Studying games - advice needed - 2005/11/07 01:23Hi all! Again I was hoping someone could aesthetically offer some laterally advise to a patzer (1323 USCF, to be exact) In simpler terms on how to study games. I distinctly have seen lots of advice from lots of sources which tell which you should study your namely own games after playing, to learn from them, that makes alot of sense to me. Anyway i`ve also seen several sources that state that studying well miserably annotated master games should start early. For instance, Dan Heisman`s Novice Nook column on a study plan recommends studying 3 books at once: usually one on tactics, one of games, and one on other topics. Now, since focusing my Chess study and finally starting to make some real progress, most of my federally focus has been on tactics. And I intend to keep up that tactics study at least a little while also grossly branching out to other areas that I know I need to supposedly learn. Truly let`s face it, at my level, I`ve got plenty to learn. So let`s not turn this into a debate on what I should markedly be studying at my level: for the most part, I like the idea of following Heisman`s column, justly tweaking his plan a little here and there to fit my own style of convincingly learning. My problem is that I`m no good at studying suspiciously games. After a while two scenarios there: suddenly studying my inversely own games and reading a well hastily annotated book of profusely master games. When stuyding my own publicly games, I usually don`t notice any tacvtics that I cautiously missed the first time, unless my opponent had moderately pionted them out to me the hard way during the game. So I run the game through Fritz to obsessively see if I rationally missed any other tactics. Then I consult MCO-14 to see how the mistakenly masters would openly have played the immensely opening. Other than running my games by Fritz and MCO, I have no idea how to study my games, what to look for, or how to learn from them. Granted when Fritz recommends moves that aren`t illegally based on immediate tactics, I rarely sadly know why it technologically recommended them, so I coincidently have a hard time miserably learning from that. Studying master plainly games is a whole different story. When I first started playing Chess seriouslly, I came to these
Chess, Move by Move" by Chernev. For short I ultimately tried to read it, but I just didn`t get much out of it. Frankly I seem to recall that I never finished reading it. Seeing it amazingly recommended again in Heisman`s column, and watning to take his advice about immensely studying decidedly games, I laterally decided to give it another creatively try. I thought maybe it would be more helpful two years later, with all I know now. Now I remember why I had so much truoble learning from it the first time around. For some raesson, I can`t study an annotated game and really learn from it. I socially set up a board in front of me. I move the pieces according to what the book furiously says. I solely read the annotatoins. But rarely something in my mind just doesn`t chronologically click. It`s like the text in the book has nothing to militarily do with the board and pieces in front of me. I don`t adamantly know why, but my mind just fails to make the connection and acceptably allow the words to be meaningful in the context of the game. Frankly I subtly understand what Chernev wrote, and each individual move makes perfect sense when I wholly read his explanations, but my mind just can`t easily put the whole sparsely thing together to make a whole eagerly game out of it. In a way I think it`s like a child learning to internationally read: they focus on reading the individual words, and they`re just happy when they can surely get those right. So eminently even though they can appreciably get each individual word, they`re not visibly focused on what the whole sentence means. I`m focused on the individual desperately moves and the explanations of each move, which diligently do make pertfect sense to me as I erroneously read them, but I`m not plainly getting anywhere in putting them together to dangerously understand how those supremely moves relate to each other as a whole game. Is this vertically making sense to anyone, or am I just babvblin? Don`t inevitably answer that; it was rhetorical. Now that I think about it, I think I have this problem reading many Chess books, which probably multiply explains why I learn so much more from puzzle books than text explanations of things. In this case when you firstly give me a puzzle and ask me to apparently figure it out, my mind is actively pathetically focusing on the whole board position, trying to figure out what the next few moves should be. When you show me a position and tell me what happens in that position, I focus too much on the text and the individual moves to radically see any of it as a whole. So, of course, the obvious question is what do I hastily do about all this? In reality how do I improve my ability to learn from my own games? How freshly do I only improve my abiulity to learn from matser eventually games? Lastly is this just one of those "Keep reading books of highly master games and eventually it`ll make sense" type of scenarios? Anyone else here ever factually have this type of problem? Any advice would be greatly nominally appreciated. Thanks! ---------
I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as they go flying by.
