I'd suggest the games of Morphy. The reason is that Morphy has decent positional play, of course, but his famous games show many fundamental tactical themes that pop up the most often. You also learn the importance of development and following the natural basic principles of positional play.
I wouldn't recommend Capablanca, Rubinstein, or Botvinnik (famous for their nuanced positional play) until you're at least B level.
Morphy?! Or Morphy!?
You make a good reasoned case for starting with his games first. Thanks for the suggestion.
Chronological order will help you see new themes and ideas emerging as techniques changed.
Here's a good collection of attacking games:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1006294
|
All opening traps,mating themes,and tactics that every chess player should know. All Classic Games you need to know.Attacking 0-0.Double Bishop Attacks.I wish I could have reviewed the games in this collection when I first learned chess at age 14.My hope is this will help someone who is just learning the game and those of us who keep falling for opening traps. |
Hi Pen and Paper,
Much thanks for the link to Timothy Forney's Compilation of Brutal Attacking Games! Free too!
My favorite players to study:
Capablanca
Petrosian
Karpov
Botvinnik
Honestly...it wont matter who you decide to study. As long as youre learning.
Study Seigbert Tarrasch, he had a classical style that is easy to understand.
To help with making your choices, I suggest to check out these two classics by Richard Reti (in chronological order)....
"Modern Ideas In Chess" by Richard Reti....
https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Ideas-Chess-21st-Century/dp/1888690623/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492757184&sr=1-1&keywords=modern+ideas+in+chess
"Masters of the Chessboard" by Richard Reti.....
https://www.amazon.com/Masters-Chessboard-21st-Century-Richard/dp/1936490218/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492757360&sr=1-1&keywords=masters+of+the+chessboard+by+richard+reti
Both books feature analysis and commentary of the style of play of the most of the great masters from the mid 19th to the early-to-mid 20th century, including Morphy, Anderssen, Rubinstein, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Tartakower, Spielmann, Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, etc...
Of the two, the most comprehensive in its treatment is "Masters of the Chessboard".
Read the Amazon reader reviews of the books for additional perspective...
Reti's books are worthwhile.
As for your question about which master to study:
Morphy is a good choice. If you do not know his games, you should. There are also a couple of books with excellent annotations of his games. Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective is my favorite.
After Morphy, you might consider Tarrasch, principally because he has annotated his own games. Tarrasch, 300 Chess Games.
I jumped from C Class to A between the ages of 46 and 50.
I did lots of tactics, including playing many positions in Reinfeld's classic 1001 Winning Chess Combinations and Sacrifices against the computer. See http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2008/11/where-rubber-meets-road.html
I also kept such books as Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book and Averbakh, Chess Tactics for Advanced Players at my bedside for nightly reading.
Wow, I never thought of reading Reti's classics. That might be the way to go, in terms of getting the history of chess thought and greatness with both speed and quality. Thanks for the suggestion, Russ!
Ziryab, deep thanks for your suggestion as well! That's cool that a modern GM like Beim wrote a treatise on Morphy. When I study Morphy, that's the book I'll pick up. Also, I went to your blog, and I really enjoyed it immensely. Particularly your article on Attitude. Good stuff!
An underrated part of studying old masters is that they often played inferior opponents. That is, their opponents would often make mistakes that a modern 2000 player would never even consider. I went through the games of Harry Nelson Pillsbury awhile back, and it amazed me just how often his opponents willingly parted with the Bishop pair, or allowed pawn weaknesses with no compensation.
This is great for you, because many of your opponents will play such inferior moves as well, and now you can see a great player responds to such positions.
As for whom to study, Tarrasch is an excellent choice. Classical, direct, one of the best 4 chess players of his era in his prime, and his annotations are great. I will also add Alekhine, in particular his 'My Best Games of Chess' collection. Alekhine is known as an attacker, but in truth he played quiet and endgame positions just as well.
You might also find something that piques your interest in the following list...
Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond....
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond
Study Seigbert Tarrasch, he had a classical style that is easy to understand.
I improved a lot when I studied Reinfeld games collection of Tarrasch. He was a player that could nurse a spatial advantage to success. I felt that when I realised I needed to do this, I improved a lot. He was instinctively anti hyper modern and personally I think it's best to start off like this.
I recall that Tal recommended studying the games of Tarrasch, Bronstein and Keres.
Tal
Wow Russ! Your comment in #18 linking to your list of Good Books for Beginners was really cool.
Candidate Books are like Candidate Moves! I think Emmanuel Lasker said something this: "If you find a good move..., look for a better move!"
Anyways, in a couple days I will make a decision as to which game collection I will start with first. Gotta decide on a move from the list of Candidate Moves, then gotta decide on a move from the list of Candidate Books.
Such great suggestions and input from everybody. Thank you all!
Morphy must be on top of your list, why? I never see a player study Morphy and not go up in rating and strength. What good it is to have won position and not able to deliver the final shot that will end the game; or to punish your opponent for breaking opening principles, Fischer, Tal and Alekhine were the king in punishing player who disregard opening principles, Fischer made a deep study of Morphy and Anderssen games, that is why he was so dangereous. I am 2000 otb player, I still think it help any player below master level, now days you have player being too creative in the opening and not developing,not controlling the center or leaving their king in the center and if you can't take advantage of these mistakes, you letting your opponent off the hook.
I've been informed/taught repeatedly to study the annotated games of former World Champions or World Class SuperGM's of the "Old" Era. I.e., the modern era players (the players after Bobby Fischer) with the modern game are rather hard to understand for the low intermediate player.
I have never done this before, i.e., study the game collection of one particular player. And I'm thinking that it's of some reasonable import as to who I should start with. I'm looking for recommendations from the Chess.com community. Other factors to consider for my particular situation are age and ability. I'm an older fellow, mid-50's, and I assess myself to be maybe a class C player with aspirations to be a 2000 player one day.
Also, do I start with a player who's known for attacking? Or for solid positional play? It seems to me to start out with an attacking style champion because if it's not my style, then it would be easier to transition to a positional style. Whereas it seems as if the converse isn't true: That it's more difficult to move from a positional style to an attacking style.
That being said, here's the short list (please suggest others whom I've overlooked):
Capablanca
Alekhine
Rubinstein
Tal
Lasker
Botvinnik
Fischer
Who should be my FIRST SuperGM of the Old Era to study?
P.S. Any suggestions on how long it should take me to go over one game when I study the annotated games? How long does it take you typically?