Which modern GM do you try to play over games by?

[Adamski]

I thought it would be interesting to document people's thoughts on this. Long ago I decided that I did not have the time to play over games by all the top GMs. The practical thing to do was pick someone near the top and aim to play over and analyse his or her published games. For the obvious reason plus some opening repertoire snaps I picked Michael Adams. I don't just play over his wins either. But there is a nice win v World Champion Vishy in the last New In Chess.
I have tried playing over some Carlsen games from time to time but find him too complex.He wins equal endings!
And finally I try to follow Tukmakov's and many others' advice and "Study the classics", where often ideas are found in purer form as defence is generally worse than by top GMs today. I recommend his modern Chess Preparation book.
How about others?

[Garrett]

I am a bit over half-way through Gulko's "Lessons with a grandmaster" and quite like it. It has questions posed through-out the game to force you to stop and think. It is a book based on positional chess, his second book is about dynamic play I believe.

Apart from that I don't pick a particular grandmaster, when I am looking at an opening with Chessbase I just click the reference tab and have a look at a couple of the highest rated and/or recent whole game encounters. Could be any grandmaster.....

Having said all that though, my next purchase might be the e-book version of the "move by move" Capablanca game collection published recently.

cheers
Garrett.

[ER]

Moro and Chucky!

[Kate1978girl]

"Positional Play" By Dvoretsky & Yusupov... i also have their "Attack & Defence". Yusupov has a knack for phrasing complex ideas in a way i can understand. As for games of a top player that i try & follow/learn from - Kramnik simply because his opening repertoire is very similar to my own as is his style of play which makes sense from a self improvement perspective. On the other hand if asked which top player's games i enjoy going over most those would be Shirov, Anand, Polgar - highly tactical & entertaining, even if not suited to my own temperament or maybe because of it.

[Denis_Jessop]

I am rather a fan of Dr Siegbert Tarrasch (300 Games; The Game of Chess etc)

DJ

[Adamski]

Interesting to see very diverse responses.

[ER]

I am rather a fan of Dr Siegbert Tarrasch (300 Games; The Game of Chess etc)

DJ

He is one of the greats!

[James Peirce]

Tarrasch was also a bit of a sore loser. He blamed the rain when he lost to Em. Lasker

[Capablanca-Fan]

He is one of the greats!

He was not in Lasker's class, but a good second for many years. He was not nearly so dogmatic in his play as in his writings. There are a number of examples of almost Nimzovichian ideas in his 300 Chess Games. In another game, where he explains that the N goes to the edge (despite his rule against N on the rim) because in that specific position, it was important to drive the B off that diagonal.

One instructive moment is his analysis of his victory on the Black side of the Advance French against Paulsen. After the standard moves 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 Nc6 5 Nf3 Qb6 6 Bd3, Tarrasch gives his next move 6 ... cxd4 an exclamation mark, and points out that 6 ... Bd7 allows 7 dxc5 with a good game. Yet most writers claim that Tarrasch's great rival Nimzovitch was such a radical when he played this against Salwe many years later!

[Denis_Jessop]

Tarrasch was also a bit of a sore loser. He blamed the rain when he lost to Em. Lasker

Do you have any authority to support that?

DJ

[Rincewind]

Do you have any authority to support that?

I've seen American Chess Bulletin, vol 5 (1908), p. 207 cited as the authority but I don't have it and therefore I don't know what it says. Various modern sources report that he blamed the "wet weather" or "climate" for his loss to Lasker in the WCh match in Dusseldorf, 1908.

[Adamski]

Interesting that the "study the classics" theme has dominated the thread. I think that is great advice.

[ER]

Interesting that the "study the classics" theme has dominated the thread. I think that is great advice.

Correct!

Tarrasch was also a bit of a sore loser. He blamed the rain when he lost to Em. Lasker

I can recall having read about Dr Tarrasch's excuses after loses to J.R. Capablanca and Dr Em. Lasker; the former being illness while the latter an avertion of playing close to the sea!

In the first case Dr Tarrasch withdrew from the tournament all together whereas in the second he was publicly reminded that 'Dusseldorf, the scene of the challenge, was 170 miles from the coast'.

http://biography.yourdictionary.com/emanuel-lasker

Also In this link,

http://www.ballo.de/tarrasch_english.htm

I found some interesting and rather tragic biographical notes of Dr Tarrasch troubled life. Here is an extract:

From his first marriage Tarrasch had five children, three sons and two daughters. Within a short period, 1914-1916, his three sons died. The eldest son, Dr. phil. Fritz Tarrasch, was killed on May 14, 1915, as lieutenant in the 15th Bavarian reserve infantry regiment in the First World War. Tarrasch’s second son committed suicide, while the third son died when run over by a tram in Munich in 1916.

[James Peirce]

I personally prefer watching games played but Capablanca.
He was so good relative to his contemparies that he was nicknamed "The Chess Machine"

[ER]

... He was so good relative to his contemparies that he was nicknamed "The Chess Machine"

Unlike some contemporary young masters who have no fear of being nicknamed "The Spelling Machine"!

BTW Dr Alekhine beat him in their 1927 Buenos Aires match for the World Championship; nonetheless, never gave him a chance for a rematch!