Is studying a waste of time?

We all mix things up, but learning the game is an ongoing process where you reafirm your knowledge and improve. Also 1100 on one day is a 900 or 1300 on another day, they dont stay consistent. Once you get over 2000 that is when you play with greater consistency and know when you can get away with violating principles but likely dont. Rating shows your results against the pool up to the point, it is not your static move by move skill level. We are not a skill tree of unlocked moves. In principle I know most of the theory, in practice I forget things or misapply it.

@1

"I see 1100+ rated players violating basic principles"
++ it is OK to violate principles as long as the opponent makes a much more severe mistake later.

"It seems to me that improving at chess is 100% vision and 0% knowledge."
++ Yes, chess is about pattern recognition, not about book knowledge.

"Is studying a waste of time?" ++ No. Study of endgames is useful. Study of grandmaster games is useful. Analysis of your lost games is key to improving. Most important at rating 800 is blunder checking. Do not play your intended move, but first check it is no blunder. Sit on your hands.

Studying is most definitely not a waste of time. Stronger players are better able analyze positions, and therefor are better able to figure out when it is either okay, or the best move to violate one or more of the principles. This could be a number of reasons. The most common one is for tactical reasons. Also the biggest difference between a 1100 and an 800 is tactical, and blundering less often as @tygxc stated. These two things matter far more for players than following principles to the letter. Also beginning level players usually aren't good enough punish smaller violations of the principles (like they don't follow the principles for a move or two when the best moves are to follow them, and are not one of the exceptions to when you want to violate the principles). Also when it comes to moving your queen out early (even when it is not advised) in the opening if the player knows where to move their queen after it is attacked to where they only lose one move in tempo will very unlikely lead to losing the game. At beginner levels of chess this is true 100% of the time. I used to play center game as my opening. While it is not the best opening, I knew what the plans where for that opening, and where to move my queen when it would get attacked. My opponent didn't usually know what those plans were, and could struggle at times. Even they did know, or did not struggle the games most of the time always game down to tactics/blundering. Even when they didn't the game was not decided because I moved my out on move 3, and then moved it a second time when it was attacked. I also would not ignore the opening principles after that though. I would rapidly develop, castle, and fight for the center. This is what the first four moves would look like in the opening for me.

Also as a side note on the Caro Kahn, the opening does not threaten much early. As a result white can respond with almost anything, and be just fine. They don't really need to know what they have to do against it. This is opposed to some other openings where knowing what you need to do against it is much more necessary.

Hi!

No it isn't. Study is part of any improvement plan. If you are interested in improving your chess, you migh check out my post:

https://www.chess.com/blog/maafernan/chess-skills-development

Good luck!

To most of my students, I give this advice (and it's almost all they need):

The biggest reason people struggle in lower-level chess is because of blunders. They make them in almost every game.

A mistake can instantly put you in a bad position, no matter how well you played earlier: if you had great opening knowledge, great positional skills, great endgame skills, whatever; a single mistake can change everything (you lose a piece or get checkmated).

So, how do you avoid blunders? Follow these two simple steps:

1. After your opponent moves, think if it's dangerous. Ask yourself, “What’s his idea?”
2. Before you make your move, think if it's safe. Ask yourself, “What attacking replies can he play?”

If you feel like getting to levels like 1600, 1800, or 2000 in chess is super hard, let's look at it in a different way. Those players you're facing make blunders in nearly every game they play. Beating them isn't so tough if you stop making big mistakes and start using their slip-ups to your advantage.

Again, it does not require you to become a chess nerd or spend all your time on chess. Just doing this one thing can boost your rating by a few hundred points right away.

Lastly, while avoiding blunders is crucial, I also share a few basic principles with my students. These principles help them figure out what to do in each part of the game - the opening, the middlegame, and the endgame. Understanding these simple principles is like having a map for your moves. When you use this knowledge along with being careful about blunders, you're not just getting better at defending. You're also learning a well-rounded approach to chess. Keep in mind, chess is not just about not making mistakes; it's about making smart and planned moves to outsmart your opponent.

I have just started. My silly strategy is just move quickly.

