24 Aug 11
I've been trying to decide on a GM to study the games of and I decided the current #1 should be the first person to look for. Now don't get me wrong I enjoy a play through the old master especially morphy but I need someone current. I was wondering if people would post their favorite games played by him with or without annotations.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by tomtom232You should be able to find what you seek at chessgames.com
I've been trying to decide on a GM to study the games of and I decided the current #1 should be the first person to look for. Now don't get me wrong I enjoy a play through the old master especially morphy but I need someone current. I was wondering if people would post their favorite games played by him with or without annotations.
Good luck 🙂
24 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Just curious as to your choice of studying the current #1. Suppose you were to get a book of well annotated games of Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, etc., what do you think you'd be missing out in comparison to choosing Carlsen? The quality of the annotations is afterall a big factor, and especially useful if done by the player themselves.
I've been trying to decide on a GM to study the games of and I decided the current #1 should be the first person to look for.
By-the-way, I like Carlsen's style of play and I often play over his games, though mainly from an enjoyment aspect. I have the "WonderBoy" book, and while it has some instructive notes, it's also concerned with simply charting his early progress.
24 Aug 11
Sorry to butt in Tom Tom.
Hi V.
Have a look at my last post in the here. Thread 141501
You have some tip-top kit. What's the conclussion?
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by VarenkaOh I have annotated games of Ewe, Tal, Alekhine, Fischer(he was my favorite player for a time) but my main reason is actually to study some games without annotations mixed in with the annotated games I have. After a while I will come back to the games I have studied and look through my own comments and re-study the game and see if I can answer any questions I had before.
Just curious as to your choice of studying the current #1. Suppose you were to get a book of well annotated games of Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, etc., what do you think you'd be missing out in comparison to choosing Carlsen? The quality of the annotations is afterall a big factor, and especially useful if done by the player themselves.
By-the-way, I ...[text shortened]... it has some instructive notes, it's also concerned with simply charting his early progress.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by tomtom232Fair enough, but why not just study the annotated games without initially looking at the annotations? At least then if you get really confused on a particular move, even after coming back to it after a while, there's a chance it might be annotated.
my main reason is actually to study some games without annotations mixed in with the annotated games I have.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by VarenkaThat is what I have been doing but I think, not completely sure, that I will learn better if I have to go through the pains of figuring it out myself.
Fair enough, but why not just study the annotated games without initially looking at the annotations? At least then if you get really confused on a particular move, even after coming back to it after a while, there's a chance it might be annotated.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by tomtom232Doing your own analysis certainly will be good for you. I do think Carlsen's games are going to be pretty sophisticated to do meaningful analysis on. Obviously you should do whatever gets you motivated but probably the older masters will make more sense to you when you analyze.
That is what I have been doing but I think, not completely sure, that I will learn better if I have to go through the pains of figuring it out myself.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by tomtom232I'm not saying this is bad. And, of course, thinking about it yourself has to be a good thing. But what if at the end of the day, the move was made for some psychological reason? Or is a mistake? Or some really deep subtle plan? How do you conclude how correct your own thinking was or not? No big deal though. 🙂
That is what I have been doing but I think, not completely sure, that I will learn better if I have to go through the pains of figuring it out myself.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by VarenkaWell, I conclude my thinking isn't very correct at all even when I come to the same move lol
I'm not saying this is bad. And, of course, thinking about it yourself has to be a good thing. But what if at the end of the day, the move was made for some psychological reason? Or is a mistake? Or some really deep subtle plan? How do you conclude how correct your own thinking was or not? No big deal though. 🙂
14 Sep 11
I thought this one was instructive, even for a patzer like myself.
Carlsen vs. Nakamura 2011.1.23. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1604495.
Very tidy positions, an amazing mate attack, and just incredible foresight. Some cool tactical lessons as well.
My favorite position was after move 28... Qxd5:
First thing I thought was: there's a blatant hanging N that white can get into the fun with Nf5.
But the winning move is........?
Obviously.
Here is the whole game: