Game Study
J'adoube recently commented that he did not get alot out of game study without the ideas behind the game. I thought Neil Macdonald book The Art of planning in chess might prove helpful. Read an excerpt here
I have found that Game study is helpful when assisted by a book with explanations appropriate to my level. Fierabras is using Kasparov book which I have the first volume. I love these early game but Kasparov analysis to me is very detailed and geared to a much higher rated player. In some ways there is alot of historical variations given and it feels to me like I am reading a Fritz Analysis.Ideas are in there somewhere but it is tough for me to skip over all the analysis. K is a very concrete analysis kinda guy who has thousands of games in his memory.
I am a fan of study older games in that they are openings I play and the play is somewhat inaccurate (more at my level).
I have these books that tend to be a little easier
for the beginner with Master play and explanation move by move
chess master vs chess amateur
historical perspective with big picture ideas
Masters of the Chessboard by RetiDevelopment of Chess Style by EuweImpact of Genius
I am sure that Fier and Tempo will get some real benefit out of the MGP books.I find anytime I deeply study and analyse chess positions I play better and have much better board vision .This study can be contained within tactical problems or a context of a master game. Just as repetition is helpful in tactical problem I also find that studying a game till it is memorized is of value. Unfortunately I seem to have a limited ability to handle multiple games in memory.
I have found that Game study is helpful when assisted by a book with explanations appropriate to my level. Fierabras is using Kasparov book which I have the first volume. I love these early game but Kasparov analysis to me is very detailed and geared to a much higher rated player. In some ways there is alot of historical variations given and it feels to me like I am reading a Fritz Analysis.Ideas are in there somewhere but it is tough for me to skip over all the analysis. K is a very concrete analysis kinda guy who has thousands of games in his memory.
I am a fan of study older games in that they are openings I play and the play is somewhat inaccurate (more at my level).
I have these books that tend to be a little easier
for the beginner with Master play and explanation move by move
chess master vs chess amateur
historical perspective with big picture ideas
Masters of the Chessboard by RetiDevelopment of Chess Style by EuweImpact of Genius
I am sure that Fier and Tempo will get some real benefit out of the MGP books.I find anytime I deeply study and analyse chess positions I play better and have much better board vision .This study can be contained within tactical problems or a context of a master game. Just as repetition is helpful in tactical problem I also find that studying a game till it is memorized is of value. Unfortunately I seem to have a limited ability to handle multiple games in memory.
posted by takchess @ 4:17 AM
6 Comments:
At 11:43 AM,
Anonymous said…
I'm grown up with the works of Euwe. As most 40+ people in Holland. His books worked to a certain extend. I learned a lot from him. He was rather paternalistic and ridgid in his opinions though. For instance, an important openingsbook of him contained very drawish openings. He had decided to do so because he wanted to protect amateurs against themselves. His idea was: don't experiment until you are better and know what you are doing. In a way that worked counter productive for me.
Due to his openings advice I quit playing chess for 20 years, because my own games bored me to deathZZzzzz. . .
When I bought Winning with the KG from Joe Gallagher, a whole new world opened up. Just give a pawn and you have red ears all evening. No matter if you win or lose!
That brought back the fun.
From Gallagher I learned how to attack. How to play a gambit. Now it's time for the next step.
I find it difficult what book to choose. Since you can't learn positional play from the books of Gallagher.
The book of Seirawan (winning chess strategy) is very good. What seems to be important is that the writer has something to tell you. Seirawan is clearly from the "positional school". The games of himself he shows in his book give the impression that the grandmasters who were defeated by his play had no idea what he was after.
What I'm trying to say is that you have to find a real advocate of what you want to learn. And it has to be teacher. And you have to be ripe for it.
At 1:34 PM,
takchess said…
"He was rather paternalistic and ridgid in his opinions though."
.....Funny that how I feel about Chernov.
I can see that. I do love Chessmaster vs Amateur and it was a great help to me the summer I first came back into chess.The oppenings are mainly e4 e5 . I own a number of his other books but haven't got into them.
...As for a Master that I love to read his books I suggest Bronstein.I feel the love of chess and the desire to take some risks for exciting play.Perhaps buried in his games collections you will see some strategic ideas.
.....Also I just learned that Gallagher wrote a book on Tal. Have you seen it?
At 2:12 PM,
Blue Devil Knight said…
McDonald's first book, 'Chess: the art of logical thinking' is simply fantastic! It is his first 'move by move' book.That will be my first post-circles book I think, though I am slowly working through it now.
At 2:16 PM,
Blue Devil Knight said…
You've convinced me not to bother with the Kasparov books. It sounds like he just quotes previous stuff and gives variation dumps without much good description of his thoughts.
At 3:37 PM,
Anonymous said…
I have a lot of books from Gallagher, but that one I haven't.
I have read the book "Understanding chess move by move" from John Nunn. I didn't get much out of it. I think that's because he doesn't have something to say. So what he says hasn't any consistency. It are just lose facts.
I think the work of Kasparov is pretty genuine. But he his an advocate of dynamism. So he likes variants very much. The same is true of the book of Jan Timman, "the art of analysis".
For Karpov many things are self-evident, so sometimes(often?) he forgets to tell the reader.
At 6:55 AM,
Anonymous said…
Replaying master games for me is not about memorizing games, but about memorizing important game fragments. This could be certain moves in the opening or a plan in the middlegame or even an endagme manoeuvre.
Sometimes the variatons given by Kaspy are a bit too much so I only play through analysis if I don't understand a move (which happens a lot), but I still believe you can improve your chess by trying to understand the games as a whole and by taking your time by delving into positions of a varied nature.
Post a Comment
<< Home