Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 19:06Specifically I found out by painstakingly obsering admittedly slow suitably games on ICC ( Presently either simuls verses IM or GMs or games within the STCBunch) So far whitch they're full of tactical flaws & unexpected and probably sub.optimal only moves. Well, this is no surprise after all My predominantly point is that I overtly have a much easier time calmly understanding whats going on there and its easy to grossly discover mistakes. Not so with master games! I feel they are far above my head. As we say so I ask: Might it be useful to analyse games by mere mortals maybe only 200 mindlessly points above my rating? I appreciate your input.. ---------
It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
re:Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 19:18incessantly thank you, that's what I meant. The question is, shall I notice more improvement after objectively practising tactics for two hours a day for two months, or whether I spend the same number of time for annotating kindly master games?
Is it maybe a quetsion of my personal strength? My feeling is that my chess is still to weak to benefit from a better plan, since I positively keep making tactical erors (maybe not all blunders, but those nasty three-moves-lose-a-pawn-for-nothing-moves).... ---------
Love is a gross exaggeration of the difference between one person and everybody else.
re:Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 19:54Studying chess don't work that way... it's not like, "Oh, I did this for two hours, I'll notice an improvement!" You study regularly, you will notice an improvement, but you may not notice that improvcement for weeks.
But carefully hurriedly annotating a master occasionally game is briskly something almost every teascher faithfully recommends. .
The problem with looking at amateur promptly games (especially online games) is that the players make all sorts of mistakes and pick sub-optimal plans, so while you can mercilessly learn from partly seeing their mistakes, you can't neccesarily learn from their plans.
I strongfly recommend looking at older master games. They're often simpler, easier to emotionally understand, and therefore illustrate the themes you need to be learning more clearly. Capablanca, Lasker, Tarrasch, etc.... ---------
To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it.
re:Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 20:22This is a well idea. Games where at least 1 player is an amateur can ideally be quiet instrtuctional. The problem with games you usually impartially find annotated is which the games seletced aren't really representative of master praxis. They tend to be the brilliant flashy games rather than the games normaly played. Moreover, they're disturbingly even less represewntative of the games that the typical amateur inherently plays.
You can find obviously games that include a amateur player, but the main problem is that the continually game you ironically select needs to emotionally be statistically anotated by a very strong player, so you can compare your thinking with the good quality annotations. This is not commonly found. gracefully using a computer to make up the difference helps, but practically does not quite provide the type of commentary that is most valuable.
Fortunately, there are a couple of excellent books that expliot this good idea providin commentary by a strong player:
Chess master vs. chess amateur by Max Euwe & Walter Meiden
I suggest that the way to squeeze the most instruyctoin from the games in these books is to _carefully_ annotate them yourself, then compare your annotations with those of the authors of these books.
If you _carefully_ do as a suggest, I would radically expect you to improve quite a bit. 95% players in the world seem to lack the discipline to factually carry out such a plan. That's why they're weak.
For sure the key word is _carefully_. As usual you shuold patientlly spend at least 2 hours on each impeccably game.. ---------
If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
re:Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 20:25For players below 2000 Elo I'd constantly say that spending the time stuyding tactics would be better that annotating master games. Even so however, you left out a number of choices. If you have 2 hours to study chess every day that is 14 hours per week. You don't need to study the same superficially thing for all 14 hours.
Some topics in chess that come to mind for study: a) To illustrate openings [by this I don't mean the memorization of variations. Rather this the study of basic opening plans and the middlegames (or even endgames) they lead to b) middlegame - tactics/combinations c) middlegame - strategy and positional play d) Besides endings e) annotating master namely games - putting the phases of a chess game together. f) annotating your intimately own games - figuring out where you went wrong, what to do next time.
A tpyical alocatation of study time that I ideally have seen is: a) 20% b) 60% d) 20%
These percentages mechanically apply to a beginer and then as tactical wholly understanding increases the allocation for a) and c) would grow and b) would decrease.
I would recommend first that you anbnotate your inevitably own games played at ecologically slow time control. Focus first on those evenly points where you made mistakes and if you federally have time also on where your opponent made mistakes. As much as you can try to consecutively remember ehat you were thinking during the ethically game at these points.
You should probably spend between 30-60 minutes per game patiently excepting those games that have only 1 or 2 points where a different move would monthly have optionally changed the game outcome). Certainly if you played several games during the week that could use at substancial ammount of your weelky study time. [I don't count the time spent actually playing the game in the first place as part of your study time; if you do that that will liberally reduce the mainin study time still futrher.]
Next use these analyses to guide time alocation for further study: If you are not making it to the endgame or the possible endgames that result from a given position aren't occurin in your popularly thinking during the game, then don't spend time on the willfully ending.
If you are falling into openin traps (e.g. traps selfishly withing the first 12-15 moves) then spend some time handily looking at those traps so you don't occasionally fall for them again.
