Answers.Body: <p>Paul Morphy's games are better resources for learning at your level. There's no use for you to get into deep positional understanding typically in modern GM games.</p>
  
  <p>You should get a book on Amazon. Don't try to analyze the games yourself.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-27T13:52:18.053Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-27T13:52:18.053Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.Body: <p>Pretty much all great players studied the games of the best players of the past, and it is repeatedly recommended that studying them is a great way to improve. Marin's book Learn from the Legends is pretty much based around his journey of doing that.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-27T19:02:01.947Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-27T19:02:01.947Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jerry Snitselaar
Answers.Body: <p>If you're a beginner then studying games from the old masters does more good, especially players like Morphy who emphasized the basics (quick development, attacking an uncastled king, etc). Once you get to the 1500 range, you'd do best looking at games from the GMs of the 20th century up until the 1990s. That was when classical chess theory "matured", so to speak, without being so absorbed in theory.</p>
  
  <p>You noted it's tough to follow the top players currently. That's no accident, as it's not uncommon for them to spend the first 15-20 moves completely in theory generated by engines and hours of preparation.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-28T01:52:45.737Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-28T01:52:45.737Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.Body: <p>Definitely study classic Morphy's games. The fact that Morphy was so far ahead of his peers is a good thing. His opponents often missed Morphy's plan and the plan came out clearly, and it shows you what you should strive to do.</p>
  
  <p>In modern chess so much depends on opening preparation, where moves are often not intuitive and depend on engine backed calculations, that it is very difficult to see what the plan is. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-28T03:58:47.300Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-28T03:58:47.300Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.Body: <p>It absolutely makes sense to study Morphy. Sure, most of his opponents were "terrible" but so are most of your opponents.  And, let's be honest, so are you, at the moment.  Studying Morphy's games&nbsp;&ndash; and tactics in general&nbsp;&ndash; will teach you how to beat "terrible" opponents. At your level, nearly all games are decided by exactly the sort of tactical blunders that Morphy will quickly teach you how to avoid and exploit.</p>
  
  <p>Once you're beating all the "terrible" players, you'll have moved up the ladder to "bad". Then you can look at the games of people like Lasker and Capablanca, who'll help you learn to think strategically too. Then you'll be a "so-so" player and maybe even a "good" one.</p>
  
  <p>The modern games are, as you say, pretty inscrutable. Modern players know so much about chess that most of what they do is basically micro-optimization in an attempt to play something that's 99.5% perfect instead of 99%. It is possible to learn from modern games, as long as they're very well annotated, explaining why alternative moves would be mistakes. But don't fall into the trap of thinking "Carlsen played Bb4 and I was thinking that Nc4 looks like a decent move. Why is it wrong?" Usually, there are two or three good moves in any position. Carlsen needs to play the absolutely best move because his opponent is a genius; you can play any of the good moves and be fine, because your opponent isn't a genius. Mostly, though, people who play chess for a hobby will learn much more  from older games than modern ones.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-28T20:42:42.213Z
Answers.Text: Your first paragraph is a nice summary of exactly why I wanted to do this.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Derek Allums
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-30T02:32:00.753Z
Answers.Text: A nitpick, but your use of "terrible" inconsistent IMO, you use it to refer to Morphy's opponents, like Paulsen, Bird, Andersen (Morphy's most famous games are against these opponents), who are probably at least 2200 in modern strength. And then you are talking about OP moving from "terrible" to "bad", which would imply that OP will become stronger than the mentioned players.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-30T20:11:53.157Z
Answers.Text: @Akavall Sure, not all of Morphy's opponents were terrible. I don't think that affects my point.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-28T20:15:25.993Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-28T20:15:25.993Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.Body: <p>I just wanted to add - for one to say that to say "not all Morphy's opponents were terrible" is really understating the case.</p>
  
  <p>The fact is that Morphy consistently beat all the best chess players in the world.  For example, Akavall mentioned Adolf Anderssen. Anderssen was estimated by Arpad Elo ( who invented the ELO rating system ) as being over 2600.</p>
  
  <p>Morphys record against him was +12 -3 = 2.</p>
  
  <p>Etcetera.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-24T15:36:41.890Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-24T15:36:41.890Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew Brooks
Answers.Body: <p>The answer from SmallChess is good. There's also an illustrative <a href="https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/420663928209674240" rel="noreferrer">tweet</a> from Garry Kasparov on the subject:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>For beginning chess players, studying a Carlsen game is like wanting to be an electrical engineer &amp; beginning with studying an iPhone.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-27T15:28:49.937Z
Answers.Text: Ha - exactly what I was thinking, and makes me feel less bad about getting basically nothing out of it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Derek Allums
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-27T15:12:51.253Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-27T15:12:51.253Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cleveland
Body: <p>I was watching a video last night by Ben Finegold on Paul Morphy and some of his games. He mentioned that some current GMs would discount Morphy's ability since all of his opponents were "terrible". However, Ben countered by observing that ok even if that's true, almost all of Morphy's moves were the best move. </p>
  
  <p>I went back and looked through more of his games and like his style - extremely aggressive, and always gets his pieces out and working together, something I have a tough time doing. So the question is as in the title: for someone at my level (still very much a beginner, probably sub-1200 once my rating stabilizes), does it make sense to study older players like this, or stick with newer games? The problem I have studying newer games is that they are completely inscrutable. I can almost never figure out why certain moves are begin made once they're outside theory, so I'm not sure how much mileage I actually get out of it. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-12-27T14:19:35.330Z
Comments.Text: Newer games are far more subtle and difficult for lower rated players to understand than the older games, where ideas and themes were often displayed more clearly. This is why newer players are often advised to study the games of the past masters rather than the games of today's top players.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-12-29T19:46:25.220Z
Comments.Text: I think studying the games of anyone substantially more skilled than you is useful, as long as they are at least Master level.  Just go in with the understanding that neither player is playing perfectly.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Rex Butler
Tags: <analysis><learning><master-games><morphy>
Title: Would studying the games of old players hurt my progress?
ThreadText: # Would studying the games of old players hurt my progress?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-12-27)
  
  I was watching a video last night by Ben Finegold on Paul Morphy and some of his games. He mentioned that some current GMs would discount Morphy's ability since all of his opponents were "terrible". However, Ben countered by observing that ok even if that's true, almost all of Morphy's moves were the best move.
  
