Originally posted by basso
Thx for your tips, gp. Of course you can only speak to what works for you, understandably. But it sure is a lot easier to plug them into a program and play them out that way. What's the drawback in that? Also, none of the games are annotated. I'm still at the stage where annotations go a long way. I'm working my way now through The Art of the Checkmate - ...[text shortened]... of short games. It's not extensively annotated, but the few remarks are certainly helpful.
As I said it works for me and I played them from the book onto a board.
I believe it helps you retain the information better.
Watching them flick past on screen is the easy way. Do it the way every great
player before 1985 had to. It works.
If you see anything you cannot understand have a bash at working it out.
The notes in 200 Miniatures are very light so you are not missing much.
You have to ask yourself why after every move.
Why has he done that. Why?
Especially if you know it's the losing move. Go back and try and see what
the guy was thinking. This is you disecting a game and picking up loads
of tactical tricks. Why? Why? Why?
I envy you.
You are going to see Aikins-Jacobs for the first time and rub yours in
total disbelief. If you don't think one game of chess can give you pleasure.
Wait till you hit that game.
You are going to see Craddock v Miese and see Mieses play Rb8 setting one
of the most cunning traps that was ever set on a chess board and it requires a
reasonable player to fall into it. (one who did not look deep enough into the
position).
That game scared the hell out of me.
How on earth am I going to come up with ideas like that over a chessboard?
If still stuck then post on here there are a number of guys that will help.