How far can you go without "studying" ?

Just curious about your opinion and experiences. I am only approaching 1000 ELO and up till that point I haven't really been reading and learning any openings, but I wonder how far did you go yourself before not knowing some theory, lines, openings etc - in other words, studying to advance - would just prevent you from advancing further.

Or maybe you have totally different approach to this. Would love to hear some opinions :-) 

I want to point out that not studying opening theory and not studying at all are two very different things.

I think you can get to 1500-2000 probably without studying opening theory, but without studying at all it will be way more difficult than with studying endgames, tactics, opening principles, middlegame principles and endgame principles etc.

I think serious opening theory study will only be needed at something like 1800-2000 rating, but I have studied some opening theory as a part of my study plan, since I don’t think it hurts to spend a small portion of my study time on openings as long as I do not neglect the other aspects of the game.

What I have noticed is, if I play a lot of blitz, my game will eventually just start deteriorating and I lose the plot and have to take a break to be able to play again at all.

After a lot of blitz I went back to rapid and tilted my rating from 1500+ to closer to 1400. I will now only focus on studying and longer games and try to play as much classical chess OTB as possible. Getting a little offtopic, but I guess my point is, speed chess will probably only do harm at some point.

My peak is 1400 and I don't study at all, but I don't think I could personally get much further without studying

Many players can reach around 1000 ELO by just playing games, absorbing basic tactics and learning from their mistakes.

Depends upon how much you can "study" by just playing.

For example if you keep playing against a player who plays 1. e4 c5 with you, obviously you will end up knowing some sicilian in the long run; especially if you play from both sides.

Will work much better with long time controls, I would assume, because otherwise time pressure will dominate any attempt to actually think about positions.

Hi

I never studied openings (only when i played mistake in game i looked best move with stockfish), endgame theory and other stuff, did only 500 puzzles (on lichess), i only watched youtube and played games (over 1800 rapid games, i have more accounts) and that is how i got to 2000 elo. But now i am seing i need to study some stuff.

Just play lot of games.

Elo you mean? It’s not an acronym.

I consider watching youtube studying just as much as studying from a book. Same with looking for the best move with stockfish after the game, it is studying. Everything that is not playing that you do to improve, is basically studying.

In the context of this thread studying is clearly meant to be:

1. Learning openings in more depth

2. Learning endgame techniques

3. Maybe also reading advanced books on chess.

Does watching naroditsky on YouTube count as studying? Because I think just playing games and watching him you can get really high rated.

The OP claims that he reached this point without studying. His personal page shows 53 lessons and more than 2800 puzzles. This is utterly bizarre.

I never studied at all, I started one or two month ago. I don't even know an opening and I am 1530. Basically player under 1000 are just playing random move, 1000-1200 understand the rules of chess, 1200-1700 don't really think, they just play with the flow and are not concentrate on their game. Maybe 1800-2000 you need to study opening, endgame, ...

You will see soon 1800-2000 isn't that good either.

Playing games and watching YouTube if you learn chess correctly can get you to at least 2200(like me )

All you need to study are basic checkmate patterns and endgame conversions after that your good to go

Like 1 rook vs king endgame queen vs king and bishope pair vs king ( or one pawn and one king vs queen)

You can go far

But you shouldn't. It's just disrespectful to the inventor.

You shouldn't spell realise with a z because it's disrespectful to the inventors of English.

You shouldn't spell chess with three "S"s because it's disrespectful to the inventors of chess