Is it possible to become a very strong player without reading books?

I believe Scotts statement is a true one in a theoretical sense, whereas Pfren is correct in a pragmatic and realistic sense and under the current state of technology. In our current socio technological environment, a lot is still dissipated optimally in the format of books, both traditional and e-books. In theory a teacher could read those books to his student, but this misses the point a bit and would be economically to expensive.

A long thread to say that we love you both and that we enjoy the conversation utterly :-)

Pfren, that doesn't really answer the question. 

I'll grant that a person who reads books will likely be a better player than one who does not. 

My question is not if a trainer is sufficient for maximum improvement. My question is if a trainer alone can be sufficient to get a player to the NM level. 

I find it hard to believe that is not possible. I will grant even that it might take a very good trainer. But I find it hard to believe that if we could get Yusupov and Dvoretsky to work with a promising scholastic player every day for 3 or 4 hours for many years that they would be unable to get that person to 2200 or so without having the student read a book. 

 Ultimately, though, I do believe it is entirely a theoretical question. In reality a good trainer would want a student to read particular books. And a good student with real talent would want to read particular books. And of course, very few people would be in a position to hire that quality of a trainer for daily work in the first place. 

It is possible but does it make economic sense and would it be done in such a way?

what type of books we need to read to become and what is correct way to study those books

they are certain types of people that take pride in having a reputation for never having read a chess book, they spend a lot of mental energy trying to maintain the untruth. the con-man of chess, the guy who never is seen reading a chess book but somehow, against all seeming odds, makes it past 2000, they're usually atheist and not to be trusted.

Perhaps a practical approach :

It is widely accepted that a good basis could consist of :

- good tactical base, probably these days best studied by the use of tactical trainers etc...

- good positional insight, probably some books, but stuff like chess mentor and certainly videos are making serious inroads if not yet fully replacing

- an opening repertoire : Some good tools and videos available, but the books seem to still be in the lead. The combination of a superb database with real expert comments is not yet to the level of a book on the openings..

- endgame study : a mix between books and trainers...

So could the book be pushed to extinction in the future by a mix of quality tools? Probably yes... But not yet

Jose Raoul Capablanca (World Champion 1921-1927)

Capa had read quite a bit. Just not opening books.

And sure, you can have a skilled trainer, who will teach you at a measly $30 per hour the contents of a book worth $20. Normally it could take him some 40 hours or so ($800 in total).

If you are the kind of guy that hates reading books, but have plenty of $$$ to spare, then go on...

Only after having reached the pinnacle of chess (defeated GM Marshall in a Match) and before becoming WC.  Cuba, during Capa's youth, was definitely not the literary capital of the world. 

Being familiar with chess news is quite different from reading and studying the relatively small selection of chess books available at that time. 

His endgame technique was legendary but it did not come from endgame books, which were practically non-existent at the time.  His prowess in the endgame was a gift from Caissa.

Gift from Caissa? Have you read his "chess fundamentals"? I would argue that it is impossible to write such a book without having read other books on chess. He explains better than anybody how to approach fundamental issues in chess, which pawn to move first in an endgame etc... No, a gifted man can not build a working paradigm that is so aligned with the rest of chess litterature without having read the most important publications.

The real question here is why don't you want to read books?

If you say so.  This isn't even true about books not relating to chess.

Well, a teacher can set up a board position etc. Not particularly interested in debating semantics, but books aren't necessary.

paulgottlieb wrote:

On another note, have you noticed what a wonderfully clear writer Capa was? It's a pity that he didn't write more

Bronsteinitz: I agree. He writes in clear, very organised blocks. For example : when you attack the king then you have to be sure that you can effectively mate. Then he writes about the importance to build up threats and keep them in the game until you can go for the kill... He documents with some examples but does not make a big circus of it. You get the idea that his thinking was very clear.

I'm not arguing "semantics".  I'm arguing that there is a learning process when reading that cannot be replicated even if someone is to read a book to you aloud. 

The neural response is different.

Fine claimed to have reached master strength without benefit of reading a chess book.