I have heard to study the earlier grandmasters then go to the to the present ones, but exactly how do u study grandmaster games? Also how do u study ur own games?. I want to be able to learn from every game so no game goes wasted the site i look at gm games is "chessgames.com" ,thx for ur tme


1.Study Greco,

2.Philidor

3.and Morphy

4.Than TAL

5.and fischer

i was told to study these players in this order

I don't know where you got that list, but you're missing quite a few top players along the way. I remember reading once that you should start with Morphy and work your way forward in time, one world champion at a time. Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, etc are supposed to all have some great games to learn from. As I've mentioned elsewhere, studying grandmaster games isn't my specialty, though, so I haven't actually done this. I'm still learning to understand pieces of the game, before trying to study whole games at that level.

--Fromper

When you look at Greco and Morphy games though, isn't mostly what you see carnage? Well sure, I guess all the world champions tear apart their opponent, but with Greco and Morphy, you really get to see it happen. 0_0

I'm not sure studying anybody pre-Morphy makes much sense. Sure, Anderssen and some others are entertaining, but start with Morphy.

Second, jumping from Morphy to Tal is ridiculous.

Focusing on the time period from Steinitz to Alekhine will teach you the most. That includes Lasker, Tarrasch, Capablanca, and Rubenstein. There's a ton to be learned there that you need to understand before you even think of looking at Tal's games.

NitrousPeak,Ronaldinho i need to learn how to study for the games if u can tell me that , that would be great and thx for the orders i should go in, but i need to be able to understand them before i can learn from them.

Logical Chess in Every Move Here ya go... move by move explained.

<vitor> thx for the link but i want to learn how to understand moves of the grandmasters by myself by just looking at the move and learn something new from it. like learning new openings, middlegame and endgame techniques.

I think that when starting out, trying to learn by yourself, from unannotated games, is a mistake.

While you might be able to do it, I think it's not particularly productive. Once you have a solid foundation, you'll get more from studying unannotated games, but for most people starting out, it's a waste of time. Too many of the moves will be beyond your comprehension. You might be able to get away with a little bit of this with Anderssen and Morphy, but even with them, I think you'll find the process more frustrating and illuminating.

Once you have a solid foundation in tactics and strategy, taking the time to work everything out in a master game will be much more productive.

<Ronaldinho> thx very much for telling me that i will try making a stronger foundation, but still do u know how to learn from gm games? so i can start when i think i reach a high enough lvl?

I agree with you quite strongly. Annotated grandmaster/master games preferably deeply annotated by the players are critical for beginners. The annotations should be qualitative consisting rather than full of deep variations.

Crash