old timey chess
so i’m going through the zurich international chess tournament of 1953, again, that book is just so damn instructive, bronstein kicked ass writing it.
but what strikes me is the games are so…..easy, so…..basic. i understand at that time, they were laying down the foundations of what we consider good solid chess, it was all new, fresh, exciting.
but the games are simple. deceptively simple. they don’t look like anything, the moves all look so “obvious,” each move looks like it fits, like it should be done. so obvious, so simple, why is it when i play chess, i make these fucked up moves that look like a juicy medium rare steak wrapped in bacon served at a vegetarian restaurant?
and then i think, well, that is how chess is played, but then i see a modern game, like this one by levon aronion in the 2005 aeroflot open:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 5. Nf3 b5 6. c5 g6 7. Qb3 a5 8. Ne5 Bg7 9. Nxb5 cxb5 10. Bxb5+ Kf8 11. O-O Ba6 12. a4 Ne4 13. Nd3 Bb7 14. f3 Nf6 15. Ne5 Qc7 16. Bd2 h5 17. c6 Bc8 18. e4 Qb6 19. Be3 Be6 20. Rac1 Na6 21. f4 Nc7 22. f5 Bc8 23. Rc5 Ba6 24. Bg5 Bc8 25. Kh1 Nxe4 26. Bxe7+ Kxe7 27. Rxd5 Nxd5 28. Qxd5 Ng5 29. Nxg6+ fxg6 30. Re1+ Be6 31. Rxe6+ Kf8 32. Qd6+ Kg8 33. Bc4 Kh7 34. Re7 gxf5 35. Qf6 Rhg8 36. Qxg5 1-0
every freakin move of aroinian’s is forward, he sacs two pieces, he is down material but commands the board, aggressive, violent decisive chess.
that game makes the most exciting beautiful game in the zurich 1953 book look boring and stupid.
and so i wonder, if i try to emulate and play like they did in 1953, would i just get crushed? can someone get away with playing like that now? i’m sure if i played like keres or smyslov or petrosian on their WORST day i would play 300% better than i do now.
but chess has changed since 1953. it’s changed since 1983. but do i try to emulate the wild ass crazy moves of aronian in that game, or do i play like aronian did the very next day with a boring dull straight forward endgame, no fireworks, nothing wild.
how relevant are the games of 1953 now? are they just for historical purposes? i assume the basic principles are the same, they still apply, and if i study and learn those games, i will understand good solid basics. i don’t think i’m wasting my time, but i sometimes wonder if learning the 1953 chess, then learning the 1990’s chess, then learning today’s chess, while enjoyable and enriching, is a long way to a point that can be reached a bit more direct.
i will still study zurich 1953, enjoy the games, learn from them. how can i NOT learn from them. i just wonder if there is a more direct, more efficient path. what if i just studied the games played in the last 5 years? what if i just studied Quality Chess’s San Luis 2005 (recommended by tanc in the comments of the last post) would i be missing something? would i not have a solid enough foundation?
how relevant is old timey chess today?
abuteague said,
April 16, 2008 at 8:54 am
I have a colleague who plays Zurich 1953 chess. He plays logically and solidly. He tends to win over anyone rated lower than him and he tends to lose to those rated higher. The general trend though is up.
I play for complexity. My colleague calls it the search for the beautiful game. It can be messy. I try to find ways to sac pieces. I can cause 300 point upsets, but I can lose to someone rated 300 points lower as well.
My rating though, has sat in the same 100 point range for 5 years.
I see lots of value in Zurich 1953. It provides a lucid discussion of strategic considerations. I enjoy the games. They aren’t the openings I use. It is definitely eyeopening comparing the Zurich 1953 games to the Hastings 1895 games. Night and day in terms of openings, style of play, annotation quality, and yet there is something to be gained from both.
But, with a tournament coming up, I’m looking to improve my tactics, endgame, and get that playbook together so I know whats what when I sit down to play. I’m still working on learning my openings too. If I go over complete games with commentary, I want them to be from my repertoire. After the big tournament I’ll go back to Zurich 1953 and other well annotated games. At my level, an incomplete understanding of strategy isn’t why I lose games. It still comes down to tactics.
What would be great would be to find a player who plays the openings you play and plays in a style you enjoy, and annotates clearly and concisely without fear that such honesty will cost him games. It all depends on the quality of the annotator. Bronstein is a great annotator and makes Zurich 1953 worth looking at.
