For those on the lookout for a games collection, I heartily recommend The World's Greatest Games (I know, I know, the title is rather lame). It has 112 great games by the best from Labourdonnais to anand. This is actually the second edition, published in 2004. The earlier edition was 1998. the latest game is 2002. The annotators are the capable trio, Burgess, Nunn, and Emms. It only cost me about ten bucks in a bookstore. The analysis is very good. my only gripe is, where's Morphy? maybe his games were too well known to include. Who knows?
Originally posted by buddy2Is this going to be game after game were a panel of "chess experts" shout at each other over the most rediculous of moves? That may be exciting at first, but eventually it would get tedious, and I doubt reading other ppl's opinions on others annotated games would improve your chess much. Still, for 10 dollars, and 100 plus games, it's entertainment value. Sry for being negetive AGAIN, but I absolutely hate books who claim to "teach you master chess", yet all they do is show hundreds of GM annotated games with a few sneer comments, or mention all the complex 12 move variations (that these GM's themselves probably didn't see until analyzing) in which you need a second chess board to go back to the original position once you calculated a debious 12 move "combination" that leads to an isolated or passed pawn, or some other minor advantage.
For those on the lookout for a games collection, I heartily recommend The World's Greatest Games (I know, I know, the title is rather lame). It has 112 great games by the best from Labourdonnais to anand. This is actually the second edition, published in 2004. The earlier edition was 1998. the latest game is 2002. The annotators are the capable trio, Bu ...[text shortened]... my only gripe is, where's Morphy? maybe his games were too well known to include. Who knows?
I usually stay clear of such books from now on, mind you, this format in vedio chess isn't that bad, because you can actually sit back, grab a drink, relax, and actually see the games. Good when you are kinda tired.
Originally posted by mateuloseWhat is wrong with you??? He said for those looking for a games collection! So who cares for yet another, pompous, know it all opinion from you? Some people actually like to look at great games, annotated by Grandmasters, rather than listening to someone else say "I don't think it will improve my game sufficiently" blah, blah, blah.
Is this going to be game after game were a panel of "chess experts" shout at each other over the most rediculous of moves? That may be exciting at first, but eventually it would get tedious, and I doubt reading other ppl's opinions on others annotated games would improve your chess much. Still, for 10 dollars, and 100 plus games, it's entertainment val ...[text shortened]... tually sit back, grab a drink, relax, and actually see the games. Good when you are kinda tired.
Great games of chess aren't "tedious" but your posts certainly are!!
On the contrary, Ive learned a lot playing over games of grandmasters. It's fun and instructive. I find out who the winner is and uncover his, her moves one at a time after i've decided how I would move. The three authors i mentioned don't jump on each other in one game. they annotate individually, Nunn takes one, emms takes the next, and so on. As for videos, I have a couple. I don't know if there's a video that has over a hundred games for ten bucks, though. Playing over games for a chessplayer is akin to reading novels by great authors. I can't think of any good player who hasn't examined thousands of full games out of books. Capablanca might be one, but i doubt it. Perhaps computers are now taking the place of going over games for the younger among us.
I just don't think there is much point going over GM games, because they are not at all like your own games. It's like me watching the NBA saying it will make me become a better basketball player. Only through grueling exercises will I become a good basketball player, not by watching a pile of pros games. I used to analyze a lot of GM games and that honestly didn't help me, since I broke this trend, and got into another, my rating has improved by 300 pts in 2 months of practice of the new said method. But if simply copying moves of GM games on your chess board helps you, and reading a bit of color commentary, then I guess I am not one to judge...
Well, Mateulose, I believe you have to be mentally active when you do it. Perhaps, "playing over" isn't a good expression. If you do it in the way I said, it is like a grueling exercise. In a full length game you get instruction in opening, middle game, and end game just the way it happens over the board. Your "grueling exercises" are just isolated examples. YOu look at the position and decide the best move. If you're wrong the author gives you a better move and explains why. One of the good things about playing over master games is you see it as an organic whole, just the way you see it over the board, as the elements flow into each other. This is not to say that exercises are bad. Of course, watching great basketball players isn't going to make you great, but emulating them on the court will improve your skills. There are always isolated exercises of value in sports too, but you'll notice if you read autobiographies of sports figures they had their heroes they tried to follow. Morphy, for example, played over the Labourdonnais-McDonnell games. Fischer, for some odd reason, thought Staunton's games were great. I could go on and on...
Originally posted by mateuloseIt's a bizarre notion to me to say that GM games aren't "like your games" so you shouldn't bother to study them; you should be trying to get your games to such a level; what's wrong with seeing what that level is? Besides, their is no inherent limitations in chess but what's in your own head; their are physical limitations that might stop you from slam dunking like Michael Jordan, but there's no reason why you can't play a GM level game! Of course, that's a lofty ambition and one that you'll almost certainly not reach, but learning how a GM looks at a game in progress and trying to pattern your thought process in the same way has to help your games. I've got an ancient collection of 500 games annotated by Tartakower and besides their great entertainment value, there are tactical motifs and opening ideas that are still valid today as they were 70 years ago! Of course, it's not the only thing you need to study and you should also pore over your games for mistakes that can be corrected, but I would maintain reviewing GM games is a valuable part of chess study.
I just don't think there is much point going over GM games, because they are not at all like your own games. It's like me watching the NBA saying it will make me become a better basketball player. Only through grueling exercises will I become a good basketball player, not by watching a pile of pros games. I used to analyze a lot of GM games and that hone ...[text shortened]... ss board helps you, and reading a bit of color commentary, then I guess I am not one to judge...
Originally posted by mateuloseNo, you're not the one to judge...
I just don't think there is much point going over GM games, because they are not at all like your own games. It's like me watching the NBA saying it will make me become a better basketball player. Only through grueling exercises will I become a good basketball player, not by watching a pile of pros games. I used to analyze a lot of GM games and that hone ...[text shortened]... ss board helps you, and reading a bit of color commentary, then I guess I am not one to judge...
Thousands of chess players, and many much better than you, believe that studying GM games improves chess performance.
So yeah, you're totally wrong...
and still, nobody respects your opinion anymore.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree with you completely. If you go over games you subconsciously soak in GM ideas into your own game. You remember the GM's did this here and why, etc. One of the best chess teachers ever, Jeremy Silman, always tells his students to look over Masters games.
It's a bizarre notion to me to say that GM games aren't "like your games" so you shouldn't bother to study them; you should be trying to get your games to such a level; what's wrong with seeing what that level is? Besides, their is no inherent limitations in chess but what's in your own head; their are physical limitations that might stop ...[text shortened]... hat can be corrected, but I would maintain reviewing GM games is a valuable part of chess study.
Say you look over a GM game and it finishes with an attack against a castled king using minor pieces. You may never come across the position that occurs in that game but the idea will more than likely come up at some point. You may reach a situation and think "OK what's my plan now?" then suddenly you think back and realise that the attack you saw is a possibility. It needs to be calculated and prepared for but it can be played.
You play it, you win. Without having looked through that GM game you may never have thought of the attack as a possibility in that position.
Don't say it doesn't happen because I know it does. It happened to me.
Originally posted by Paul DiracI think that series to which you refer is actually four volumes now...and I would recommend to anyone that wants a chess book of any kind...Find a place online to buy them used, amazon is the obvious one, but there are several other places also.
Last time I was at Barnes & Noble I saw they offered a two-volume book of games annotated by Kasparov. They were kind of pricey though.