Originally posted by rubberjaw30I personally find a game by Tal and watch their eyes bulge... then complain for the next month that their knight ISN'T worth my wing pawn .
When, say, a chess instructor is giving someone private lessons, and the tutor presents games as examples of different aspects of the games, is it better to show that player a game between grandmasters that shows the principle? or a game between two players of approximately the same level as the person you're trying to teach?
For example, you're tryin e so brilliant, yet it would have errors that the 1500 might make for the tutor to point out?
Originally posted by kmac27I agree with the logic of this entirely, but there's just one flaw that I see that I want you to explain.
Why go over grandmaster games? Have them bring in their games and show them better moves and explain why and say something positive about the game. Also play them at games and after the game show them how they could better themselves. I did that with wittywonka for about 5 months before he hit 1600.
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Something about GM games occurred to me when watching a video clip of Kramnik going over his game on Cludi's website. It finally dawned on me why GM moves often seem unfathomable. As I watched I saw Kramnik explain his moves not in terms of how the position appeared now but in terms of what the because position would be in two or three moves time.
I agree with the logic of this entirely, but there's just one flaw that I see that I want you to explain.
What if you (inadvertantly) make faulty corrections?
This seems the plus for using GM games... you're using the thought of grandmasters to teach the 1600, instead of yours, which as I said, may contain errors. (now if you're a GM giving lessons, that's great, but this is more for the case of a 1700 teaching a 1500)