Originally posted by w0lver1neWhenever I encounter someone who plays the Philidor, I always answer it the way Morphy did, because I'm hoping to re-create that masterpiece. I think I've gotten as far as move 7. 🙂
Actually if I had remembered the game Morphy-Isouard & Braunsweig, Paris, 1858 (though a classic) it would have helped in an OTB game last year. My opponent played the same variation of the Philidor defense.
I won, but not as brilliantly as Morphy.
Originally posted by tomtom232when someone plays g4 against a castled king its fair to assume that he plans on
Actually the ideas are different. Fischer is creating an outpost and Morphy was attacking the king.
attacking the kings position, the ideas are totally related.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you look at the fischer game after move 16 you will see that this move controls the f5 square and when the opponent playes ...g6 fischer doubles rooks in order to further discourage ...f5. The knight moves to and fro from the e4 square throughout the game and Fischer only undertakes an attack on the king some moves later. Then, if you look at the Morphy game he under takes an immediate attack after the weakening move 15.h3? when his sole intent is to play g5-g4, this is where the difference comes in, an immediate g5 after g4 by Fischer would be a mistake since then his opponent could play ...f5 and chase his beautiful knight away.
when someone plays g4 against a castled king its fair to assume that he plans on
attacking the kings position, the ideas are totally related.
Originally posted by tomtom232mere pedantry.
If you look at the fischer game after move 16 you will see that this move controls the f5 square and when the opponent playes ...g6 fischer doubles rooks in order to further discourage ...f5. The knight moves to and fro from the e4 square throughout the game and Fischer only undertakes an attack on the king some moves later. Then, if you look at the Morphy ...[text shortened]... would be a mistake since then his opponent could play ...f5 and chase his beautiful knight away.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, the idea by Morphy was obviously to bite at the h6 pawn and the idea by Fischer was obviously to create a hole on e4. There are many games where a pawn jumps out to g4 to create a hole on e4 without the Kh1, Rg1 moves but in Fischers game they were necessary to prepare it first and there are many games where the pawn jumps out to g4 then g5 to open the g file and in Morphy's game he had to move the king off the g8 square in order to make use of an open g file.
mere pedantry.
No doubt there are similarities but I don't think these two examples are close enough to be instructive in concert with each other.
Hi tomtom,
How do you go about memorizing the games? Repetition? Understanding the ideas behind the moves? Visualisation? Or Mnenomics such as a memory palace and treating the game like a journey or story etc?
I believe I read somewhere that Alekhine (regarding blindfold chess, of which he was a great exponent.) said that he would simply remember the opening played, and the typical middlegame plans or tabyias of those openings, and choose a move accordingly.)
Thanks, J.
Originally posted by jonrothwellI use the the first three however I never even thought of using mnemonics like the other ones you site.
Hi tomtom,
How do you go about memorizing the games? Repetition? Understanding the ideas behind the moves? Visualisation? Or Mnenomics such as a memory palace and treating the game like a journey or story etc?
I believe I read somewhere that Alekhine (regarding blindfold chess, of which he was a great exponent.) said that he would simply remember t ...[text shortened]... cal middlegame plans or tabyias of those openings, and choose a move accordingly.)
Thanks, J.
I think that many strong players underestimate how many games they can recall so I am making a study of myself. I think after I memorize so many games my skill level will increase by at least 200 points and then so many games more and it will increase further. After I have a memory bank of so many positions from the opening, middlegame and endgame all I will have to learn is technique.
At least this is my theory and I still do tactics training and visualisation practice every day as well.
Originally posted by tomtom232You might consider My System by Nimzovitch as well. I learnt a lot from the book many years ago. (There is a reworking by Watson as well.)
I just went and bought this book. I will now strive to annotate every move of every game (in part I) as well as memorize every game(in part I). I will then memorize a selection of Fischer games... I will update the fora on my progress and will see if it helps me improve in any way.
PS I still do tactics training every day!
It's an old book so not everything is correct and he is a little big headed but it will make you think of strategies and plans.
Originally posted by kingshillI actually have that book but I have yet to read it.
You might consider My System by Nimzovitch as well. I learnt a lot from the book many years ago. (There is a reworking by Watson as well.)
It's an old book so not everything is correct and he is a little big headed but it will make you think of strategies and plans.
Originally posted by tomtom232Thanks.
I use the the first three however I never even thought of using mnemonics like the other ones you site.
I think that many strong players underestimate how many games they can recall so I am making a study of myself. I think after I memorize so many games my skill level will increase by at least 200 points and then so many games more and it will increase ...[text shortened]... this is my theory and I still do tactics training and visualisation practice every day as well.
J.
Originally posted by kingshillI am currently reading "The Giants of Strategy" by Neil McDonald and I like this book even better than My System. It covers the same strategic themes than My System but in a more modern approach.
You might consider My System by Nimzovitch as well. I learnt a lot from the book many years ago. (There is a reworking by Watson as well.)
It's an old book so not everything is correct and he is a little big headed but it will make you think of strategies and plans.
With McDonald's annotations of some of Nimzowitsch's games, I understood those games better than after reading My System.
Hi Tom Tom.
The good old hugahugen trap. This was my first ever Vid and I wanted to say
something about 1.e4 that had never been said before.
Because it gave the King flight square is one even Chernev missed.
You will no doubt go completely mad memorising Morphy games.
(look what happened to PCM and he played them.) 😉
I'm not saying you are wrong in this venture, I just don't know anyone who has.
Storing the ideas and patterns yes. Complete games....
Maybe it is the way to go.
Stay with the ideas and the patterns. Perhaps look at some modern games
and spot a Morphy type influence. That Fischer - Fine game I mentioned is
Morphy highly polished by Fischer.
There is also a Kasparov game that showed strong shades of Morphy.
(to me anyway)
It was against the Pomigran lad (I don't do names ) who was FIDE World
Champion. A French defence. 1st meeting(??)
Pommigranite (I'm doing this from memory - sorry, if it was an article I'd go
and get the name) is forced to play an early Kf8 and Kasparov keeps the
h8 Rook on h8 tactically for the whole game. 30+ moves.
It's tricks and tactics all the way. (a lot in the notes.)
Try 'My System' it worked for hundreds of players of my generation.
(did nothing me - I went the other way. Tarrasch!!) get one of the newer
algebraic versions.
Tartakowers 500 is good to go over. Honestly much better than Morphy.
Yes know and enjoy the Morphy games they will give anyone pleasure and
a good solid base.
But see how the good guys used his ideas to beat better players.
Originally posted by w0lver1neI second this. I loved the book, and took it to the chess club more than once to show my friends games and ideas from the book. A great read.
I am currently reading "The Giants of Strategy" by Neil McDonald and I like this book even better than My System. It covers the same strategic themes than My System but in a more modern approach.
With McDonald's annotations of some of Nimzowitsch's games, I understood those games better than after reading My System.