fantasy freak
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 56 |   |
Karma: 0
|
re:STUDY GAME-WHAT LEVEL? - 2006/08/11 02:10
Here's my opinion. I think that a 1600 player should study games of the "old" masters, those masters from the 19th and early 20th century that were either world champions or contenders (e.g. . Morphy,
Anderssen, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Chigorin, Schlechter, Lasker,
Capablanca, Alekhine, Rubinstein, Reti, Nimzovich, Tartakower, Euwe,
Bogojubov ...)
Most of these players played at the IM level or better. The advantage of studying their games as opposed to the games of GMs during the last
20 to 30 years is that the opening theory doesn't get in the way. The reason to study master games is not learn the openings as much as to see the middlegame plans, the tactics that occurred in real games, and the play at the end.
A reasonably good collection of games from the general era is "500
Master Games" by Tartakower and du Mont.
BTW: I don't if the articles are still there, but there were a few articles on Jeremy Silman's web site describing which masters he studied and in which order he studied them. His main reason for choosing a particular master was that he liked the games played by that person...
---------
Love's always a little lonely in the beginning.
Popular posts by fantasy freak
Salmon vs Owen Birmingham 1858
The Evans Gambit
Queen vs. knight - draw or win ?...
|
post new topic