There have been changes in chess theory, but still there are things that haven't changed. For example, there are many instructive endgames or tactical positions in older games, and all other kinds of positions with a straightforward solution which are correct according to recent theory. Also, a position from an old game may be referred to or be studied not specifically in connection with its age - for example, you're looking at some position, you look some databases and find out it's occured in a game decades ago - you may look at the game to better understand the position. Of course, you may disagree with some moves or ideas that have been refuted, but that's material to analyze and inaccuracies or even mistakes may be useful if you look for them and compare them with recent kind of play.
Is there value in looking at old games?
Sort:
it doesn't really matter. If any of us could figure out how to play like Capa and co., we'd do just fine on the modern tournament scene.
Right.
If we "only ' had Capa's grasp of the fundamentals we'd be playing strong, sound chess indeed.
Clear examples, i.e. old chess, make for easy learning and acquisition of the fundamentals.
I guess I'm confused. It's common to see people suggest reviewing old games, say by Capablanca or Alekhine or whomever else.
Obviously chess theory has advanced in many ways since then. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus solely on games played over the last few years?
What is the value of old games from the standpoint of improving your own chess?