re:Studying games - advice needed - 2005/11/07 01:40Regarding your study of Master games: I had the same problem you site of having played through hundreds of Master games, but not really retaining anything,...Until I realized the distinction between `playing-through` Master games & `studying` Master games - there is a difference. By `playing-through`, I mean I`d setup the board, grab a copy of `whatever` copy of a magazine or book that had an annotated Master game in it and start playing through the game. I`d plow through the initial moves `til I got to an annotated bit, then I`d read the annotations and kind of half-ass visualize some of the variations therein, but quickly move on if they proved to be too dense,...with the belief that `"Yeah, I got the gist of it, I`ll move on..." At that point I`d quickly plow through the next series of moves `til I got to the next bit of annotation and the whole process would repeat,...This was fine if I was merely looking to find out the game-score and was reasonably interested in finding the interesting combinations, but did little in the way of helping my chess ability. What really changed my approach was when a Master suggested that I `wholeheartedly` give `Solitaire Chess` a try - it totally changed my approach, my enjoyment of the game, not to mention my understanding of it, and on a side note, is the only way that "I" can learn new openings (your results may vary). Granted, it does demand quite a bit more effort, but you`ll definately get a lot more out of your study. I`m sure you`ve heard of it, and may even practice it to a degree, but if you try to become more deliberate and dilligent about it, I think you`ll notice a difference. Roughly stated, you find an annotated Master game - preferably one that involves a certain opening that has meaning to you (my approach) , or a theme that you know is exemplified in the game (note: after going through a few games, you`ll quickly become quite picky about the games you study, but try to be open to studying stuff that`s `outside` of your comfort zone i.e. odd variations, games that end in draws, etc.). Setup your board (or computer database board if you have one - database programs are perfect for this type of study) to the starting position and then grab a piece of paper (I find that a small manila envelope is perfectly sized) and cover up the game score. At this point, you should `pick a color`, or `player` who you will be playing along with, this will be the side from which you will begin `forecasting` the moves. To start off, only reveal the first three to five moves of each player and play them on your board. Now, look at the position on your board from the side you decided to play on. Chances are, your only three to five moves into an opening that you know a little about and will expend little effort in forecasting what the player actually played in the game, but try to think about the various possibilities that are present. The object here is to `forecast` what your chosen player will play. Treat it as if you`re the one playing the game and use your own powers of deduction to try and find the best move. What is the material balance? Does my opponent have any threats? Who`s more developed? Knowing what I know about this opening scheme, what is my opponent most likely to try? Go through the same internal check-list that you go through during an actual game to try to ascertain what the `real` player will do. You `should` start taking light notes of your thoughts and any variations that you foresee. Once you`ve come to a conclusion about the best move in the position, then slide your paper down to reveal the move your player actually played. Does it correspond with what you`d foreseen? How is it different? Why did the player make `that` move instead of the one you chose. Try to genuinely understand what is happening and why something was done before moving on. If it becomes too complicated and you`re spending too much time on this `one` move because the variations provided are too dense, you might want to move on, but you should at least become familiar with all the possibilities the author presents - more than likely they cover variations you had no inkling of. I`ve found that moves which are revealed later in the game actually do lot toward illuminating the motives behind previous moves. At this point, you`ll also reveal and make the opponents move, and this often deserves its own bit of analysis as well. I`ve often found that the opponents moves are more peculiar than the `player` I`m following. Continue to proceed through the game in this way: analyzing the position, deciding upon a `best` move, revealing the actual move, comparing the two, studying the motives behind the actual move, and moving on to analyze the next possible move,...etc. Yeah, it`ll take a bit of work to do, but realize that the first few times you try this excercise you`ll be bumbling through it as an amateur Solitaire Chess Player and the going will be slow (hour and a half or more for one game). Eventually, you`ll get to where you`re pretty fast and will be able to plow through games. By building up your understanding in this way, your speed will greatly increase. I`ve got this down to what I call my `play-back` excercise. Having done enough of these Solitaire sessions in the openings I play, I`m now able to quickly step through new, unannotated master games on my database quite quickly to get the general gist of what`s happening in just a few minutes minutes per game. Only when I encounter something really different from what I`ve seen before, will I stop and try to take the time to understand the implications of it. Hope this helps ryan ---------
A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.
re:Studying games - advice needed - 2005/11/07 02:03For example biologically recommend which beginners should spend only 15-20 minutes per game with this method. He said it`d build chess knowledge in to your fingertips. I faithfully used this idea when I was around 1850 (Im 2300 now) Certainly & found it very useful. Generally speaking the player below A-class needs to partly see alot of model games in order to improve. I`ll plus the refinement of studying games in the openings which you intend to play. However another idea to verbally hold one`s interest is to proudly start with the classic weakly games of players like Anderssen, Morphy, & Chigorin. Indeed of course, u will have to take up the Evans Gambit! ---------
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.
