07 Jan 08
Probably not much, the author has been lazy if he has not even bothered to annotate the games so you cant really trust those sorts of books too.
There are a few things that I think mark a chess book out as being suspect.
1. No annotation to games
2. No appendix of variations
3. Main variations in an opening skipped completely and the reader is told to seek specialist material.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by chessisvanityDo you trust yourself enough to understand the ideas behind alekhine moves? Or the ideas behind his opponent moves? If you do the book is enough if you don't you're wasting your money.
ya but what if the games are Alekhine games?
does that make any difference?
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by chessisvanityI heard alekhine was a good annotator somewhere. But if he has not annotated his games then definately dont bother - the ideas behind some of his strategies are so deep that some grand masters would not be able to fully appreciate what he was trying to achieve until it happened.
ya but what if the games are Alekhine games?
does that make any difference?
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by chessisvanityI went through all of Morphy's games once without benefit of annotations (ChessBase Light) and I think it improved my game, however, I wouldn't recommend this for a neophyte player. But at some point in your career, you will probably have to do this with some great master's games (I'd recommend Morphy, Pillsbury, Capablanca, or Fischer). In the case of Alekhine, there's no need since there are plenty of great books on and by Alekhine with plenty of great annotations
Can you learn from a book that has games with no annotations?
I know having the annotation is better....but if it isn't there can you or should you even bother going over the games?