Improving Your Chess - Resources for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/improving-your-chess-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell

The principles are there for you to get an idea of how to play better and understand positions , if you have a better knowledge of how to play tactically keeping in mind the opportunities and potential threats , you can play in a different manner that the position demands . As for people improvising on this by playing other moves that they have calculated , it will sometimes work and sometimes it won't .

It seems, from someone low rated who struggles to improve, that after a knowledge of the rules and basic principles/tactics (which can be gained in an afternoon) that you are right - the primary 'talent' factors in being good are: an ability to see the board without missing things, interpret patterns and what they mean (and connect them to prior experience of the same pattern), and be able to visualise the consequences of three or four moves ahead.

Vision, pattern recognition, visualisation, memory. Combine these with confidence and a little knowledge and you will be good at chess without any study or opening theory etc. And, as has already been mentioned, the most obvious study that would improve upon these natural talents would be endgame theory.

I guess the trick is how to improve one's natural abilities in those areas?

I'm not.

If you look at my stats and ratings it is very clear I have zero natural aptitude for chess and am a pretty good case study for much of the advice given to improvers being secondary to the skills I listed prior.

My rapid rating is 795.

To get to this level took: 169 games; 3517 puzzles; 93 daily games; 150 lessons; analysing scores of games; annotating dozens of games; doing puzzle rush, vision exercises, drills, blitz, etc; working through Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess; reading scores of articles; playing scores of OTB games; doing hours of visualisation techniques; studying openings and endgames for hours; and watching 100+ hours of chess YTers.

@13

"natural aptitude for chess"
++ There is no such natural aptitude for chess.
If you are 1.5 m tall, then you have no natural aptitude for basketball, volleyball, high jump or pole vault.
If you weigh 50 kg, then you have no natural aptitude for hammer throw, weightlifting, shot put. Everybody with a functional brain has a natural aptitude for chess. Even a cell phone can play it.

@11

"how to improve one's natural abilities in those areas?"
++ Just play and analyse your lost games so as to learn from your mistakes.
Most beginners lose a game 1 e4 e5 2 Qh5 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Qxf7#. That should happen once only. Then many beginners begin to play like that as white. Then they notice that 3...g6 etc. drives their queen back and gets them into trouble. So they decide on the better 2 Nf3, holding the queen at d1 for now. Then maybe they draw a game a queen up by stalemate. That should happen once only. Then maybe they draw a KR vs. K by the 50 moves rule. That should happen once only. Then they lose a game to the Greek Gift Sacrifice Bxh7+. From then on they should always look out for that, and for both sides. That is the path to improve.

Denial of natural aptitude strikes me as ridiculous. Even your example assumes the ability to 'notice' and recall. Not everyone, as I can attest, finds noticing and recalling so easy.

So what if you don't know how to punish it?

I see what you did there. You carefully selected 1.5 and not 1.6, so that Muggsy Bogues won't feel offended. Very nice of you.

@17

As Muggsy Bogues could play NBA basketball being 1.6 m tall,
that is even more of an argument that every human with a functional brain can play chess.

@15

The 'natural aptitude' argument is an excuse for lazyness.
Nobody said analysis is easy, it is easier to blame 'natural aptitude'.
If you want to progress, then you can, but you have to put in the effort to analyse your lost games. That analysis should take more time than playing the lost game itself.

'I have only one talent: a talent for hard work' - Kasparov

'He evidently has an extraordinary good memory,
for he always makes the same mistakes' - Steinitz

So your argument is: there is a small basketball player , so height isn't a limiting factor in being a good basketballer, therefore there is no such thing as differing natural aptitudes for chess.

Amazing, lol

And as for saying assent to the truth that people have different natural aptitudes making such-and-such a thing easier or harder for them is a mere excuse for laziness ... Well. That seems absurd on multiple levels.

But hey, let's agree to disagree. I think I am less naturally inclined to chess than, say, most GMs, but you think I am merely excusing my own laziness. I think I'm not lazy (see my stats above) but just struggle with visual-spatial awareness and memory because of how my brain is wired a little different to many (and which affects many areas of my life). Regardless, I have clear modest chess goals and work towards them for a few hours a day even though I experience it not coming naturally to me.

This.

Kinda depends on what you want from online chess. It may be possible to improve with hours of hard study. I'd rather play, its more entertaining.

Its not waste of time, practicing anyhow