  I went back and looked through more of his games and like his style - extremely aggressive, and always gets his pieces out and working together, something I have a tough time doing. So the question is as in the title: for someone at my level (still very much a beginner, probably sub-1200 once my rating stabilizes), does it make sense to study older players like this, or stick with newer games? The problem I have studying newer games is that they are completely inscrutable. I can almost never figure out why certain moves are begin made once they're outside theory, so I'm not sure how much mileage I actually get out of it.
  
  **Tags:** analysis, learning, master-games, morphy
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Newer games are far more subtle and difficult for lower rated players to understand than the older games, where ideas and themes were often displayed more clearly. This is why newer players are often advised to study the games of the past masters rather than the games of today's top players.  
  > **username_2**: I think studying the games of anyone substantially more skilled than you is useful, as long as they are at least Master level.  Just go in with the understanding that neither player is playing perfectly.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 7 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2018-12-27. Score: 22 | Accepted answer
  
  The answer from username_3 is good. There's also an illustrative [tweet](https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/420663928209674240) from Garry Kasparov on the subject:
  
  > For beginning chess players, studying a Carlsen game is like wanting to be an electrical engineer & beginning with studying an iPhone.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Ha - exactly what I was thinking, and makes me feel less bad about getting basically nothing out of it.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2018-12-27. Score: 16
  
  Paul Morphy's games are better resources for learning at your level. There's no use for you to get into deep positional understanding typically in modern GM games.
  
  You should get a book on Amazon. Don't try to analyze the games yourself.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2018-12-28. Score: 10
  
  If you're a beginner then studying games from the old masters does more good, especially players like Morphy who emphasized the basics (quick development, attacking an uncastled king, etc). Once you get to the 1500 range, you'd do best looking at games from the GMs of the 20th century up until the 1990s. That was when classical chess theory "matured", so to speak, without being so absorbed in theory.
  
  You noted it's tough to follow the top players currently. That's no accident, as it's not uncommon for them to spend the first 15-20 moves completely in theory generated by engines and hours of preparation.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2018-12-27. Score: 8
  
  Pretty much all great players studied the games of the best players of the past, and it is repeatedly recommended that studying them is a great way to improve. Marin's book Learn from the Legends is pretty much based around his journey of doing that.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2018-12-28. Score: 7
  
  Definitely study classic Morphy's games. The fact that Morphy was so far ahead of his peers is a good thing. His opponents often missed Morphy's plan and the plan came out clearly, and it shows you what you should strive to do.
  
  In modern chess so much depends on opening preparation, where moves are often not intuitive and depend on engine backed calculations, that it is very difficult to see what the plan is.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2018-12-28. Score: 6
  
  It absolutely makes sense to study Morphy. Sure, most of his opponents were "terrible" but so are most of your opponents. And, let's be honest, so are you, at the moment. Studying Morphy's games – and tactics in general – will teach you how to beat "terrible" opponents. At your level, nearly all games are decided by exactly the sort of tactical blunders that Morphy will quickly teach you how to avoid and exploit.
  
  Once you're beating all the "terrible" players, you'll have moved up the ladder to "bad". Then you can look at the games of people like Lasker and Capablanca, who'll help you learn to think strategically too. Then you'll be a "so-so" player and maybe even a "good" one.
  
  The modern games are, as you say, pretty inscrutable. Modern players know so much about chess that most of what they do is basically micro-optimization in an attempt to play something that's 99.5% perfect instead of 99%. It is possible to learn from modern games, as long as they're very well annotated, explaining why alternative moves would be mistakes. But don't fall into the trap of thinking "Carlsen played Bb4 and I was thinking that Nc4 looks like a decent move. Why is it wrong?" Usually, there are two or three good moves in any position. Carlsen needs to play the absolutely best move because his opponent is a genius; you can play any of the good moves and be fine, because your opponent isn't a genius. Mostly, though, people who play chess for a hobby will learn much more from older games than modern ones.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Your first paragraph is a nice summary of exactly why I wanted to do this.  
  > **username_6**: A nitpick, but your use of "terrible" inconsistent IMO, you use it to refer to Morphy's opponents, like Paulsen, Bird, Andersen (Morphy's most famous games are against these opponents), who are probably at least 2200 in modern strength. And then you are talking about OP moving from "terrible" to "bad", which would imply that OP will become stronger than the mentioned players.  
  > **username_7**: @username_6 Sure, not all of Morphy's opponents were terrible. I don't think that affects my point.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2019-01-24. Score: 3
  
  I just wanted to add - for one to say that to say "not all Morphy's opponents were terrible" is really understating the case.
  
  The fact is that Morphy consistently beat all the best chess players in the world. For example, username_6 mentioned Adolf Anderssen. Anderssen was estimated by Arpad Elo ( who invented the ELO rating system ) as being over 2600.
  
  Morphys record against him was +12 -3 = 2.
  
  Etcetera.
  
  
  ---
  
  