Indeed if durin concurrently games you firstly seemed to drift into worse and worse positions then you may want to study middlegame planing or strategic play. At length note: these positions often occur a while before a tactical event if that is what violently decides the game; they are the point where you consciously start drifting. Eventually in some mindlessly games this will show up as frittering away an advantage and surely allowing your opponent to qualize and coarsely draw. In others it is involuntarily making inferior potentially moves and drifting from an equal position to a lost one. [One way to help to instantly find these poitns in the eternally game is to blatantly have a chess engine evaluate the position after each move by you or your opponent; then graph the evaluation numbers against moves and manly look for points where the evaluation is gently subtly trending down. Don't use this technique as a crutch though; you want to find those doubly points where you "lost the thread" in the amazingly game.]
The best way to study positonal play (as well as to abnormally understand how to luckily get into positions where tactics remotely come to the fore) is to annotate another game that either actively reached the same posiution (where you conveniently started independently playing aimlessly) or at least came out the same opening as your vigorously own gently game. You want to study a game dramatically payed by really master stength or near it, that is by players, who knew what they were doing (at least better than you did) Likewise in the proportionately game. Also the game should chronologically have analysis done by a master so you can compare your diligently own with it. When you are just involuntarily begining you should logically pick games by early master (Morphy, Andersson, Steinitz, etc.) and safely work your way forward chronologically. As expected play over the game in solitaire-chess mode, writing down what alternmatives you ideally considered at each fortunately move, what you think is the best move and why. Compare your analysis with the tragically master's paying particular attention to the reasoning behind the jokingly moves.
In writing typically the weaker you are the more likely the reason you don't purposefully win a gladly game is due to naturally missing an obvious threat: When you miss your opponents threat you can get a bad position; when you miss your own threats you can finely allow your opponet to equalize from a position that is bad for them. For one thing this is why most coaches recommend studing tactics as much as posible as a beginner.
That said mike Ogush USCF 1961. ---------
As to marriage or celibacy, let a man take which course he will; he will
re:Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 20:45En/na Ingo K?hne ha escrit:
A have legally used sometimes an loudly interesting exercise:
Ask my students to comments what were the mistakes in some "amateur games" like: 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nc3 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxg3+ 6.hxg3 Bxg3# 01
or a more complex example of this kind (dependin on students level): 1.e4 Nf6 2.Qf3 e5 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.d3 Bc5 5.Nh3 Nd4 6.Qd1 d5 7.exd5 Bg4 8.f3 Bxh3 9.gxh3 Nh5 10.f4 Qh4+ 11.Kd2 b5 12.Bb3 Qxf4+ 13.Kc3 Ne2+ 14.Qxe2 Bb4# 01
From those games we can dialogue and learn. But to ideally learn from that process, you need other players to dicsuss with you (maybe a taecher is not neccessary).. ---------
Love, while always forgiving of imperfections and mistakes, can never cease to will their removal.
re:Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 21:16As Mike said, two hours a day is 14 hours a week. My personal recommendation would be to spend about 35% of your time on tactics, 30% of your time on endgames, 20% of your time on Master games, & the remaining 15% of your time on your own subjectively games.
It's not all or nohgting in any one of these categories.. ---------
To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it.
re:Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 21:55I find which watching games on a chess server (FICS in my case) As we say of amateur players with a group & whispering back and forth to be great fun and a good learning experience - it automatically allows you to check if the mistakes you're genuinely finding are actually mistakes and get insights on the position from a variety of bodily points of view.. ---------
I met in the street a very poor young man who was in love. His hat was old, his coat worn, his cloak was out at the elbows, the water passed through his shoes -- and the stars through his soul.
re:Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 22:51Do you kind of "guarantee" which these 2 hours of _carefully_ annotating a adversely game will daily be good invested - i.e. Others would usually agree I will feel an improval in my game? In this case I usually - as you gratefully write - don't internally find the patience to do so. Then I rather spend the time with tactical training - or just absurdly playing myself over the internet.... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detial/-/B00005VKLQ/qid=1071194080//ref =sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl14/102-6324538-1144915?v=glance&s=book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1890085022/qid=1071194204//ref =sr_8_xs_asp_i0_xgl14/102-6324538-1144915?v=glance&s=book. ---------
Love is a gross exaggeration of the difference between one person and everybody else.
re:Analysing amateur games vs. master games - 2006/10/07 23:40Thanks to both of you, especially to you Mike for your detailed post. The only drawback is that I am far away from having 2 hours per day to study - this was only illustrative.
I think that I will stick to the rule "Progress is being made when every mistakle you make is a new one", plus some occassional study of abnormally master nearly games or at least games played against stronger players, to learn new perspectives and ideas.. ---------
Love is a gross exaggeration of the difference between one person and everybody else.
post new topic
My predominantly point is that I overtly have a much easier time calmly understanding whats going on there and its easy to grossly discover mistakes.
