Peter Lane, 22 January 1997
On Studying Master Games – a short digression
Polugayevsky, in the beginning of his book `Grandmaster Performance’, quotes some advice he was given when a young player:
“If you want to play well, in the first instance study games. Your own and other peoples’. Examine them from the viewpoint of the middlegame and the endgame, and only then from the viewpoint of the opening. This is more important than studying textbooks.”
This advice can be found in many sources, and, as an aspiring player, I am happy to follow it. But how exactly should we “study games”? How to derive the maximum benefit from watching somebody else, given our own knowledge and preferences? A useful start might be the players’ own analysis. However, I find John Nunn opaque at best, Bobby Fischer more teasing than explanatory, and try Capablanca:
[Capablanca-Alekhin, St.Petersburg 1913]
His explanation of 18. Be4 is that it exchanges:
“the almost useless B for a most valuable Kt. It would take a good many lines to explain this move properly, and then I might not be clearly understood, so I leave the student to work it out by himself“.
Analysis seems more accessible when by the lesser lights: Irving Chernev springs readily to mind, and also writers more involved with teaching, such as Dvoretsky and co. Why is this?
Obviously, the mental makeup of a great player is different to that of a teacher, and their combination is a great rarity. Capablanca’s comment “where you guess, I know” points very clearly at the existence of a gulf in understanding between the average player and the genius. This is all very well, but I still want some guidance on techniques of self-study, especially as printed analysis cannot be all things to all readers.
What we need (any psychologists listening?) is a method to help the individual identify, not only the crucial points of a game, but more those points from which the individual can learn. And this requires a skill at self-evaluation, which the injunction to study your own games is designed to develop. One method I use, with which I invite argument, is derived from a rule in the computer study of intelligence known as Martin’s Law: “You cannot learn anything unless you almost know it already“. In the games below, I have tried to pick out those where it is possible to almost follow what is happening, and it is these where most can be learnt. At each point we must ask: – how does Capablanca assess the features in a position? – how do these features get drawn into a plan for the game?
Janowski
My introduction made the point that we must begin looking at a master’s game when we almost know what is going on, but perhaps we are missing some key feature of the position, or merely uncertain about whether we would make the moves ourselves. My tactic is to work backwards. Take the game above where I have supplied a number of diagrams. Beginning from the opening, we may wonder which of many plans would be most relevant, and despair of finding the answer. Beginning from the end, we should all see the tactics which lead black to resign … so we have our opening into understanding the game. Go back one stage further, and ask whether we understand how to generate the position in which those tactics are playable. As our understanding improves, we can work back further in the game, and begin to see the various elements of strategy leading to the final assault as potentialities out of the opening.
Ragozin
This position, with a clear pawn extra and no worrying counterattack, looks like a trivial win for white, and indeed it should be. But … how many times have such positions ended in draws? The simplicity leaves each move transparent: we do not have to worry about the `why’ of each move, only the `how do we think of it in the first place’. Have you seen the long detailed plans Alekhin gives of some of his endgames (the one against Znosko-Borovsky, Paris 1933 is a case in point)? Ever wondered what happens to the plan if the opponent deviates slightly? What is actually needed is something simpler, confined to the concerns of the present position, and with sufficient flexibility to allow for change. Capablanca has the following to say about this position:
“White’s plan is to prevent the advance of the c-pawn (after which the b-pawn could become weak) and to control the entire board up to the fifth rank. This is achieved by moving the king to e3, and by placing the rook at c3, the knight at d4, and the pawns at b4 and f4. After he has attained such a position, White will be able to advance his Q- side pawns“.
This is what is known as endgame technique, and involves thinking schematically: a concrete assessment of the position, a desired piece configuration, and no variations. I give the sequel in brief. The point is to watch the improvement in piece position – once the pieces are superior, the pawns can move up.
Villegas
Allies
Zugzwang! vs Marshall
To finish off, a few points on Capablanca’s style. First, rather like Tal, he was no opening theoretician. A number of standard Ruy Lopez or Queen’s Gambit Declined positions, but otherwise he plays out of the book fairly quickly. For this reason, his games make good patterns for club players after sound openings, with a minimum of theory. For example, take his game against Tartakover, New York 1924 (yes, with the famous Rook ending!), for a simple and direct way of playing against the Dutch.
Second, there is a good reason why he is known as an endgame expert: a fine feel for piece coordination and clarity in achieving positional objectives are both brought out most starkly when material is reduced. Finally, thinking in small schemes, and making controlled progress towards a goal, but never afraid of the tactical resolution.
Further reading
Capablanca, R.J. My Chess Career (Try the new algebraic edition, which I believe will expand on the analysis, to make it more informative.)
Chernev, I. Capablanca’s Best Chess Endings
The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played
Cozens, W.H. Lessons in Chess Strategy (An excellent introduction to long-term planning.)
Shereshevsky, M.I. Endgame Strategy (One to read after Capablanca’s Best Chess Endings. The best way to learn how to handle the pieces!)