A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Should a 1400er study master games?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 2nd 03, 11:39 AM
Jenö Nyerges
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Should a 1400er study master games?

Hello 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
1400:Should 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 that:Some
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.

Regards

Jenö Nyerges
  #2  
Old July 2nd 03, 02:00 PM
mdamien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Should a 1400er study master games?

"Jenö Nyerges" wrote in message
om...
Hello 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
1400:Should 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 that:Some
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.

Regards

Jenö Nyerges


I don't think there's a better way to study. I'd also recommend going over
them without annotations first, if you can, so that you not only guess the
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 track.

Matt



  #3  
Old July 2nd 03, 02:02 PM
Nin Jin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Should a 1400er study master games?

If 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.


"Jenö Nyerges" wrote in message
om...
Hello 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
1400:Should 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 that:Some
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.

Regards

Jenö Nyerges



  #4  
Old July 2nd 03, 06:31 PM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Should a 1400er study master games?

In article ,
Andrew Templeton wrote:

I would recommend the book, "Zurich International Chess Tournament,
1953" by David Bronstein as a very good GM book of annotated games to
start with. You would learn a great deal from these games about
positional play and gain some valuable insight on how such players
approach the opening phase of the game.


I 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.
  #5  
Old July 2nd 03, 09:47 PM
Roman M. Parparov
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Should a 1400er study master games?

Jen? Nyerges wrote:
Hello 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
1400:Should 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 that:Some
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.

Regards

Jen? Nyerges


Start with the oldies.
Morphy, Capablanca.
If you're specifically interested in tactics, Andersen is your hero.

This is not a possible or a best way, this is the only way.

--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)64-669-189 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann
  #6  
Old July 3rd 03, 07:12 PM
Jarto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Should a 1400er study master games?



Add Tarrasch to that list. Put his instructional collection "300 Chess
Games" (Dreihundert Schachpartien, recently translated and reprinted)
right between studying the "real" tactical oldies (Anderssen, Morphy) and
studying Capablanca.

Save your Steinitzes, Laskers, Alekhines, Botvinniks, Zurich 1953s, and so
on for later in the program.

--Kevin


Reuben Fine, Mednis give very useful tips. When you advance add
Nimzovitch to your list.
--

Jarto
s_jouanny-at-yahoo.co.uk
_jarto_-at-excite.com
"When writing about transcendental issues,
be transcendentally clear" - Descartes
  #8  
Old July 4th 03, 11:24 AM
Smc080178
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Should a 1400er study master games?

I 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..





  #9  
Old July 4th 03, 12:04 PM
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Should a 1400er study master games?

Bjørn Revil wrote:

Studying games is ok if you really understand them and can use the
knowledge in practical play. You should probably stick to commented
games.


I´d say you should study master games even if you don´t understand
them fully. Your goal is to learn understanding them. But I agree
with Bjoern: uncommented games will do nothing for you.

A good idea is to study a book in which the games are arranged in
certain themes. So you will learn to recognize common patterns in
different positions and how they are approached.

As for players, don´t study a game because a certain player played
it. It´s much more important which plan was found, how it was
executed etc. as compared to who did it. A book about how to find
plans and how to execute them is of more use to you as a book about
the games of Karpow or whoever.

Above all do not read My System by Nimzowich. Most of his theories
have later proved to be inaccurate.


I´d say they were refined. Nimzowich was sometimes very dogmatic
about his views. But anyhow, he was one of the most influential
players of all times and his ideas are still important. In his
"System" you can see them in their pure form. I read this book
several times and found it quite instructive. But I won´t begin
with this book. For example to understand why Nimzowich attacked
Tarrasch´s "Modern Chess Game" in his "System" so vehemently you
should read Tarrasch´s book first. The big plus of both books is
they are arranged in themes.

Both books are famed enough that your local public library perhaps
has copies of them. It doesn´t matter if they are regarded as
outdated in some respects by todays grandmasters. You´re not
competing at grandmaster level. Todays grandmaster play has become
more sophisticated but not necessarily more clear to a beginner.
For example if you want to learn how a minority attack on the
queenside is done, you don´t need a Karpow game. Tarrasch will be
just as well.

Claus-Juergen
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.