Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Read or Play towards Chess mastery?


  • 12 months ago · Quote · #1

    Elona

    My Chess playing friend claims to study Chess strategy through books or old master’s games, and yet he is amazing and beats me every time (bar once – oh happy day).

    Now, I believe it is important to study chess in as many variable ways as possible. I do not feel I could  just play games and watch my rating grow.  I read books, study master’s games, do some opening and endgame preparation, work on tactics to see the improvement through analyses etc.

    After finding out my friend does not read, I have found myself feeling that the preparation I do to improve in not necessary.

    What approaches do you have towards developing your own skills in Chess?

    -Elona-

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #2

    Estragon

    All of the above.

    But to each his own - everyone should use the approach which works best for them.  If it isn't working - change it.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #3

    philidor_position

    Yep, the two are not substitutes for each other. But analyzing all games you played, and when you read a book, trying to calculate yourself, instead of just skimming through the annotations are necessary to improve, imo.

    "Chess Hero" (google it) is an excellent freeware that you can mix in playing and going through GM games, although not exactly, but to a good extent.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #4

    Artsew

    philidor_position wrote:

    "Chess Hero" (google it) is an excellent freeware that you can mix in playing and going through GM games, although not exactly, but to a good extent.


    That seems like a nice tool. Thx!

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #5

    paulgottlieb

    Chess knowledge and chess skill are two different things. Reading and studying increases your knowledge, but you have to play to translate that knowledge into skill. I think too many of us try to learn chess the way we learned Calculus or Economics--through study and problem solving. But that's not how you learn golf or tennis, is it? And chess is a sport too

    I'm sure that we've all had the experience of losing to a player who seemed ignorant of the basic principals of chess. It's infuriating!--How could I lose to that idiot? The answer, sadly enough, is that he played better! A good player keeps his concentration, never fails to check if his move is safe, and maintains a fighting spirit in every aspect of the game. You can only learn these things through play itself.

    Having said that, I think it's obvious of two people with the same good playing qualities meet, the one with the greater chess knowledge will be the big favorite. I believe in study, and I enjoy learning, but you have to play frequently to develop your playing skills as well

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #6

    Elona

    paulgottlieb wrote:

    Chess knowledge and chess skill are two different things. Reading and studying increases your knowledge, but you have to play to translate that knowledge into skill. I think too many of us try to learn chess the way we learned Calculus or Economics--through study and problem solving. But that's not how you learn golf or tennis, is it? And chess is a sport too

    I'm sure that we've all had the experience of losing to a player who seemed ignorant of the basic principals of chess. It's infuriating!--How could I lose to that idiot? The answer, sadly enough, is that he played better! A good player keeps his concentration, never fails to check if his move is safe, and maintains a fighting spirit in every aspect of the game. You can only learn these things through play itself.

    Having said that, I think it's obvious of two people with the same good playing qualities meet, the one with the greater chess knowledge will be the big favorite. I believe in study, and I enjoy learning, but you have to play frequently to develop your playing skills as well

    I can onely agree with everything said here paulgottlieb.


  • 12 months ago · Quote · #7

    raider53

    paulgottlieb wrote:

    Chess knowledge and chess skill are two different things. Reading and studying increases your knowledge, but you have to play to translate that knowledge into skill. I think too many of us try to learn chess the way we learned Calculus or Economics--through study and problem solving. But that's not how you learn golf or tennis, is it? And chess is a sport too

    I'm sure that we've all had the experience of losing to a player who seemed ignorant of the basic principals of chess. It's infuriating!--How could I lose to that idiot? The answer, sadly enough, is that he played better! A good player keeps his concentration, never fails to check if his move is safe, and maintains a fighting spirit in every aspect of the game. You can only learn these things through play itself.

    Having said that, I think it's obvious of two people with the same good playing qualities meet, the one with the greater chess knowledge will be the big favorite. I believe in study, and I enjoy learning, but you have to play frequently to develop your playing skills as well


     Excellent points!!

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #10

    Elona

    Reb wrote:

    I reached 2200 uscf alone..... I never had a teacher/coach/trainer and the internet and strong engines also were not available until  well after I was 2200 ( 1984 ).  I am living proof that it CAN be done alone . I know many others who did the same.... 


    Thanks for posting! That brings a new light to the subject. 

    So, you do not think trainers are neccessary? (books etc) The use of computer programs and the internet are reasonably new, but did you not make use of books for theory?

    I wonder if many others can relate to your experience. I know I can't, as I was lucky enough to have my Grandfather teach me rather thoughraly when I was young.

    -Elona-

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #13

    GlennBk

    You can only reach the limit of your capabilities by practise. So your eventual end will be when those natural talents have been reached. Remember those who quote their own stories are only individuals and we cannot judge ourselves by others we may be more or less talented than they are.

    I hope you are a talented chess player but if not go as high as you can.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #14

    waffllemaster

    Wow, lots of great comments.  Let me jump in and ask a question.

    I'm not looking for a coach, but I'm wondering what kind of training exercises I could use with a player who is around 150-200 points stronger than me.  I'm thinking even though they're better they'd benefit from it too right?

    I was thinking thematic positions or endgames or even just games out of an agreed opening line.  Have you masters ever used anything like this and do you think it would benefit my friend who is stronger than me?

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #17

    waffllemaster

    Reb wrote:
    CharlyAZ wrote:

    @Caesescu: Ok, that's true. But when I said computers, I didnt mean engines, I meant databases and games extensively commented, and books in digital format and so on. I dont recommend at all the use of an engine to base your opinions. And of course if you have someone to help you, you will get better faster... for example...

    @Reb. Hi, Reb, good for you. And I can tell you that 2200 in your time it was a good rating, much better than now (maybe 2350 or better), so it was a good acomplishment, and we can say you are an example of what I "preach". but you have to admit it was hard, right? Also, what you would have achieved if you had some help, huh?

    @Elona. As you can see, there is options, one harder than the other one, but both have to have your commitment and will power. Good luck.


    Thanks, and yes, it was hard and took me 11 years to reach NM/2200. I dont doubt that I could have done it much faster with a good trainer/coach but I simply could not afford to pay for lessons and at that time there was no such trainer/coach available in my entire state, even if I could afford it. Ofcourse I believe I also could have improved faster if I lived in an area with more chess activity  and stronger players to play against regularly. My home state of GA only had 1 or 2 players over 2200 back then ( early 70s ) and even today there are maybe 10 over 2200 and only 1 or 2 with FIDE titles. There are states in the US with NO players over 2200 ( uscf ) !  I played 25 years in the southeast USA and in all that time only played 4 or 5 GMs and have played 4 GMs in just one event since moving to Europe ! The difference is unreal. 


    That's amazing.  To break 2200 then you must have eventually been forced to trave to some big open tournies right?

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #19

    waffllemaster

    Reb wrote:

    I only attended tournies in US Southeastern states. I never went to a big national event like the world open, US Open or National Open..... the trip was too far/expensive from Georgia. 90% of my tournies were in 3 states : Georgia, Alabama and S Carolina but I also played a few events in TN, Fl, La, NC. Since moving to Europe I have played mostly in Portugal and Spain with a few trips to Germany and one to Austria for chess... 


    So in Europe are all your tournys FIDE rated I suppose?  Do any of them affect your USCF rating?


Back to Top

Post your reply: