24201 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Created on September 4, 2011 |
5425 Votes | 105 Comments
For anyone who comes up to this poll, the question is about whose annotations, not the annotator, would be most useful for a beginner to study.
My vote would probably be Capablanca. Sure, he had some tough games that he had to calculate deeply at the time of his champion reign, but he writes annotations that I feel make it simple but efficient to allow a beginner to examine them easily. I haven't seen all his texts, but I believe he discusses on central topics such as outposts, weak squares, etc, all which a beginner can learn.
Personally I don't understand why Fischer is at the top when his combinations are way too deep for beginners to understand - but people will just vote on their favorite player anyway.
I find Josh Waitzkin is the best for beginners..
guys, Fischer is the ultimate grandmaster! i doubt even Carlsen could beat him. He didn't only play extremely well, he was also the youngest grandmaster.
Has to be Capablanca in regards to his simplicity and winning record. Too bad he grew bored with the game and went on to other achievements. I have studied Lasker, Steinez, Botvinnek, Fischer, Capablanca, Schiller and a few others. I fancy myself somewhat of a beginner and find Capa's games easier to comprehend.
I don't get a lot of chess master openings. They're all about Gambits, which waste valuable pawns.
This is not the place for politics.
I've never posted on one of these threads before (so please forgive my naivete), but would someone please comment on Vahan2200's comments from about Sept?
1) Is he right about this being a waste of time and money?
2) From whose perspective/criteria besides his own?
3) Didn't Kasparov choose the right/correct side politically in joining freedom's cause?
4) Does anyone besides me think that both Kissinger and Brezinsky were aweful as diplomats? Great credentials- no results
I don't think a modern player can learn from Morphy,
Good point! - and that's often overlooked in teaching.
for 100% beginners: greco...because he shows blunders in the opening and how to punish them.
none of the grandmasters they should learn from some mediokre player on any sight
Well of course[!] - mine! ...
By the way, nice pic! - looks like an ugly post-mortem game analysis after the poor kid just got mated on move 13 upon losing his queen[!] (Would only like to hope that this represents a four-year-old Magnus Carlsen after failing to reach his final grandmaster norm ... )
And that's the way 'I' see it! ...
I kind of agree with TigerOfChess. I wish I could +1 the comments I value the most...
Karpov for me, balanced solid games and strong endgames, which are often the best to pay attention to for a beginner.
What about Philidor?
Wish I could sort these comments by player rating...
Honestly I think Morphy is too agressive for a beginner player to understand. He misses oppurtunities for material winning and his aggresiveness requires many calculations. I would think either Kasparov, Fischer of Alekhine, because they are true masters of positional play, and even though the book "Bobby Fischer teaches chess" does not contain any actual games of Fischer, it is a really good book for a beginner.
Fischer of course. "My 60 Memorable Games" the book that made me into a serious chess-player. I looked at the games, played through them, and thought WTF?!
This was a serious kind of genius that needed further investigation. And here I am, from that beginner.
The only other player I had the same reaction to was Morphy, who came a close #2 in my vote here. If Morphy had been exposed to the modern chess games that Fischer had, you'd have seen a similar style of play from him.
steinitz or Nimzo
2 months ago
3 months ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
Try the new Chess.com!
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!