How do I pick which games to study?
Sort:
Analyse your own game using machine; Check all inaccuracies, mistakes & blunders then you will get better idea!
I'd say start with Morphy's games. They are very instructive in the sense of opening principles and the most basic patters like forks and pins are found throughout most of those games. You can also find most of his games annotated which will help you understand why he made certain sacrifices.
Morphy vs NN games.
I'd say that one should study the games of players rated 200-400 points higher than oneself. So, since your rating is 800. You should study the games of 1000-1200 players.
Oct 26, 2017
0
#6
when i decided to look at master games i chose fischer v spassky , as the they had loads of ruy lopez games and i wanted to learn that more
do you have a particular chess opening you favour , look for the master games that excel in those lines
i guess this goes against previous advice esp as your grade isnt 200 points of fischers , but if you understand the basic ideas of a chess opening then it need not be so above you , give it a try if you aint ready then at least you know this and can adjust accordingly ,
Logical Chess Move by Move. This one book will help beginners a lot. And as others said, the games of the old masters from the 19th century are much easier to understand than modern high-level play.
Richard Rèti's "Masters of the chess board".
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Ashvapathi wrote:
I'd say that one should study the games of players rated 200-400 points higher than oneself. So, since your rating is 800. You should study the games of 1000-1200 players.
Sure , studying blunders is indeed perfect.I wonder why no trainer or author never thought of this.We need collections with deeply analysed games of 1200 rated players.
A 800 studying the games of 1200 would definitely learn some interesting new things and yet at the same time the game will be relevant to him(i.e. he can understand the game). The idea is to study something that is similar but slightly better to facilitate incremental learning. Games of an 1800 would be quite irrelevant to 800 player.
I don't think games of an 1800 are useful for a beginner either, they should be games of masters. As some people have spotted before, classic games from early stages of chess development would be very appropiate.
Del Rosario's A First Book of Morphy is a fine place to start IMHO. I am working through that book right now.
As others have said, books like Chernev's Logical Chess Move by Move and The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played where most of the moves are annotated would be useful too.
Also worth considering are similar books where many moves are explained such as Euwe's Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur and Heisman's The World's Most Instructive Amateur Game Book as the authors go into the typical thinking and mistakes made by amateur players. All the above books are on my to-study list.
bb_gum234 wrote:
As a newer player I found going over GM games very frustrating because sometimes they might sacrifice a pawn, or be offered a "free" pawn and not take it, and I wouldn't understand why.
Or maybe they'd resign and I'd have no idea why.
This. Or one will leave a piece en prise and the other does not take it. And so many more questions...
No offense taken. 
When you try to learn, do you solve tactics that are 1000 points higher than your rating? No, you solve tactics that are about 200-400 points above your rating. The same holds true for games.
Don't get me wrong. Studying master games once in a while is great(specially if they play same opening as you). But, if those players are more than 500 points above you, then those ideas become irrelevant to you.
Ashvapathi escribió:
No offense taken.
When you try to learn, do you solve tactics that are 1000 points higher than your rating? No, you solve tactics that are about 200-400 points above your rating. The same holds true for games.
Don't get me wrong. Studying master games once in a while is great(specially if they play same opening as you). But, if those players are more than 500 points above you, then those ideas become irrelevant to you.
Those tactics can be easier, but are neat.
Oct 26, 2017
0
#15
The most important is to find some good annotated games - I would prefer the GM himself be the annotator. Books like "Fischer: My 60 Memorable Games", "Bent Larsen: Bent Larsen's Best Games: Fighting Chess with the Great Dane, "Tal: Tal-Botvinnik 1960:Match for the World Chess Championship" to mention a few. The is also the "Move-by-Move series with GM games which seems pretty good but these are not annotated by the GM himself.
Oct 26, 2017
0
#16
bb_gum234 wrote:
FishEyedFools wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
FishEyedFools wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
Imagine trying to paint having never seen a painting, or play a sport having never seen it played.
The point of going over GM games isn't that you'll understand all the moves, but you get some ideas of what a good game looks like. One thing a beginner might notice from a GM game that they wouldn't see in a 1200 game is sometimes players leave the tension (for example two pawns attacking each other and no one makes a capture for many moves).
But also lots of opening, middlegame, endgame, attacking, defensive, etc themes that will be picked up almost unconsciously. Don't spend 30 minutes on one GM game, spend 30 minutes on 10.
If you get an annotated game from a book, ok, maybe spend as long as you like.
We cann alll appreciate what it took to paint the Mona Lisa, but we dont understand how to paint like that. So while we can appreictae the beauthy of GM games, beginners need to start with easier games.
Study and playing over are different though. I'm just saying a few minutes per game, and to maybe get 1 idea you liked from it, even if it's just an opening variation you didn't know existed. I wish I had done this as a new player, but I got frustrated trying to understand individual moves.
"Study," if we mean spending a long time or multiple days on a single game, I think isn't very useful if you're too new, because there's no framework to fit games into. It's just a jumble of confusing moves. An annotated games collection like some have mentioned are good. For just playing over a large group of high level games I recommend starting with Morphy and following the world championship matches.
In any case there are lots of ways to go about it. I hope OP find a study activity that's fun for him to do.
To each his own, but i like Silmans method of going over 20-30 games quickly (no more than 2-3 minutes per game), allowing yourself to subliminally pick up ideas.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Not TOO casually, like clicking through a PGN at super fast speed. Maybe get out a board to slow yourself down, but yeah, just a few minutes per game.