Howard Goldowsky said,
April 16, 2008 at 9:04 am
“old timey” chess is very relevant. If you don’t believe me, go read the posts of bloggers hailing GM-RAM. If you played like Petrosian on his worst day, you would not play 300% better than you do now, you would play 3,000% better, at least. Look at your rating. Do the math. Chess is chess. Aronian is playing the same game Petrosian played. Aronian’s style might be a little different, but at your (our) level, we shouldn’t be worrying about style. Worry about building a position, recognizing 1-3 move combinations, playing the endgame well, etc — you know, stuff they teach in K-12 chess school. The difference between Aronian and Petrosian is the difference between a master’s degree in physics and a master’s degree in chemistry. That difference is meaningless to kiddies like us still in 3rd grade.
Even Zurich 1953 is a deceiving text. Yes, it’s fun to read, but it’s like reading a pop culture book about quantum physics, easily understandable. But could you then go out and actually do quantum physics like a professional physicist? No. To do that you need 16+ years of education. Enjoy Zurich 1953 all you want. It’s not going to improve your ability. You need to learn basic algebra before tackling quantum physics.
I’m not going to try and pretend that I know what books to study, in what order, and how to do it. I’m in the same boat. I’m trying to devise a serious, long-term chess curriculum that works. What I do know, however, from my own experience and others’ , is that the pop-culture book metaphor works. You (we) need to study chess the right way. We can’t just “read for pleasure” and expect to get good through osmosis. Otherwise it’s like reading Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time when we should instead be reading the 3-inch-thick Physics 101 textbook.
–Howard Goldowsky
Wahrheit said,
April 16, 2008 at 9:10 am
Interesting points, my man–I noticed that when Chess Life interviewed Nakamura a few years back, and Fabiano Caruana recently, they were both dismissive of the value of old-timey GM games; they preferred to work with computers. Cool for them, but I think at our (that is, you and me and our readers) current level of skill simpler is better, simpler is great, ‘cuz we don’t have to deal with Aronian yet. If we can pull ourselves up to the level of Zurich 1953 I’m pretty sure we’ll be DOMINATING everyone at our clubs and in our sections at the big Opens…
I’m not sure if those games are really so simple anyway, some of the opening finesses have changed but the middlegames stand the test of time pretty damn well, not played perfectly but no human does that, not even big-headed teenagers with their computers.
So to sum up, keep looking at the Zurich book!
Wahrheit said,
April 16, 2008 at 9:17 am
I see that while I wrote my comment a couple of people jumped in first–your readers are on top of it. Anyway, i hadn’t read these first, but I’ve got to disagree a little with Howard–if you use the book for “guess the move” it’s as good as anything out there; if you want simple explanatory annotated games there are plenty of Pandolfini’s, etc. but I don’t know if you get more out of them or not. It’s interesting that some GM’s have written that “osmosis” does indeed work, just looking through good games rubs off, but others disagree. Like Howard says, I’m not going to pretend to know exactly what to study in what order>
Howard Goldowsky said,
April 16, 2008 at 9:32 am
Yes, W, if you use Z-53 for Guess the Move, it works. But Guess the Move is different than reading the book just for pleasure. If you’re doing Guess the Move you’re already starting to make an effort to train. This effort is like reading some pop-culture physics book, and then asking “what does that MEAN? What does this MEAN?” Then you go out and examine some of the mathematical concepts taken for granted in the pop-physics book. When you begin playing Guess the Move, you’re no longer taking Z-53 for granted. You’re examining the moves under a microscope. You’re asking what would happen if this move was made instead. Why was this strategy employed? Etc. It takes a long time. The experts say it generally takes about 10,000 hours of training to go from beginner to master.
Wahrheit said,
April 16, 2008 at 9:51 am
Good point Howard–it seems to me that as long as you’re not studying a truly stupid, crappy book it’s how you study, the ACTIVITY , the questioning, the hard thinking, that makes the difference. Unfortunately I’ve spent many hours with chess books “reading for pleasure” which was, well, pleasurable, but didn’t do much for winning games…
This is a good enlightening, focusing discussion.
drunknknite said,
April 16, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I read Z-53 while I was imfatuated with the second My Great Predecessors series. I was studying the entire era and this period of my study led my push from 1700 to 2000. Botvinnik et al taught me what good strategy was.
Studying ‘old timey’ chess teaches you how to win won positions. The difference between then and now is that simple strategy will not give masters an edge so they have to resort to very complex trade offs of space, time, and material. Not so in 1953. Not so if you’re not in the open section. If you played the A section with sound strategy you would win. Sound positional chess wins games.
The truth is I don’t look at any games after 1970 from the top level with any hope of understanding them. I can understand a lot of the moves. But it is the underlying ideas and variations that I have no idea how to comprehend. I can look at the games and read the commentary and they look really cool and fun. But I am not learning strategy from these games. And to be completely honest, I don’t think you’re getting anything from this book. This is why I told you a long time ago don’t study Karpov.
