Answers.Body: <p>Chess "thinking" is first and foremost a skill. As such it has to be practiced actively. Passively acquired knowledge will only flesh out what you already can do, it will not improve your chess all that much. </p>
  
  <p>Of course if you try to follow all the variations of the commentators and constantly come up with variations on your own, you will benefit from watching games, thought the level of these games probably doesn't have much of an influence on the training effect. </p>
  
  <p>Generally improvement happens outside your comfort zone. If it doesn't feel like you put something into it, you probably wont get anything out of it.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-05T19:37:08.407Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-01-05T19:37:08.407Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.Body: <p>Depends on your strength.</p>
  
  <p>If you are able to understand what's going on in the game, then yes. But if you feel like watching a mystery thriller, then no. To learn and improve yourself, first you should understand what's going on.</p>
  
  <p>For example, I would advice 1800+ FIDE players to watch and analyze GM games. And I would advice 1600- players to not to lose time with it.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-05T04:58:21.383Z
Answers.Text: I think 1200 players are able to understand the moves with commentary.
Answers.UserDisplayName: limits
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-05T05:18:11.390Z
Answers.Text: I disagree. There is no commentary with enough detail to make a total beginner understand.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-05T15:00:00.570Z
Answers.Text: 1200 players generally aren't total beginners.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Larry Coleman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-05T17:14:40.310Z
Answers.Text: Most 1200s have significant chess knowledge but aren't experienced enough to have consistent good results in competitions.
Answers.UserDisplayName: limits
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-05T19:24:01.673Z
Answers.Text: So you really believe a 1200 player can understand GM game?
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-05T21:10:57.783Z
Answers.Text: So what should I watch when I am right around 1600? (I personally find FM/IM games more interesting, so you might be right)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jeff Davis
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-06T03:20:07.860Z
Answers.Text: @JeffDavis I advice you to watch training DVD's from masters. I would like to give some links, but I don't know if it's okay to share links to commercial products. If you feel you understand the games, you can watch FM/IM or even GM games. I can't know if you understand or not, it's hard to decide between 1600-1800.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-06T08:45:44.753Z
Answers.Text: @Sailbot how these training DVDs called, no need for links
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alex
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-06T09:03:12.923Z
Answers.Text: Search 'best chess dvds' in google, you will understand that you found when you find them.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-06T12:05:17.837Z
Answers.Text: Hint: Play with power!
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-08T05:13:57.217Z
Answers.Text: 1200s aren't as bad as most people think. They just make tactical errors/play too fast/are not careful etc. Most of them will get better not worse from watching GM games. Also their biggest weakness tends to be their erratic/incomplete thought process. Grandmaster games with live commentary shows the way the grandmasters are thinking.
Answers.UserDisplayName: limits
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-08T05:24:55.727Z
Answers.Text: 1200 players generally bad at tactics, and they know almost nothing about strategy. GM games are extremely deep on strategy, not to mention tactics, that's why I'm saying it's a waste of time. Grandmaster games can't show how grandmasters think to 1200 audience. It's like showing integrals to someone who only knows the multiplication table.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-08T05:26:42.527Z
Answers.Text: @JeffDavis I heard it's not forbidden to refer products. So, I advice you to check chessbase.com for quality dvd's. And check Power Play series by GM Daniel King.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-04T23:05:46.070Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-01-04T23:05:46.070Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.Body: <p>Well, keeping abreast of current games in current tourneys and trying to play/understand them all is not so useful. Many GM games fizzle out into a draw, because they are based on 20 moves of theory not worth remembering.</p>
  
  <p>There are a lot of chess channels that show a game a day, or a game a week, and they can pick out the most exciting and instructive ones, the ones that help most with the basics. I also like the randomness and not knowing what comes next, as often I'm exposed to an opening I blew off, but I can see its dynamic potential.</p>
  