Subliminally pick up some ideas at first, and then you can always go back over the game in depth later to reinforce things. Peopel need ot remember, that you do not need to discover everything in a game the first time around.
bb_gum234 wrote:
Ashvapathi wrote:
No offense taken.
When you try to learn, do you solve tactics that are 1000 points higher than your rating? No, you solve tactics that are about 200-400 points above your rating. The same holds true for games.
Don't get me wrong. Studying master games once in a while is great(specially if they play same opening as you). But, if those players are more than 500 points above you, then those ideas become irrelevant to you.
There are various exercises. Solving puzzles is different from going over games. I think a new player would learn a lot of bad things from going over games of 1200 players. To fit it in the tactics analogy, it would be like solving puzzles where the solution is incorrect, but the solver is not good enough to realize it
Not all GM moves are irrelevant. They still develop in the opening, use forks, pins, etc, use pawn breaks to open lines, pawn storms to attack kings, etc. I agree trying to intensely study each individual move is a mistake though.
Ok, I agree with you partially. I agree with the idea of going through master games in a few minutes to get some ideas. But, I think you are underestimating the benefit of studying the games of players 200-400 points above oneself. Absolute best vs relative best...
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Ashvapathi wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
Ashvapathi wrote:
No offense taken.
When you try to learn, do you solve tactics that are 1000 points higher than your rating? No, you solve tactics that are about 200-400 points above your rating. The same holds true for games.
Don't get me wrong. Studying master games once in a while is great(specially if they play same opening as you). But, if those players are more than 500 points above you, then those ideas become irrelevant to you.
There are various exercises. Solving puzzles is different from going over games. I think a new player would learn a lot of bad things from going over games of 1200 players. To fit it in the tactics analogy, it would be like solving puzzles where the solution is incorrect, but the solver is not good enough to realize it
Not all GM moves are irrelevant. They still develop in the opening, use forks, pins, etc, use pawn breaks to open lines, pawn storms to attack kings, etc. I agree trying to intensely study each individual move is a mistake though.
Ok, I agree with you partially. I agree with the idea of going through master games in a few minutes to get some ideas. But, I think you are underestimating the benefit of studying the games of players 200-400 points above oneself. Absolute best vs relative best...
You lack even common sense.
How can you learn something from someone that knows nothing?
Since when 1200 rated players are considered knowledgeable and their games suitable for study?
Firstly, learn to argue the point, not the poster.
Secondly, good or bad is relative. If we are talking about absolute best, then Komodo is the best. Will you say that people should only study the games of komodo vs komodo?
1200 can teach a thing or two to 800. In fact, I think an 800 will benefit far more by studying 1200 games than 2800 games. Because the knowledge and skills exhibited in a 1200 game are digestible and understandable for 800 player. But the knowledge and skills of 2800 game are neither digestible nor understandable to 800 player. More importantly, games of 800 player and his opponent are more likely to resemble the games of 1200 than 2800. So, studying 1200 games has practical value for 800.
To clarify the argument of studying the games of weaker playerd, it IS useful. But by study I mean analysis. Pick the games apart and find the (many) flaws. I'll do this often by finding random games in Chessbase between average Joes rated 1800-2200. In my study, though, I'm finding strategic errors.
Ashvapathi wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Ashvapathi wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
Ashvapathi wrote:
No offense taken.
When you try to learn, do you solve tactics that are 1000 points higher than your rating? No, you solve tactics that are about 200-400 points above your rating. The same holds true for games.
Don't get me wrong. Studying master games once in a while is great(specially if they play same opening as you). But, if those players are more than 500 points above you, then those ideas become irrelevant to you.
There are various exercises. Solving puzzles is different from going over games. I think a new player would learn a lot of bad things from going over games of 1200 players. To fit it in the tactics analogy, it would be like solving puzzles where the solution is incorrect, but the solver is not good enough to realize it
Not all GM moves are irrelevant. They still develop in the opening, use forks, pins, etc, use pawn breaks to open lines, pawn storms to attack kings, etc. I agree trying to intensely study each individual move is a mistake though.
Ok, I agree with you partially. I agree with the idea of going through master games in a few minutes to get some ideas. But, I think you are underestimating the benefit of studying the games of players 200-400 points above oneself. Absolute best vs relative best...
You lack even common sense.
How can you learn something from someone that knows nothing?
Since when 1200 rated players are considered knowledgeable and their games suitable for study?
Firstly, learn to argue the point, not the poster.
Secondly, good or bad is relative. If we are talking about absolute best, then Komodo is the best. Will you say that people should only study the games of komodo vs komodo?
1200 can teach a thing or two to 800. In fact, I think an 800 will benefit far more by studying 1200 games than 2800 games. Because the knowledge and skills exhibited in a 1200 game are digestible and understandable for 800 player. But the knowledge and skills of 2800 game are neither digestible nor understandable to 800 player. More importantly, games of 800 player and his opponent are more likely to resemble the games of 1200 than 2800. So, studying 1200 games has practical value for 800.
Maybe, but why not study 1800-level games at the very least? The problem with 1200 games is that there are hardly any patterns, and so not much to learn. Although your logic has some truth for 800 players, it falls apart above 1200: even Magnus Carlsen's moves can be understood by a keen 1400 player.
As a brand new player how do I decide which games to study? I am not asking where to find them, this fancy google machine helped with that, but I am not finding any guidance on how to pick what games to study other than to just pick random games.
Thoughts?