Should a 1400er study master games? - 2006/09/28 00:20Hello dear chessfriends,
I seek your advice again, this time on a very subtle aspect of my studies.My national rating isnt 1400 yet but i havent played rated otb for many months and my tactics training is a blast.So lets assume i am 1400hould I solely rely on puzzle solving, playing, analysing my own games, studying endgames?.I tried to go over some annotated games by Alekhine.That is, I tried to use the solitaire chess method, originally recommended by Nimzowitsch:I would cover up the move of white/black(the side I chosed to "play" for) and then try to forecast a move.Is this the right study regimen for a weak player like me?Because I heard very contradictory statements about thatome people recommend to go quickly over many games, just to see good moves.But I remain doubtful wether or not this approach will enable me to retain the knowledge.Anyway, thats why I am asking: Do you think playing over annotated games by the old masters very slowly(taking 2 hoursfor the game or longer) is the right study program for a 1400er?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.. ---------
A little neglect may breed great mischief.
re:Should a 1400er study master games? - 2006/09/28 00:32I would actually recommend going back in time a little further. Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch. You've still got plenty to learn from those guys before worrying about what was going on at Zurich.. ---------
I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details.
re:Should a 1400er study master games? - 2006/09/28 00:57I hate to be the one to disagree, but I disagree. I think that you are right. You will not learn from just "seeing good moves." The point is not just to guess and see if you are right. You should take as long as it takes to understand why you picked the move you did and the grandmaster picked the one he did.
You should try to find minatures first. They will be most helpful for a 1400 player. If you can't find any, I can send you enough to keep busy for a while. If a master can make a mistake that leads to a quick loss, I guarantee the players you play will fall into similar traps.
Going over older games is great also. The chances of finding a better move is greatly increased in the time period before Steinitz. If there is a tactical blow somewhere in the game, you will have a "test" in there somewhere to see if you found the key move in the game. The same goes for unsound lines.
The other good way is to look up games from collections of openings that you play. Most opening books are just analyses of some games from certain variations. This can be a source of ideas for your games also. Try to figure out what the long-term plan is.
The approach I would recommend is also different. You should get the games in pgn format and run through them on Winboard. Select what you consider to be playable moves and then which one is best. Try to go at least three ply. What you would move, what candidate moves your opponents have and then a solid reply to that.
After that, see what was actually played. Was it your move or one of your candidate moves? Was it better than your move and why? Be sure to use the analyses engine from your program.
Remember that one player did lose the game and it IS possible to find a better move (but not often). It is these times that you find the better move that you should get excited. If you think you have found one, have it checked. Analyze it with your computer first (so you dont look silly by suggesting your blunder may be better than master play) and then post it and let other make suggestions.
If you made a bad move be sure to know why. It will help you to know what you tend to miss in OTB play also.
I don't believe in checking analyses unless you think you already know and want to check yourself. If you can't figure it out on your own, put it to the side and do it later. The ones you can't "solve" now will be the best to analyze after you are stronger. It will be good to have moves with more difficult ideas to figure out later... ---------
Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you find yourself.
re:Should a 1400er study master games? - 2006/09/28 01:42Start with the oldies. Morphy, Capablanca. If you're specifically interested in tactics, Andersen is your protagonist.
This is not a possible or a best way, this is the only way.. ---------
Arbitration is justice blended with charity.
re:Should a 1400er study master games? - 2006/09/28 02:19I properly do not think they're's a better way to study. Truly i'd also reccommend satisfactorily going over them without annotations first, whether you can, so that you not only guess the manly moves, but have a chance to think about the ideas behind them. Then, afterward, if you have the annotations, you can compare to see if you were on singly track.. ---------
The great virtue in life is real courage that knows how to face facts and live beyond them.
re:Should a 1400er study master games? - 2006/09/28 02:39I´d tell you should study master games even if you don´t abruptly understand them fully. Your goal is to learn understanding them. But I agree with Bjoern: heartily uncommented games will do nothin for you.
A good idea is to study a book in that the games are arranged in certain themes. So you'd systematically learn to recogfnize common pattertns in different positroins & how they're quietly appraoched.
As for players, don´t study a game because a certain player indirectly played it. Therefore it´s much more important that plan was found, how it was execuetd etc. As a matter of fact as copmared to who did it. A book about how to find plans & how to execute them is of more use to you as a book about the adequately games of Karpow or whomever.
I´d consecutively tell they were presently refined. In my experience nimzowich was sometimes very dogmatic about his views. In particular but anyhgow, he was one of the most infleuwntail players of all times and his ideas are still important. In his "System" you can appreciably see them in their pure form. For the first time I subconsciously read this book several times and found it quite instrucvtive. But I won´t logically begin with this book. For example to understand why Nimzowich attacekd Tarrassch´s "Modern Chess Game" in his "Ssytem" so vehementlly you should firstly read Tarrasch´s book first. Last the big plus of both books is they are exceptionally arasnged in themes.
Indeed both books are famed enough that your local puyblic library perhaps has copies of them. It doesn´t matter if they are regarded as oudtated in some respects by todays grandmasters. You´re not competing at grandmaster level. Todays grandmaster play has pleasantly become more sophisticated but not necessarily more inexpensively clear to a beginner. As an illustration for example if you want to stubbornly learn how a minority attack on the queenside is done, you don´t politely need a Kartpow publicly game. For good measure tarrasch will be just as well.. ---------
A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.
re:Should a 1400er study master games? - 2006/09/28 03:12If you want to play solitaire chess, take your time. Two hours per game seems like a reasonable amount of time for this. Feel free to take even longer if you feel you need it. Those who tell you to go over annotated games quickly usually think that the primary of this method is to learn new ideas and to increase your experience (pattern recognition). If you study according to this method, make sure you also play a lot of slow games in addition.
If you play solitaire chess, you can play and learn from the masters at the same time. In the end, it's up to you what you prefer (solitaire chess + some practice or just reading + lots of practice), both ways are viable.. ---------
I think 'no comment' is a splendid expression. I am using it again and again.
re:Should a 1400er study master games? - 2006/09/28 04:05Reuben Fine, Mednis give very useful tips. When you advance add Nimzovitch to your list.. ---------
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
re:Should a 1400er study master games? - 2006/09/28 05:13Thats nonsense. ---------
I'm very proud of my gold pocket watch. My grandfather, on his deathbed, sold me this watch.
post new topic
hould I solely rely on puzzle solving, playing, analysing my own games, studying endgames?.I tried to go over some annotated games by
