I had been reviewing old masters game, and I noticed that comments like this seems to flow in abundance:
Unfortunately, nowadays most players are both strategically and defensively more competent than the players in the 19th century, so Anderssen's playing style would not result in such a beautiful games anymore.
This left me scratching my head. I mean, sure maybe GM's would be better today than yesterday, but most players? Huh? GM's are like 1% of the total chess playing population. I suspect the other 99% are just like me, your casual chessplayer. And I'm playing at FICS everyday and most of the players of my class dont know any better than I do. Perhaps ICC players are better? I don't know.. Where are these mythical people that's so good strategically and defensively?
Anyway - the games of the old masters are very interesting. People like to say they dont know anything about planning, but actually - they do. Or Anderssen at least does. But his plans are different than the stuff found in positional books. The games are not about trying to get minute positional advantages, but rather its all about a creation of very complex tactical blows.
A leading plan of campaign revolving not towards getting just a "better" position, but towards creating a mating attack so to speak.
But anyone who thinks that it is easy to parry/defend against such things is nuts.. or is way better than me.. or both.. Why? Because I've been playing the games "solitaire" style and I cant work out the tactics. Its only in the end when everything becomes clear. The combinations are very deep and very cunning. Like a mate in 25 would start in around move 10. Believe me, its really hard to see the tactical idea, not unless your name is Topalov (and last time I checked there is only one balding goatee-possessing bulgarian existing for the moment)
The games in other words, is a perfect learning tool for someone interested in knowing how to lay such traps themselves.
Now, sure crafty or rybka or whatever can bust the plan, but I aint playing against machines. In my book - it doest matter what computers say. The only thing that matters is if the tactics works against a human player a resonable amount of time.
I'm pretty confident these tactics do..
Unfortunately, nowadays most players are both strategically and defensively more competent than the players in the 19th century, so Anderssen's playing style would not result in such a beautiful games anymore.
This left me scratching my head. I mean, sure maybe GM's would be better today than yesterday, but most players? Huh? GM's are like 1% of the total chess playing population. I suspect the other 99% are just like me, your casual chessplayer. And I'm playing at FICS everyday and most of the players of my class dont know any better than I do. Perhaps ICC players are better? I don't know.. Where are these mythical people that's so good strategically and defensively?
Anyway - the games of the old masters are very interesting. People like to say they dont know anything about planning, but actually - they do. Or Anderssen at least does. But his plans are different than the stuff found in positional books. The games are not about trying to get minute positional advantages, but rather its all about a creation of very complex tactical blows.
A leading plan of campaign revolving not towards getting just a "better" position, but towards creating a mating attack so to speak.
But anyone who thinks that it is easy to parry/defend against such things is nuts.. or is way better than me.. or both.. Why? Because I've been playing the games "solitaire" style and I cant work out the tactics. Its only in the end when everything becomes clear. The combinations are very deep and very cunning. Like a mate in 25 would start in around move 10. Believe me, its really hard to see the tactical idea, not unless your name is Topalov (and last time I checked there is only one balding goatee-possessing bulgarian existing for the moment)
The games in other words, is a perfect learning tool for someone interested in knowing how to lay such traps themselves.
Now, sure crafty or rybka or whatever can bust the plan, but I aint playing against machines. In my book - it doest matter what computers say. The only thing that matters is if the tactics works against a human player a resonable amount of time.
I'm pretty confident these tactics do..
This is great info to know.