  <p>I also like to visit chessgames.com for the game of the day, as well as play the daily tactics. The comments there help me see "what if X/then Y" and so forth, which is at least as important as a list of moves, or a GM's analysis. People of a variety of strengths comment, so you get to see a bunch of ideas beyond "oh he got this right" or "oh he messed this up."</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-15T04:41:06.983Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-09-15T04:41:06.983Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: aschultz
Answers.Body: <p>Definitely. In my experience, I've had several "aha" moments watching GMs play. At times watching their games, but also hearing them comment and articulate the thought process,  allowed me to gain insights that I would never have attained on my own.</p>
  
  <p>One recent example: watching a Nakamura Youtube video when he said in the opening: "What kind of structure do I want to play?" triggered an avalanche of thoughts in my head that amounted to a realization that determining the pawn structure early on is, firstly, in your hands, and secondly, paramount to the rest of the game.</p>
  
  <p>Great question, I definitely agree that getting into the mind of the genius is a great part of the joy of chess.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-22T14:44:31.383Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-02-22T15:01:17.043Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-02-22T15:01:17.043Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: postoronnim
Answers.Body: <p>Definitely.  I played over every game from the 1953 Candidates tournament that had 16 top GMs vying to qualify for the world championship that would find a new champ as the old one had died. </p>
  
  <p>The biggest value was in the openings as I learned every variation of the nimzo as it was one of the most popular openings that year. </p>
  
  <p>But having played thorough every note and variation as well as every game I am sure that I picked up a lot more by osmosis that helped my play.  </p>
  
  <p>While there were some interesting tactics, it would help to play over collections of tactics by THEME on a web site.   Playing over many of the same theme will fix that pattern into your brain to more easily recognize if it shows up in your games. </p>
  
  <p>Likewise while endings were interesting you really need to devour a good end game book like BCE or whatever else is newer now that might be better. </p>
  
  <p>Fischer and other top grandmasters regularly play over every game in tournament collections to see what they can learn and also for weaknesses they can exploit when they play other people in a tournament. </p>
  
  <p>Based on my experience and what GMs do I have to say that if you play over grandmaster games it has to benefit  your play.  </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-21T21:44:52.413Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-02-21T21:44:52.413Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.Body: <p>To get the most from other people's games, it makes sense to look at games that were played well. However, what a beginner needs to see is not perfection, but what happens if one player makes a mistake, and how the other player punishes it. This means either looking at games where only one of the players is a master, or at games played by two masters that were annotated by a master to show what <em>would have happened</em> if certain bad moves had been played.</p>
  
  <p>There are quite a few good ways to do this. The most economical use of time is <em>not</em> to watch a live game, because this involves long delays, interruptions, and incomplete and erratic delivery of any offered analysis.</p>
  
  <p>Instead, the most economical use of study time on master games is to replay a game that has annotations, ideally accompanied by explanations in English (or some other language comprehensible to the reader).  Perhaps the best idea is to find classic games by one of the masters in the Romantic Age of chess that are comprehensively annotated, but almost any master's game should yield benefits.</p>
  
  <p>A word about annotations: Many games are annotated by masters <em>for masters</em>.  Examples are those analyses that are published in Sahovksi Informator ("Chess Informant"). These contain no words; all games are annotated with only variations and glyphs representing chess concepts, ideas and evaluation results.  They would be incomprehensible to a beginner. What I'm referring to are games like those annotated in USCF's Chess Life, or the collected games of a master such as: </p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>"<em>My 60 Memorable Games</em>", Bobby Fischer</li>
  <li>"<em>Fire on Board</em>", Alexei Shirov</li>
  <li>"<em>The Sorcerer's Apprentice</em>", David Bronstein</li>
  <li>"<em>I Play Against the Pieces</em>", Svetozar Gligoric</li>
  <li>"<em>The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal</em>", Mikhail Tal</li>
  <li>"<em>Alekhine's Best Games: 1908-1923</em>", Alexander Alekhine</li>
  <li>"<em>Alekhine's Best Games: 1924-1937</em>", Alexander Alekhine</li>
  <li>"<em>100 Selected Games</em>", Mikhail Botvinnik</li>
  <li>"<em>My Best Games of Chess</em>", Valeri Smyslov</li>
  <li>"<em>Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess</em>", Harry Golombek</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Another source is Everyman Publishing's "<em><a href="https://www.everymanchess.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?limit=all&amp;q=move+by+move+series" rel="noreferrer">Move by Move Series</a></em>". I would recommend the books in this series on Paul Morphy, Victor Korchnoi, Raul Capablanca, Mikhail Tal, or William Steinitz.  They have the advantage of being published in e-book format.</p>
  
