ErictheRed wrote on 06/20/15 at 17:20:19:
It doesn't matter whose games you study; you will learn a ton from any strong player's well-annotated games. And it seems to me that you're doing things a bit backwards: as a weaker player (by your admission), why are you so set in your openings? Why not find a strong player or two whose games you admire and adopt that person's opening repertoire, not the other way around?
Just pick up any good collection of annotated games and go from there. The first "My Best Games" book that I read was Smyslov's (because that's what was at the store). The second book I read was Taimanov's--again because that's what I could find. And I think that their games influenced me very strongly, even to this day (18ish years later).
Thanks Eric,
I think it maybe down to a misunderstanding on my part, that some players, like some openings are probably a little too complicated to study by those at the weaker end of the scale. But perhaps this isnt true at all.
For example, Jobova is someone who interests me a lot, but plays a very wide range of openings and i dont know if this, along with his creativity makes him a difficult and less recommended player to study.
Secondly, I have an affinity to the Dragon (even though i havent played it much since i came back to chess), and the Modern Benoni, along with a sudden urge to learn the pirc (instead of the alekhine i currently trot out) yet most of those players i admire tend to go for the Najdorf and KI, which since i have now turned 40 and have less time to study made me think it would be an odd choice to spend time on.