If you want to get something out of this book you must look at Capablanca first. You must have a much broader understanding of the history and evolution of chess that is not inherited overnight. You asked if you would not have a solid enough foundation to study only games from the last 5 years. I am telling you coldly that you do not have the foundation to study only Z53. I don’t have a solid enough foundation to study only games from the last 5 years.
I know where you’re at. You see the games and some mind-blowing combinations convince you that this is where you need to be at. You’re right, this is where you want to be at. But it doesn’t happen overnight for most of us.
START WITH THE FUCKING BASICS! Don’t act like because you have been playing for a year you can keep up with chess grandmasters. The first step to quitting being a patzer is to admit that you are a patzer.
If you build a foundation then these games will not only make more sense to you, but contribute to your development. If you don’t build a foundation these games will only confuse you. You’ll be in a game and you’ll try to apply a strategic principle and it won’t work, and that will discourage you.
The thing about it is that these players understand the basics very well. They can sense the nuances of the endgame from the middlegame. And this is the key to good strategy. You have to know what a good ending looks like. You know how to learn that?? PANDOLFINI and CAPABLANCA’S BEST CHESS ENDINGS
I know, I know, Capablanca is boring. He just exchanges pieces. That’s how he wins, it’s the simplest fucking game in the world to him. I exchange here, he exchanges there, I go here, and BANG, WON ENDING!!!! That’s the key my friend, won endings. Learn what a won ending is, then try to figure out how to get one. Capablanca won games without the flair of Aronian or even Geller, he just straight outplayed people.
I still don’t get how the sentence ‘99% of the games in the Class level are decided by tactics’ became: ’studying tactics is the best way to improve’. It’s not. Studying endings is the best way to improve. They are boring at first and they are hard so people look for shortcuts and thus De La Maza is a hero and the thousands of teachers that have said 50% of your time should be spent on the ending are cast aside. But study endings my friend, then chess will start to make sense. How many times during the Far West Open did you tell me ‘I have no idea what’s going on so I move here’. Studying endings not only gives you an idea of where to go, but it also exemplifies each piece in the most astounding way. You see pieces pushed to the limit. An absolute evaluation of how the pieces relate. I cannot tell you how often I use themes that I learned from looking at endgames in the early middlegame. The pieces are still the same, they still move similarly, there’s just more of them. Seeing them in such a simple atmosphere allows you to build an appreciation for each piece’s potential. Forget about trying to create a brilliant combination, just win the fucking game.
Then when you get to about Wahrheit’s strength you can start to look at these games from 1953. That’s when they will be of use to you. Stop jumping around and looking at all this stuff. I think it hurts your chess. Look at the basics exclusively. The time you spend gawking in awe at Smyslov and Aronian is time you could use learning to play chess.
Howard Goldowsky said,
April 16, 2008 at 1:44 pm
DrunkenKnight knows where it’s at. GM-RAM isn’t packed full of endgames for naught.
“The first step to quitting being a patzer is to admit that you are a patzer.” Very Zen. I love this quote. Another way to say this: “Kill the ego.” Once the ego goes, you’re home free. But this is very hard to do. Read Zen in the Art of Archery, and you’ll get an idea about what I’m saying. The author spends years trying to kill his ego.
Results, in any discipline, mean nothing. Try to convince your ego of this, however…easier said than done.
Howard
blunderprone said,
April 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I have Chess ADD. I started in on Z-53 a while back and then GM-RAM came into my periphery. I started jumping in on the first few games and now have become infatuated with study the Old timey games… but in chronological order. I am now collecting all the London 1851 games and want to self annotate them as a learning experience.
So far with teh first three, I am seeing how much of a power house Anderssen was in Tactics. He was the Tal of his time. Most of the competition didn’t even see it coming. Following that, London 1862 and Baden baden starting seeing the likes of the romantic period of chess with great tacticians. Morphy and Lasker to name a couple.
From there I plan on building my way up to the events that the Hyper mods ( Nimzo, Reti etc) palyed in.
I want to understand the evolution of chess through the eyes of these great events leading up to modern day. But I want to do it the GM-RAM way first … but struggling to understand it on my own before I pull in reinforcements.
