Value of the Study of Grandmaster Games

I've always been ambivalent about the value of studying grandmaster games. Capablanca is great to study especially for his end games. On the other hand, in the last week I spoke with two players who are stronger than me who feel that Kasparov's games are of little value for study because he makes too many moves that they don't understand. I'm very much in that camp, and I also feel that way about Akiba Rubinstein.

Morphy plays an active style, and I feel that I've learned from his games. Maybe it's better to study players from the past until your skills improve, or maybe you just need to find a GM that you can understand. What do you think?

maybe is better is to find the GM's games with the annotation in it, if Kasparov's games has been annotoated by him well then maybe you would have understand it better ?

just my 2 cents. 

Maybe thorough annotation would help, but I wonder if some of the concepts are just beyond me at this point. At any rate, they may not be something that I incorporate into my games.

I think that one of the biggest benefits of going over GM games is helping to develop pattern recognition. Especially if you go over a lot of games and as many as you can stand in the openings you play.

Some methods that I have used:

• fast game review; 100+ games in a hour. Not sure if it really helped but it certainly didn't hurt.
• guess the move; play over a game and guess what the GM played. Probably would work best if you have good annotations or can check your moves with an engine to see if your choices were very much worse.

I'm not 100% about playing over really old Master games. I recall an entry in one of  John Nunn's books where he discusses the number of errors found in older master games and how many were unsuitable for generating good tactical puzzles from. Those types of games might be good to go over too, trying to find improvements in the play.

So, I think there is value in studying them but that the method of study is likely to change as you become a stronger player.

to Martin: what you decribe sound like Silman's way....

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-point-of-studying-master-games-part-one

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-point-of-studying-master-games-part-two

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-point-of-studying-master-games-pt-3

I pretty much got the idea of going over many games from him; from some of the posts here and some of his books. Not sure I read all of those articles or not (going to read them here in a minute).

The other idea, was initially formed from Pandolfini's Solitaire chess.

I first of all wanted to thank you for dredging this idea from the depths of chess knowledge.I am realizing I needed to see this in order to help me have direction for improvement.

I have been studying GM's games too, for a while. I have noticed the same thing. I can play an exercise called match the masters and can call 75% of the moves right in one game between two of them and even see why my choices weren't good when I was wrong. In another game, I am dumbfounded at some of the choices I see made, when I only predict 20 to 25% of the moves correctly between two other GM's and will only see to some degree why the move they chose is better.

I chalk part of this up to knowing particular opening sequences and variations better than others, but I can clearly see, when I can't clearly see as far ahead as the greats. I am not even sure how to begin to dissect their games, to better understand. I feel like all I do when I try is, I give myself a headache and still end up choosing a move that doesn't win.

I would certainly agree if you already have an opening and variations well learned, watching a GM play them repetitively, will definitely help you enhance your skill. The only downside I can see to doing,is that, if it is easier for you, then it will probably be for others, hence, games will still be extremely competitive, though you have the knowledge of a GM for that senario. I think the real advantage to doing this would be to study the obscure and try to understand it on a really good GM's level.

Most likely, you will become well reknowned for your prowess and if you know, lets say two of these obsure openings for white. Then two of the more common openings well enough to hold your own against Masters,IM's and GM's and learn the ability to play defense, you are certain to become a titled player if you are willing to play the games.

After reasoning this out, while I typed to you, I think studying traps, counters for traps, and trying to understand the most obscure of the GM's lines I can muster, will become my new training tools to improve. I hope this was helpful.

If one plays the King's Gambit, the Evans Gambit, the Two Knights Game, the Giuoco Piano, or any other of the "ancient" openings, it makes a lot of sense to study Morphy's or Anderssen's games. You will find their games a very familiar territory in terms of openings.

Rubinstein was a 1.d4 player; it doesn't help much to study his games as white if you are a 1.e4 player.

If one's opening repertoire matures in line with the historical development of chess, i.e. you abandon the "ancient" openings in favor of Ruy Lopez, and begin to embrace 1.d4, 1.c4 or 1.Nf3, it will make a lot of sense to follow Kramnik's games, for example (a 1.Nf3 player, btw).

All said, you need to find a master with whom you share a similar opening repertoire.

One reason I posted this is that I'n considering adding 1. d4 to my opening repertoire. Maybe Ill take another look at Akiba!