  <p>"<em>The Amateur's Mind</em>", by Jeremy Silman, approached this technique differently with the (relatively) novel idea of looking at <em>amateur</em> games, pointing out their flaws, <em>why</em> they were flaws, and what would have worked better.</p>
  
  <p>The other disadvantage of this book is that you won't see an illustration of how to play well, you will only see <em>some illustrations</em> of how to play badly.  </p>
  
  <p>That said, since the mistakes made by the players involved are common among amateurs, you may realize that you are also making them, and be able to fix them. Another benefit is that the book tries to delve into <em>why</em> these amateurs made these particular mistakes; the author tries (though a bit unsystematically) to get to the <em>root cause</em>.  This may be very illuminating for other amateurs out there.</p>
  
  <p>One final note on Silman's book: Not everyone likes Silman's writing style, which some find abrasive at times, so I recommend that you look over samples of the content in a bookstore, or at your library or chess club.  (Somewhat mysteriously, Amazon doesn't seem to offer a preview of this book, as they do with many others...). </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-14T21:26:26.377Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-09-14T21:26:26.377Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jaxter
Body: <p>Can my chess "thinking" (positional, tactical, strategic thinking, etc.) improve by watching grandmasters' games regularly? Of course, this is in addition to regular games/tactics solving etc.</p>
  
  <p>As an example, when learning any foreign language, it's a good practice to watch movies and listen to language as much as possible. </p>
  
  <p>I'm interested in pattern matching, as my brain is very good at it. I think that by constantly watching high-quality games one can develop knowledge of the best moves/strategies/tactics. </p>
  
  <p>Has anyone applied this technique or has an opinion on this? Cheers</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-01-04T22:42:03.533Z
Comments.Text: Yes, watching blitz games by strong players improves calculation ability.
Comments.UserDisplayName: limits
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-01-06T03:31:11.937Z
Comments.Text: Tactics mostly occur in threats, they are like ghosts for someone who didn't calculate it. And you don't have time to think about them and calculate in a blitz game of strong players.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ferit
Tags: <learning><training><master-games><preparation><famous-games>
Title: Can watching grandmasters' games improve my chess 'thinking'?
ThreadText: # Can watching grandmasters' games improve my chess 'thinking'?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-01-04)
  
  Can my chess "thinking" (positional, tactical, strategic thinking, etc.) improve by watching grandmasters' games regularly? Of course, this is in addition to regular games/tactics solving etc.
  
  As an example, when learning any foreign language, it's a good practice to watch movies and listen to language as much as possible.
  
  I'm interested in pattern matching, as my brain is very good at it. I think that by constantly watching high-quality games one can develop knowledge of the best moves/strategies/tactics.
  
  Has anyone applied this technique or has an opinion on this? Cheers
  
  **Tags:** learning, training, master-games, preparation, famous-games
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Yes, watching blitz games by strong players improves calculation ability.  
  > **username_2**: Tactics mostly occur in threats, they are like ghosts for someone who didn't calculate it. And you don't have time to think about them and calculate in a blitz game of strong players.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 6 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2016-09-14. Score: 5 | Accepted answer
  
  To get the most from other people's games, it makes sense to look at games that were played well. However, what a beginner needs to see is not perfection, but what happens if one player makes a mistake, and how the other player punishes it. This means either looking at games where only one of the players is a master, or at games played by two masters that were annotated by a master to show what *would have happened* if certain bad moves had been played.
  
