Originally posted by wormwood I've been going through master games lately, and I was wondering if people had different ways to go about it? - at first, I went through the games without a board, but that proved much too awkward with my feeble visualisation skills. then I started using a board, but it's still way too much effort deciphering the notation, energy which could be better used ...[text shortened]... grand-terneuzen 1929..."
so, what do you think? how do you do it?
There was a great line on Rhp which dealt with going over master games and some other things. I don't have the link with me but I'll send it to you when I find it. Basically here is what you do.
Get a board, clock and a scoresheet of the game ( print one out or rewrite it on page) and a notebook. Now say the game was between Alekhine and Capablanca and you like Capa. So you cover Capa's moves up on the scoresheet and play Alekhine move and then make you move and write that move down in the notebook and why you played that, possible lines etc... The you uncover capa's move and play that. Repeat till the game is over.
Then compare you moves with the real moves and compare you comments and annotation with Capa's annotations. It works best if you have the game with annotations then you can see the GM's thoughts and comments.
This way you learn the most and it's as if you are playing against alekhine. However this does take several hours to complete and going through a book this way would take maybe a year or more.
What Rahim said is generally what i recommend too. He said it might take a couple of hours. I suggest using a timer, chess clock, etc and give yourself, say a two minutes a move, so a forty move game would take, on the outside an hour twenty minutes. Subtract from that two minutes apiece for obvious opening lines and captures, which could be added to more complicated decisions in the middle game. Choose your games carefully. There is a book (isn't there always) called the Most Instructive Games Ever Played or something like that. Perhaps that would be a good choice. I enjoy playing over games that have their own tension, like Fischer/Spassky or Pillsbury/Lasker or Botvinnik/Tal or Morphy/Andersson, Kasparov/ anybody, etc. Also, another thing i've found out: Look at the end of games where the losing player is a pawn or two down and the annotator says something like, "the rest of the game needs no comment." And they have ten or fifteen moves til the loser resigns. I play through that carefully because winning a won game is not so simple for players at most levels and here, with the sparse material, accuracy really counts.
Originally posted by buddy2 What Rahim said is generally what i recommend too. He said it might take a couple of hours. I suggest using a timer, chess clock, etc and give yourself, say a two minutes a move, so a forty move game would take, on the outside an hour twenty minutes. Subtract from that two minutes apiece for obvious opening lines and captures, which could be added to more ...[text shortened]... imple for players at most levels and here, with the sparse material, accuracy really counts.
Personnally I grab a board and book and start reading. I try guessing the moves now and then and if one side resigns then I play the winning side to make sure I can finish the game off.
You don't get the most out of the game this way but you can get through a thick book in a month.
I don't think the idea is to get through a book, Rahim. Better if you thoroughly understand one game than play through a hundred and hope everything will be absorbed through osmosis. I think you should go through a game at least twice. Once, using the "guess the move" procedure and second, reading all the notes to understand what puzzled you the first time.
This is what personally helped me. YOu might have a different system altogether, as everyone's learning style is different. Just playing through a game for pleasure is fine, and i imagine you'll pick up some pointers along the way. But a more instructive method is to squeeze the game for as much information as possible. I believe everyone is desperate to improve their rating, much as golf players spend their whole life trying to improve their score. Very little reasearch has been done on the best method of doing this, however. So the upshot is you have to find your own way.
Originally posted by RahimK There was a great line on Rhp which dealt with going over master games and some other things. I don't have the link with me but I'll send it to you when I find it. Basically here is what you do.
Get a board, clock and a scoresheet of the game ( print one out or rewrite it on page) and a notebook. Now say the game was between Alekhine and Capablanca and yo ...[text shortened]... s to complete and going through a book this way would take maybe a year or more.
Rahim
I basically started doing this without the clock. One thing I have to warn people against is getting lazy when the game becomes technically won. I have Capas best games book in algebraic notation and once he has a winning position I tend to stop thinking and 2 moves later he will point out how his oppenent was cleverly trying to generate a draw. I chose Capa because his endgames are supposed to be second to none, however they tend to be the hardest places to find the "win". The nice thing is that I can fit this in over my lunch break and still have time after work for my family.
Anyhoo, no real noticable results yet (2-3 games / week for the past month).
Originally posted by buddy2 I don't think the idea is to get through a book, Rahim. Better if you thoroughly understand one game than play through a hundred and hope everything will be absorbed through osmosis. I think you should go through a game at least twice. Once, using the "guess the move" procedure and second, reading all the notes to understand what puzzled you the first time ...[text shortened]... on the best method of doing this, however. So the upshot is you have to find your own way.
Right. I go over a games twice or more sometimes if I don't get it but yes It's not the best way but you do get through a lot of books. I was suprised how many chess books I have read in my 2 years. 9 tick books in 1 summer!
I borrow chess books from the club so you don't have that much time to read them. Also there are so many good books!!
Originally posted by zebano I basically started doing this without the clock. One thing I have to warn people against is getting lazy when the game becomes technically won. I have Capas best games book in algebraic notation and once he has a winning position I tend to stop thinking and 2 moves later he will point out how his oppenent was cleverly trying to generate a draw. I chose Capa ...[text shortened]... for my family.
Anyhoo, no real noticable results yet (2-3 games / week for the past month).
There's a saying that it hard to win a won game.
I believe it. Most opponents at over level won't lay down and resign. On Rhp it's easy but OTB with all that pressure it's hard sometimes to find the road to victory.
So what I do is when I read a book and the game is over due, I continue playing it against myself and see if I can checkmate the losing side. This way you know exactly why the opponent resigned in that game. It helps a lot .
Originally posted by wormwood I've been going through master games lately, and I was wondering if people had different ways to go about it? - at first, I went through the games without a board, but that proved much too awkward with my feeble visualisation skills. then I started using a board, but it's still way too much effort deciphering the notation, energy which could be better used grand-terneuzen 1929..."
so, what do you think? how do you do it?
think about how much a player would improve if a master was over his shoulder telling him the right move instead of the move the player made. In other words as you play over the game think out your move first and then look at the move the master played. Looking first is stupid as it accomplishes nothing.
RahimK arleady said somthing about this but he said playing the player you like it is better to play the winning player because the losing player is the one that made the mistakes
Originally posted by tomtom232 think about how much a player would improve if a master was over his shoulder telling him the right move instead of the move the player made. In other words as you play over the game think out your move first and then look at the move the master played. Looking first is stupid as it accomplishes nothing.
RahimK arleady said somthing about this but he sa ...[text shortened]... is better to play the winning player because the losing player is the one that made the mistakes
Mostly with books suchs as Capa's best games they are all wins no loses.
I don't blame them either.
If I wrote a book I would have all my wins in there. Sometimes it gets very annoying seeing the player win each time.
Methods of studying master games?
17 Jul '06 19:10
Back to Top