Crickey, Magikstone seems to have the entire history of what every GM actually studied.
That's me way out of my depth!
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
Well, his recent post is actually more humble and makes more sense. It is one way to improve. Not the only way.
Mar 5, 2015
0
#344
Reb wrote:
chyss is just another useless troll , he attacks me and disagrees with me every time he gets the chance , while defending people who obviously dont have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to chess .
I generally agree with Reb, except when the topic is Fischer.
Mar 5, 2015
0
#345
Magikstone wrote:
Studying the games of any player, from Morphy, to Capablanca, to Botvitnik, Fischer, to Kasparov, to Anand, and last but not least, Carlsen, wiill not help you reach master. Studying all the different kinds of endgames in the world will not help you reach master. If you truly want to improve your game, like I do, you will use my method. You must understand your own style of play. And then from there, use a computer program to see all sorts of tactical possibilities relating to the style of play you play. No matter how many times you study Morphy, YOU, in real life will never have to go up against Morphy, or his opponents. That is why studying chess games, anyone's chess games is a waste of time. Because those openings that people used to play in the old days, you really think your opponents will play like that? Chess is all about being flexible, learn who you are first, how you play, what openings you love to play, what middle game plans you love to use, and then you can evolve through trial and error. I would like for you to become a master too, but I feel you are doing it the wrong way.
That's why your rating is so low. Wrong-headed notions.
Reb is always 100% correct in the Fischer topics,
just not for the haters :)
Magikstone wrote:
Finding this method has improved my game, I may never be a world champion material, but in time, I will reach master level. My method is simple. Find openings you like, the less the better. Out of these openings, find out the kind of middlegame plans you like to employ. Last but not least, not only become familiar with the kind of positions you reach with the openings you use, use a computer program to see if any move you made was a flat out blunder, or if you had a tactical possibility you missed.
Now I understand that there are many masters who have reached that level using different strategies.
Not a bad method, imho.
definately would work for noobs, but would allow GMs to employ Cray supercomputers and teams of seconds to find opening novelties to troll you with.
I find the lack of respect to the masters of the past disgusting, and ignoring their games (by anyone who wants to improve) more than stupid.
Pulp!!
+ infinity
Pulpofeira wrote:
I find the lack of respect to the masters of the past disgusting, and ignoring their games (by anyone who wants to improve) more than stupid.
The games should certainly be studied (great tournament books from Lasker's St.Petersburg 1909, Alekhine's New York 1924 and Nottingham 1936, Euwe's Hague-Moscow 1948, and others exists as well as collections like Karpov's Best Games and Alekhine's Best Games) but we have to be objective regarding their playing strength.
Is it disrespectful to Lasker to say that Rubinstein or Pillsbury would defeat him in a match? It's debatable if he could win or not, but not disrespectful.
Is it disrespectful to Morphy to say that Yusupov would annihilate him? Not at all, a physics professor at MIT or even a state college certainly knows more about physics than Newton so there’s no shame in being less skilled or knowledgeable than people far into the future.
But it's hardly fair to ask a bloke to go to the graveyard and challenge a guy to a game of chess on his grave.
NAAAAAAAAH
@Oggie: of course that is not disrespectful, I obviously was meaning other type of comments.
Kinda? Those (insert player) sucks comments?
Magikstone escribió:
Dude, nowadays chess players don't become grandmasters by looking at the games of the old masters. They do so by computer aid and coaches. You're fondness for players of the past is amusing.
Like this.
I don't see an insult. He is just saying that computers have helped modern GMs a lot.
millionairesdaughter spoke of the dead:
But it's hardly fair to ask a bloke to go to the graveyard and challenge a guy to a game of chess on his grave.
MuhammadAreez10 escribió:
I don't see an insult. He is just saying that computers have helped modern GMs a lot.
...and that studying the games of old masters is useless.
thought you didn't know who you were talking about chyss!