Back to the original question, I think a good role model is a top or near top player who is active and annotates his/her own games. (Better players play better games and usually annotates better than weaker players.) His/her style should be close to your own. An advantage would be to have a role model with a narrow opening repertoire but few top players have that. I see no problem of having players from the past as role models. Then books on their games are usually available.

Even if I find many games by Karpov or Kramnik very logical, I still enjoy playing through the games by Tal or Morozevich. It's good to see games of different styles too.

Another thing. A few years ago I very much enjoyed listening to Ulf Andersson's commentary of the swedish championship. (Jesper Hall do them nowadays. He's good but not as good as Ulf.) A few times I went there just to listen to him. Chess seemed so much easier after listening to him. I would like to see a book with his games annotated by himself. (That's been discussed in other threads.)

Quote:

I admit that some of Marin's variations offer decent winning chances for Black as well, but his repertoire against gambits looks a little tame (it certainly has to do with his personality and his intention to keep the book harmonious (which I clearly give a 10 out of 10 for!)) - more like a suggestion for Adams how to answer in games against Carlsen. But I have to say I really like the book - as for example his strategical approach in the 4 knights is a headache for white players.

OK - but I did not want to discuss Marin here...

...let's go back to the theme.

The idea of this thread is that there are not only repertoire books but also repertoire players in our chess universe. Play like Lasker, Korchnoi, Short seems a better approach to me than to try to copy Aronian, Karjakin or Topalov with their analysing teams and computers in the background.

I dont like SOS and DW - but many people do. And I think its exact the reason a lot of chess players are fed up with the professional approach when they are amateurs themselves. I dont think Short or Korchnoi would play SOS (perhaps DW) - but they have a lot of self constructed unique systems somewhere beside the main track.

Today I watched Movsesian (Video) analysing his win against Ivanchuk and he was asked why he plays his sidelines. The answer was that he just wants to get a playable position and not so much get involved within they main line theoretical mountains.

Mr. Movsesian as the leader of Corus could also be a perfect role model - and I really hope he wins, showing all the chess world that playing chess is still superior to all the home based analysis and memorizing.

PS: As I am not a native English speaker I find it hard to communicate nuances - this may lead to the feeling that I just change my mind ("going from one extreme to another"), but I just couldnt find the right words "in between" (so it's black or white like in chess )

Yes Markovich, Marshall is really good model with classical aggressive D4 play, I remember that book Marshall's best games and his opponents play the sort of errors club players do and you can see how he took advantage of them.

Alias wrote on 01/26/09 at 17:45:51:


Thanks.  That two-volume set of Reshevsky's games looks particularly interesting.

Personally, while I appreciate the classics, I love modern chess and would opt for modern role models anyday over the older ones. 

Having said that, I have read advice in several chess books, that for opening guidance better to emulate the second tier of top chess players than the very top. 

Certainly when playing Black especially, it is important to remember that the top notch players who play mainly in closed invitationals are a lot more risk adverse and often don't mind a draw with the black pieces. 

Below that level however,  are lots of superb Grandmasters who have to play often in open tournaments where they have to win with both colours. They are probably more relevant as role models for most of us.

Greetings,

Markovich wrote on 01/26/09 at 17:14:19:

I'm glad I managed to help.

I trust that it's not a "Revised" or "Updated" version - like Krogius' effort of Capablanca's classic, Chess Fundamentals.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

Greetings,

Markovich, would this do instead!? I know it may not be a hardback book, but still... 

There's also Soltis' book.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

Matemax wrote on 01/25/09 at 12:48:47:


For me (being an 1. e4 player) some of Nigel Short's White games are so easy to follow, there's certain harmony in these games from start to finish. I also consider some of his games and/or ideas as thematic for some of the openings I play. But of course he can also perform in a chaotic style that is hard to follow (unless you are a calculating machine).

In general I prefer the games of the older generations, since there is certain consistency throughout their games and the ideas are more clearly presented. Modern era demands from a player to perform in many different styles and modern theory (not only re openings) presents lots of hybrids and complicated or counter-intuitive ideas, so it all is very confusing sometimes.

So, I prefer to be able to first understand the core idea and only then move on to the more sophisticated stuff..