980's by Mednis, he spoke of the value of studying classical games.  He did limit that by saying that you should begin with Steinitz and work forward because he saw that as the watershed to contemporary chess practice.  His reason was that if you don't know where we came from, how do you know where we are?

Then again, if you don't know what you're doing to begin with, what is that sort of thing going to matter?  Perhaps that is just a (rather contrived) picture people have (or want to have) of the process after devoting a lifetime of study to it.

In my view, I've definitely found that it's best to study your own games.  While I'm playing (I play 3-day per move time control) I write down all the thoughts that are in my head.  After the game I go back and try to find out where I made weak moves.  It's helpful to see what my thought process was in making that weak move. 

Except astronomers (and possibly porn).

Hah, very good.  I wonder how much this happens... as in I wonder if it happens 100% of the time lol :)

I like that idea @Casual_Joe.  I always go back over my games, but never thought to keep a "journal" of thoughts leading to the chosen candidate move that I played.  I'll try that, thanks!

'I believe that the analysis of my own games, particularly losses'

Actually Kotov in his seminal 'Think like a Grandmaster' points out that you should spend more time analysing your wins - as you are likely to dwell on your losses anyway, so you will remember and learn from your losses quite well already. But errors hidden in wins which didn't get punished  will continue to lurk in your game.

Interesting perspective which reinforces the practice of having the chess engine analyze the entire game for both sides rather than just one side.

What you should be studying depends on your level of strength.  There is nothing wrong with also studying what is below you, but I would hold off on studying higher tiers until you are higher rated.  Tier 1 is the highest, Tier 4 the lowest:

First off:  ALL players should study their own games, ESPECIALLY their losses!

Tier 1 (Over 2000 - Expert and above): Opening Theory, Complicated Tactics, Complicated Strategy, Modern GM Games (Karpov thru Today)

Tier 2 (1600 to 1999 - Class A and B):  Opening Lines (NOT Opening Theory - 2 different things.  You are simply going thru the main moves of various openings to get a basic feel of which openings lead to middlegame positions that you are comfortable with), Mid-20th Century GM Games (i.e. Alekhine to Fischer), Tactics, Strategy, Complex Endings.  You might also consider studying unannotated games with the Openings that lead to middlegame positions that you feel comfortable about.  Forget about all the variations - Save line E4c225 for when you are a Master!

Tier 3 (1200 to 1599) - Opening Concepts (i.e. Control the Center, don't move pieces twice, avoid early Queen Development, etc), Basic Tactics, Basic Strategy, GM Games Capablanca and earlier, 5-piece endings (You should be learning known book endings to the point that you know them like the back of your hand - These include KBN vs K, Various Rook Ending themes like Lucena's Position, Philidor's Draw, The Short-Side Defense, and the Long-Side Defense).

Tier 4 (Under 1200) - Very basic stuff.  How the pieces move.  Super-Basic Endgame positions, like K+P vs K, when is it a win?  K+Q vs K, K+R vs K, etc.  You should also know the rules of chess like the back of your hand.  If you can't answer 100% of the following Questions, are aren't ready to do anything else but study and understand them (including playing chess):

A) What is En Passant?  When can En Passant be executed?
B) What are the rules of castling?  If the White King is not in Check, and g1 isn't attacked, but f1 is hit by a Black Bishop on a6, can White castle Kingside?  What about if b1 is hit by a Black Bishop, can the Rook cross over "check" to Castle Queenside?
C) What is 3-fold repetition?  Do the moves have to be consecutive?  Do they have to involve moving the same pieces?  Does it have to be the same player to move each time?  Does what legal options they have matter, like if you could castle the first time, moved your king and then went back, is that 2-fold or not?  When do you call it?  Do you hit the clock and start the opponent's clock until they acknowledge?
D) Draw offers - When can they be made?  When should they be made?  If you offer a draw, and it's your turn, how long does your opponent have to decide whether or not to accept it?
E) What happens if Black is to move, Black has no legal move, and Black is NOT in check?

This should at least give you a basic idea.