“Without serious study of the chess classics it is not possible to become a proper chess player, just as it is impossible to imagine, say, a writer or poet who has not read Shakespeare or an artist who has never seen Rembrandt’s paintings” – Grandmaster Artur Yusupov, Training for the Tournament Player
Studying the games and texts of outstanding chess players and thinkers of previous decades is a tool instrumental on your path to mastery. Modern chess (like many other domains) features more pragmatism, and therefore more emphasis on “rule-breaking”. When you look at instructive games you are less likely to be able to understand the principles underlying the play and thus cannot grasp why the masters choose one path over another.
Why study the classics?
Studying the games of the classics (e.g. Capablanca, Steinitz, Alekhine) one gets to capture the “evolution” of chess thinking and the basic foundations of chess strategy. For example, Capablanca was well known for his ability to play endgames with superb technique. Since Capablanca was ahead of his time, many of his opponents allowed him to demonstrate his “textbook technique” which has now become standard. These days, modern grandmasters will often resign before allowing their opponent to demonstrate what is well known – or more often they will launch desperate countermeasures before falling into such situations. For reasons such as these, what one can learn from the games of Capablanca one can not necessarily learn from the games of modern grandmasters.
Another such example is Alekhine, who was known for his fantastic combinative vision and ability to wrestle for the initiative in practically any position. Again, by studying his games one is acquainted with these techniques in games where is opponents were less likely to understand what was happening.
How do you study the classics?
In the book, “Training for the Tournament Player”, Yusupov and Dvoretsky offer a few suggestions of huge practical value. Most study should be done from game collections which focus on that players games. Games which were annotated by the particular player himself are even more valuable – but not totally necessary.
The first suggestion is to focus on what that particular player was known for. Find out more about the player’s style and what his defining qualities were. Remember that great players do all things quite well, but there is something for which they later became known for.
Now there are three suggestions pertaining to how to review the games. The most important point is not to passively review the games, but instead to get the ideas imprinted into one’s mind. One way is to play a “guessing game” – cover up the moves of your selected master, and try to guess what he would play in that situation before continuing.
A second way is to play up until a diagrammed position where an important problem is about to be solved. Try to work out for yourself the appropriate strategy and calculations before continuing.
Thirdly, you can also copy down positions which interest you onto paper (or into a database) with a sketch of the relevant idea and calculations which made an impression on you. Review these frequently in order to constantly revisit those things which you learned. In this way you are far more likely to sense similar ideas in your games.
I like the third method best, but choose the one which you think will work best for you.
Subscribe