  There are quite a few good ways to do this. The most economical use of time is *not* to watch a live game, because this involves long delays, interruptions, and incomplete and erratic delivery of any offered analysis.
  
  Instead, the most economical use of study time on master games is to replay a game that has annotations, ideally accompanied by explanations in English (or some other language comprehensible to the reader). Perhaps the best idea is to find classic games by one of the masters in the Romantic Age of chess that are comprehensively annotated, but almost any master's game should yield benefits.
  
  A word about annotations: Many games are annotated by masters *for masters*. Examples are those analyses that are published in Sahovksi Informator ("Chess Informant"). These contain no words; all games are annotated with only variations and glyphs representing chess concepts, ideas and evaluation results. They would be incomprehensible to a beginner. What I'm referring to are games like those annotated in USCF's Chess Life, or the collected games of a master such as:
  
  * "*My 60 Memorable Games*", Bobby Fischer
  * "*Fire on Board*", Alexei Shirov
  * "*The Sorcerer's Apprentice*", David Bronstein
  * "*I Play Against the Pieces*", Svetozar Gligoric
  * "*The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal*", Mikhail Tal
  * "*Alekhine's Best Games: 1908-1923*", Alexander Alekhine
  * "*Alekhine's Best Games: 1924-1937*", Alexander Alekhine
  * "*100 Selected Games*", Mikhail Botvinnik
  * "*My Best Games of Chess*", Valeri Smyslov
  * "*Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess*", Harry Golombek
  
  Another source is Everyman Publishing's "*[Move by Move Series](https://www.everymanchess.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?limit=all&q=move+by+move+series)*". I would recommend the books in this series on Paul Morphy, Victor Korchnoi, Raul Capablanca, Mikhail Tal, or William Steinitz. They have the advantage of being published in e-book format.
  
  "*The Amateur's Mind*", by Jeremy Silman, approached this technique differently with the (relatively) novel idea of looking at *amateur* games, pointing out their flaws, *why* they were flaws, and what would have worked better.
  
  The other disadvantage of this book is that you won't see an illustration of how to play well, you will only see *some illustrations* of how to play badly.
  
  That said, since the mistakes made by the players involved are common among amateurs, you may realize that you are also making them, and be able to fix them. Another benefit is that the book tries to delve into *why* these amateurs made these particular mistakes; the author tries (though a bit unsystematically) to get to the *root cause*. This may be very illuminating for other amateurs out there.
  
  One final note on Silman's book: Not everyone likes Silman's writing style, which some find abrasive at times, so I recommend that you look over samples of the content in a bookstore, or at your library or chess club. (Somewhat mysteriously, Amazon doesn't seem to offer a preview of this book, as they do with many others...).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2016-01-05. Score: 5
  
  Chess "thinking" is first and foremost a skill. As such it has to be practiced actively. Passively acquired knowledge will only flesh out what you already can do, it will not improve your chess all that much.
  
  Of course if you try to follow all the variations of the commentators and constantly come up with variations on your own, you will benefit from watching games, thought the level of these games probably doesn't have much of an influence on the training effect.
  
  Generally improvement happens outside your comfort zone. If it doesn't feel like you put something into it, you probably wont get anything out of it.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-01-04. Score: 3
  
  Depends on your strength.
  
  If you are able to understand what's going on in the game, then yes. But if you feel like watching a mystery thriller, then no. To learn and improve yourself, first you should understand what's going on.
  
