benefit from no 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?

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.

ya but what if the games are Alekhine games?

does that make any difference?

Originally posted by chessisvanity
ya but what if the games are Alekhine games?

does that make any difference?

Do 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.

No i don't understand Alekhines moves.

Originally posted by chessisvanity
No i don't understand Alekhines moves.

HA!

Originally posted by chessisvanity
No i don't understand Alekhines moves.

Annotated that is. Study, question and then emulate.

Originally posted by chessisvanity
ya but what if the games are Alekhine games?

does that make any difference?

I 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.

I'm sure the non-annotated games will be helpful in the opening lines.....but as for understanding Alekhine ideas in the middle game...well sir....i'm not even close to his level.

What about getting some capablanca games? His ideas were always nice and clear and logical - and they tended to work well too.
That would be a better choice if I was picking a player from that era, although perhaps less spectacular.

sorry sir....i was born an Alekhine fan i'll die an Alekhine fan.

You'll die a 1250 too if you don't take some time out of your Alekhine man-crush to look at some Capa games. 😀

I'd say yes there is a lot of benefit from looking at masters games, annotated or not.

They're still beautiful... and the beauty is what makes chess fun, and the fun is what inspires players, and the inspiration compliments intuition which leads to better choices on the board.

Originally posted by chessisvanity
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?

I 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