Just in case you get the bright idea to try to morph into an a queen's gambit from a queen pawn game. If your opponent decides to use the Albin counter gambit (1. d4 d5  2. c4  e5) make sure you don't fall into Lasker's trap. You can look it up on youtube. It is also in the forum here. It is fluid mastery of thwarting your opponent's opening if I have ever seen it.

When I try the King's Gambit against someone above about 1600, I usually play horribly. I can never seem to be able to get past the opening and turn it into the advantage I have seen it become. I almost feel like I do when I play black against really aggressive players.

The point of studying GM games? They are master craftsmen and their notes, whilst not 100% reliable as to the actual course of their thoughts during the game or achieving full analytical correctness, teach an awful lot about their openings, the middlegame and the endgame.

Dvoretsky and Yusupov (Jussupow) have written about the value of positional sketches. This is basically noting an interesting idea/position and analysing it. In the course of further study more and more sketches with a similar theme can be collected. That work is easy now with chessbase/ databases whereas it used to be done with pencil, paper and many books in the old, pre-computer days! Some books illustrate this approach: Baburin's book on the Isolated Queen's Pawn.

Openings these days are inextricably linked with middlegame positions and plans. So, say you want to study the Sicilian Scheveningen. The best way to understand the classical main lines is to get annotated games by Kasparov (for black's ideas and resources) and Karpov and Geller (for white's perspective). One could augment those specific games with a theory book (Nikitin and Kasparov's "Sicilian ...d6/...e6 Systems" from 1984 is a classic exposition, despite being dated) and/or "Kasparov on Modern Chess" Vol.1, which has two chapters on the Classical and Modern Scheveningen and a section on the English Attack with ...e6. Then there is Shereshevsky's "Mastering the Endgame" Vol.1, which has a chapter on typical endgames that can result from the Sicilian. As if that wasn't enough, there is also Levy's "Sacrifices in the Sicilian", which collated a mass of positions and games according to typical sacrificial themes in the Sicilian.

Improving one's technical endgame play can be approached similarly. Shereshevsky's "Endgame Strategy" and Mednis' "From the Middlegame to the Endgame" collects game fragments and arranges them according to theme. However, nothing could be better than then looking at Chernev's "Capablanca's Best Chess Endings" (although the notes aren't brilliant), a collection of Rubinstein's endgames, Smyslov's "Endgame Virtuoso". On the track of positional sketches, you could go more specific and look at games where Bobby Fischer had rook and bishop against rook and knight in the endgame; his technique here was legendary

If the actual player's annotations in games collections are heavy going (typically Kasparov!), then I would recommend something like Igor Stohl's "Instructive Modern Chess Masterpieces", Nunn and Griffith's "Secrets of Grandmaster Play" and Marin's "Learn from the Legends" as a first step. The authors annotate deeply and well with an emphasis on instruction; ie. they have tailored their annotations to meet their target audience of club players wishing to improve their understanding of chess.

Or, there are authors with a lighter style, like Botvinnik. His annotations need correcting, of course, but he was a first class analyst all the same.

Hope these musings help you choose what is right for you. Studying good, annotated games collections is worth all the time and effort put into it.

It's better to start with old masters. The kind of errors they made and punished back then don't occur often anymore in the games of current GMs -- because they studied the old ones and learned from them. If you start out with modern GM games, it'll be hard to figure out why they played the way they did, because they are preventing ideas you don't know about yet.

And Kasparov's comments are geared for what he thinks of as weak players -- like IMs. You need commentary that explains the things you are wondering about.

Kwaloffer makes a good point.

I heard Dvoretsky once mention the games where Capablanca, Alekhine and the other old masters crushed amateurs with ease are actually good games to look at when learning to plan because the plan is carried out without any resistance to speak of. The play is clear and easy to follow because of the weak opposition.

Btw, a book I forgot to mention is David Bronstein's classic on the Zurich 1953 Candidates Tournament. Bronstein spends time explaining a variety of middlegame positions, the changing conceptions of the game and adds colour with his lovely prose. The style is such you feel a GM has invited you to sit next to the board and follow a game as it unfolds.

too true....his My Great predessecors books are chock-full of annotations I don't understand

Kasparov I can understand being on this list, and Tal, guys like that...but Rubinstein?  His style seemed pretty lucid and clear-cut to me (relatively speaking anyway).

I have always wondered why i should study old master games but your answered opened my eyes for me