It’s a long path.. but my new quest…. maybe come 2010 I’ll reach Z-53.
tanc (happyhippo) said,
April 16, 2008 at 6:30 pm
cl,
there’s a lot of good advice here and in particular, drunknknite’s response.
i concur with drunknknite in that you should know how to win won games and to start with the basics.
however, i differ from him in that i feel that in order to improve or get your chess skill to a higher level, you need to study and learn BOTH tactics and endgames.
learning tactics and endgames helps you to see both the long term and short term aspects of a position and they will usually give you a guide and provide impetus and ideas on how to formulate a strategy around it. ie. develop a plan.
for simple tactics, say, for example, do you know the classic bishop sacrifice? and under what conditions will it work or not work?
if you do, good. now do you know how to play the double bishop sacrifice (made famous by Lasker)? if not, learn it!
and then you keep going at it… again and again and then you widen your tactical skills to include lawnmower mates and other basic tactical motifs until you’re so sick of it that one look at the position, and your brain instantly recognises the pattern and you know what your next move is likely to be.
play it regularly enough. because sooner or later, one of your opponents is going to waltz right into one of the above 2 typical mating nets OTB.
and at the same time, read up on endgame techniques and play them.
do you know the short-side defence? the back-rank defence? philidor’s position? how to draw out a QvR ending against an unwary opponent? karstedt’s rule? lucena position? how to win or draw a RvB ending?understand and apply centurini’s rule?
all of these concepts and ideas need to be absorbed into your mind. in endgames, even the loss of one tempo can mean the difference between winning or losing.
the toughest aspect of chess i feel is endgame theory. i’ve been reading endgames for a number of months and it’s very very hard to remember some of the basic principles unless you practise them regularly enough.
to be honest, in terms of results, very few pple care if you win in 20 moves or win in 80 moves.
as for the study of classics, i liked Alekhine’s Best Games Of Chess and Botvnnik’s 100 Selected Games. these are good examples of games where they show how general ideas are formed and applied.
if you feel you’re not at the level to grasp and understsand tournament reports like Z-53 and SanLuis-05, then my advice is don’t.
it is only when you have a solid grasp of the basics before can move up to the next level.
After all, no developer can build a skyscraper out of a foundation of loose sand.
cheers
tim flory said,
April 16, 2008 at 6:54 pm
If you want to reach the heights, you should study the entire history of chess. I can’t give any clear logical explanation for it, but I think it is absolutely essential to soak up the whole of chess history.
-Kramnik
Wahrheit said,
April 16, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Wow dude, you really have a way of getting the audience involved!
wang said,
April 17, 2008 at 6:48 am
Tactics and endgames. Right now you and Robert have two very similar posts. Or should I say two posts that talk about things I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. Suffice to say study your tactics (1hour) then study endgames, and analyze your slow time control games.
SLOW TIME CONTROL GAMES. G30+ on ICC of FICS or whatever. You my friend need to play some longer games.
Blue Devil Knight said,
April 17, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I second everything Howard said.
I got books annotating World Champion games for each world champion through Capablanca (and since I haven’t gone further than Morphy (not really a WC, but the first person who just destroyed everybody), I’ll look for stuff post-Capa once I’m done with him). It seems a natural and fun way to study, it used to be promoted endlessly at Caissa’s Confabulations, a now defunct blog (he was great, used to say the Circles were stupid, and everyone would get all pissed, like DG, but he was always very fun). He would say “study morphy. as a beginner, play his gambiteering, reckless style until you are good at tactics and understand piece activity. Then study Capablanca to help you develop his positional intuition and endgame acumen. Then you are done because you don’t need to study more than Capablanca.” He was awesome.
There are no good annotated collections exclusively focused on Steinitz–so I had to get Volume 1 of My Predecessors for that.
Blunderprone said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:40 pm
BDK… Dude… Anderssen Ruled BEFORE Morphy. The reason why Morphy trounced Anderssen in 1858, was because Adolf was not playing any chess for 6 years ( since the London 1851 ) But then he picked it back up again ( After the reality slap in teh face from Morphy) and won several events after this. Morphy was a flash in the pan MAN! Learn to sac a queen and bishop like Anderssen …. now there was an IMMORTAL Game.
Oh… and Lasker DOES matter.
chessloser said,
April 17, 2008 at 7:40 pm
abuteauge, howard, wahrheit – good points all, i loved the discussion between howard and wahrheit, thanks……
drunknknight – thanks for the tough love. i didn’t think Z53 was so out of my league, but understand now that you kinda explained it…
blunderprone – i don’t think even you have a worse chess ADD than i do….cool goal, i’m sure you’ll make it before then….and that game is just old timey cool….
tanc – good points, i’m familiar with most of what you said, there are some things you mentioned that i need to learn though, thanks….
tim – nice kramnik quote! that’s some great advice, thanks for sharing that….
wang – 1 hour a day, i can do that. but i don’t always have time for a longer game…i have to work that in somehow…
BDK – damn good advice, especially the “morphy for tactics, then capablanca” part…