  For example, I would advice 1800+ FIDE players to watch and analyze GM games. And I would advice 1600- players to not to lose time with it.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I think 1200 players are able to understand the moves with commentary.  
  > **username_2**: I disagree. There is no commentary with enough detail to make a total beginner understand.  
  > **username_4**: 1200 players generally aren't total beginners.  
  > **username_1**: Most 1200s have significant chess knowledge but aren't experienced enough to have consistent good results in competitions.  
  > **username_2**: So you really believe a 1200 player can understand GM game?  
  > **username_5**: So what should I watch when I am right around 1600? (I personally find FM/IM games more interesting, so you might be right)  
  > **username_2**: @username_5 I advice you to watch training DVD's from masters. I would like to give some links, but I don't know if it's okay to share links to commercial products. If you feel you understand the games, you can watch FM/IM or even GM games. I can't know if you understand or not, it's hard to decide between 1600-1800.  
  > **username_0**: @Sailbot how these training DVDs called, no need for links  
  > **username_2**: Search 'best chess dvds' in google, you will understand that you found when you find them.  
  > **username_2**: Hint: Play with power!  
  > **username_1**: 1200s aren't as bad as most people think. They just make tactical errors/play too fast/are not careful etc. Most of them will get better not worse from watching GM games. Also their biggest weakness tends to be their erratic/incomplete thought process. Grandmaster games with live commentary shows the way the grandmasters are thinking.  
  > **username_2**: 1200 players generally bad at tactics, and they know almost nothing about strategy. GM games are extremely deep on strategy, not to mention tactics, that's why I'm saying it's a waste of time. Grandmaster games can't show how grandmasters think to 1200 audience. It's like showing integrals to someone who only knows the multiplication table.  
  > **username_2**: @username_5 I heard it's not forbidden to refer products. So, I advice you to check chessbase.com for quality dvd's. And check Power Play series by GM Daniel King.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2016-09-15. Score: 1
  
  Well, keeping abreast of current games in current tourneys and trying to play/understand them all is not so useful. Many GM games fizzle out into a draw, because they are based on 20 moves of theory not worth remembering.
  
  There are a lot of chess channels that show a game a day, or a game a week, and they can pick out the most exciting and instructive ones, the ones that help most with the basics. I also like the randomness and not knowing what comes next, as often I'm exposed to an opening I blew off, but I can see its dynamic potential.
  
  I also like to visit chessgames.com for the game of the day, as well as play the daily tactics. The comments there help me see "what if X/then Y" and so forth, which is at least as important as a list of moves, or a GM's analysis. People of a variety of strengths comment, so you get to see a bunch of ideas beyond "oh he got this right" or "oh he messed this up."
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2020-02-22. Score: 1
  
  Definitely. In my experience, I've had several "aha" moments watching GMs play. At times watching their games, but also hearing them comment and articulate the thought process, allowed me to gain insights that I would never have attained on my own.
  
  One recent example: watching a Nakamura Youtube video when he said in the opening: "What kind of structure do I want to play?" triggered an avalanche of thoughts in my head that amounted to a realization that determining the pawn structure early on is, firstly, in your hands, and secondly, paramount to the rest of the game.
  
  Great question, I definitely agree that getting into the mind of the genius is a great part of the joy of chess.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2020-02-21. Score: 1
  
  Definitely. I played over every game from the 1953 Candidates tournament that had 16 top GMs vying to qualify for the world championship that would find a new champ as the old one had died.
  
  The biggest value was in the openings as I learned every variation of the nimzo as it was one of the most popular openings that year.
  
  But having played thorough every note and variation as well as every game I am sure that I picked up a lot more by osmosis that helped my play.
  
  While there were some interesting tactics, it would help to play over collections of tactics by THEME on a web site. Playing over many of the same theme will fix that pattern into your brain to more easily recognize if it shows up in your games.
  
  Likewise while endings were interesting you really need to devour a good end game book like BCE or whatever else is newer now that might be better.
  
  Fischer and other top grandmasters regularly play over every game in tournament collections to see what they can learn and also for weaknesses they can exploit when they play other people in a tournament.
  
  Based on my experience and what GMs do I have to say that if you play over grandmaster games it has to benefit your play.
  
  
  ---
  
  