How many games to study?

How many master games do you guys study in a day?

Originally posted by hamworld
How many master games do you guys study in a day?

Good Cthulhu, what a wide question! Define "master". Define "study". I play over one or more games from the chess book I happen to be reading almost every day, but does that mean that I'm studying them?
Some days I pay more attention than others. Some days I disagree with the given analysis and test it (and 99% - but not 100%! - of the time, discover I'm wrong); some days I just play over the games and enjoy the movement of the pieces.
Some days I sit behind the board and do a dozen at a go. Some days I play one and get bored. Some days I'm elsewhere. I really could not say how many games I do on an "average" day.

But anyway, there's a more important question here. You asked two: how many games do we study, but in the title, you ask how many to study. Well, the latter depends on what you want, but I'd say that for kibitzers like us here on RHP, the answer is: as many as you enjoy doing.

Richard

Originally posted by hamworld
How many master games do you guys study in a day?

In my condition at my age, I hardly ever study a complete game in a day. My mind is willing, but my brain seems to get too tired before I can get through the game and the next think I know I am waking up from a nap and not in the mood to continue the study. 😏

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Good Cthulhu, what a wide question! Define "master". Define "study". I play over one or more games from the chess book I happen to be reading almost every day, but does that mean that I'm studying them?
Some days I pay more attention than others. Some days I disagree with the given analysis and test it (and 99% - but not 100%! - of the time, dis ...[text shortened]... kibitzers like us here on RHP, the answer is: as many as you enjoy doing.

Richard

I think the main problem is that there are over 45,000 games to study and not enough time to study them.

If I used your approach to studying games, I could die before I study the last game.

It really varies. Sometimes, I can devour a game collection book in 2 or 3 days. I have the bug, my focus is on, and I am enjoying myself. Other days, I lose interest halfway through the very first game. I'll usually blitz through the rest of the game, and if it's interesting, I'll go through it again the next time. The important thing is that you are digesting as much of the game (most importantly what is going on) as you can, and still enjoying yourself. I'm not really putting as much in to chess as I used too, so my current study habit is a game or two from Bronstein's Sorcerer's Apprentice a night. Bronstein is extremely entertaining, but I don't know exactly how instructive a lot of these games are. Some of them are just masses of complications where one side cracks under the pressure. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like I get more from Capablanca, Petrosian, Karpov, and sometimes Fischer (although he may be too good). These players games are generally more crystal clear and easy to understand/learn from. Don't get me wrong, you can still learn something from every great player. (Knowing how to play tricky, complicated positions is useful too!)

My favorites are probably, Capablanca's Games by Golombek (or even Immortal Games by Chernev) , How Karpov Wins by Mednis, Clarke's two books on Tal and Petrosian, and general books like Chernev's Logical Chess and The Most Instructive Games Of Chess Ever Played. These are the ones that spring to mind, but I am sure I am forgetting a few.

It's not just studying the games but also having a guide that helps to explain what is going on. That's the best way to learn. Just playing through moves quickly may not help a lot.

Originally posted by hamworld
I think the main problem is that there are over 45,000 games to study and not enough time to study them.

If I used your approach to studying games, I could die before I study the last game.

Hmm, apparently I was wrong. There's about half that because of the analogy: If Petrosian is beyond me, then so is any other player that has reached 2600. Makes it easier to study more games when you realize you're not supposed to study 2600s.

In which case, I have all the time in the world to study the classics. I just hope I gain more from them than just a better chess memory.

Originally posted by hamworld
Hmm, apparently I was wrong. There's about half that because of the analogy: If Petrosian is beyond me, then so is any other player that has reached 2600. Makes it easier to study more games when you realize you're not supposed to study 2600s.

In which case, I have all the time in the world to study the classics. I just hope I gain more from them than just a better chess memory.

If you don't want to study the super GM's, there is an alternative.

Chess Master VS Chess Amateur is pretty good. One side is making common mistakes that you will actually see. It's instructive to see how the GM capitalizes. When you feel up to the next level, try Chess Master VS Chess Master.

Another book I have is called Thinker's Chess. It's Amateur VS Amateur with annotations. It's also not a bad game collection book.

Perhaps these will be more to your liking?

Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics
If you don't want to study the super GM's, there is an alternative.

Chess Master VS Chess Amateur is pretty good. One side is making common mistakes that you will actually see. It's instructive to see how the GM capitalizes. When you feel up to the next level, try Chess Master VS Chess Master.

Another book I have is called Thinker's Ch ...[text shortened]... It's also not a bad game collection book.

Perhaps these will be more to your liking?

I will consider these suggestions strongly, thank you.