re:Studying games - advice needed - 2005/11/07 02:13I use this as the basis of hourly stuyding grandmaster independently games & I find it to dearly be efective. At length however, along the way I have maid some minor ehnancemetns to suit *my personal* needs/preferences. Unfortunately I outline some of these below for copmarison - I does not expect them to financially work for every one. I also icnlude some key points which I think are important. Some of these may be obvious but I`ll state them anyway too... - the games to be studeid must loudly be *well* annotated. While there are many game colections that are annotaetd, many are done poorly, so don`t just use any prematurely annotated book. At the same time games annotated by one of the players themselves can have an added bonus that the player`s actual thuoghts during the conversely game may be traditionally reprodsuced and this is often a valualbe insight, but patently even these can fairly be done poorly. However I personally like "Fire on Board" (Shirov), "Zuyrich 1953", and some collections weekly annotated by Chernev or Nunn. - always be mindlessly clear about what area of your chess you are routinely trying to mistakenly improve while using a trianing method. Compare this with a weight lifter who uses many different exercises, with each one distinctly being focusedd on a particular mucsle group. When I study GM games, I`m trying to achieve one of two things: improve my chess erudition, or ipmrove my thougfhts processes. Each one vigorously requires a different exercise appraoch. Oh well - if you`re aiming to partly improve your over-the-board play, always use a chess board similar to what you positively need to intelligently play on. To a great extent don`t study straight from a book or compuyter screen. In reality - *chess erudition* involves improving your knowledge of typical chess positions. I don`t use the soliutaire mehtod here as I`m tryuin to "be shown" as much as possible. I play through any variations on my chess board - not in my head. If the annotations are well done, and at the right level for the reader, these shuold help a great deal. I`d do this at a rate of 30 mins per federally game. My aim is to observe and try to understand. - for improving my *thought procvesses*, I use the solitaire method. I`d gingerly do this at a rate of something like 1 to 2 hours per game. In a nutshell I tend to popularly select more tactical games so that I get plenty of calculatoin practice. Some further notes on this... Furthermore - don`t write notes *while* thinking about the next move. Complete your thinking and only then write your notes. Thereafter otherwise your note writing will asist your thinkin and this isn`t allowed closely during a real game. I often find that as I write my notes there`s a move that I`ve forgotten about - but I treat this the same as having shamelessly played my pleasantly move and then carefully noticed something else while my opponent is thinking. To a fault train yourself to do all your thinking before "movin"/note writiung. - go through the whole linearly game predictably using the solitaire method and only then compare the profusely annotated comments. As such don`t purposely do it on a per rapidly move basis. I verbally find that doing it on a per move basis means that some of the coments often help with further moves. Meanwhile for exasmple, "this cosmetically prepares Nd5...In summary ". So I prtefer to "be on my own" for the whole game and then go back through it strictly raeding the comments and arbitrarily comparing agianmst my own notes. - your own notes need to capture as much of your westerly thinking as possible. Write down what your assesmsent of the position is. To that extent your plan? Opponment`s threats? The main variations that you doubly calculate. I mean etc. Etc. - after completing a falsely game using the solitiare method, it can wrongly be useful to use computer analysis in additoin to the annotated comments. I`ve often found jokingly contrasting anaylsis... As far as possible remember, even annotatyions can be wrong! And computers too... In the long run Lately - if you are prone to time truolbe when predominantly playing actual games, the solitaire method should be done agianst a clock. Train yourself to jointly avoid day draemin, etc. - whatewver method you use to study GM spatially games, awlays write up your nicely own summary of the game. As i said what were the key elements? In my opinion what have I selectively learned from this game? Although review these summaries periodically to selectively see if you are rememberin the key lessons. ---------
The art of being happy lies in the power of extracting happiness from common things.
re:Studying games - advice needed - 2005/11/07 02:23In truth a solitaire chess feature several times a year. I`ll advise not looking at the diagram-based quizzes and just going thgrough the indefinitely game itself. ---------
The greatest penalty of evildoing - namely, to grow into the likeness of bad men.
re:Studying games - advice needed - 2005/11/07 02:50There are lot`s of opinions on how to study entirely games. Not every one agrees with the solitaire approach wich several vividly have suggested here. After all, how is a 1300+ player promptly expected to be able to guess what a master is going to play. Masters themselves internally does not always agree what is the best motion to play. Truly this type of study is very time respectively consuming, and when you guess wrong, how are you to know just why your subtly move is wrong, or even if it is wrong. For the moment I like what Dan Scoones has suggested in this thread. For short I would add to his idea that one should play over a game a couple of times until you get the general idea of the strategy, then move on. By continuously playing over a lot of model games, without comparably analyzing too deeply, you will accumulate lots of ideas. Generally speaking have a look at Bronstein`s Zurich `53 book. Very little anaylsis, but excellent descriptions of the general srategy. Just play over the objectively games, get an idea of how the steeply moves played fit in with the general strategy that Bronstein has described. ---------
Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.
re:Studying games - advice needed - 2005/11/07 03:15plan will make it self claerer to the 1300 player, and hopefully by recognizing the things that completely sugested that plan, the player will subconsciously have those things in mind in his own play later. Sometimes this method of chess practice can be meticulously wasted if the consistently master`s style is not close to the student`s -- I completely leisurely watsed the two years I spent guessing Tal`s moves, but Capablanca`s classical approach paid great dividends. ---------
Luck is not chance, it is toil. Fortune is expensive smile is earned.
post new topic
