Best Passive Learning Method, EVER!! I Kid You Not.

Holy Moly, if there's anything that's going to kill chess books, it's the following:

Watching Live Commentating of a Chess Game in Progress.  In my specific example, my Eureka moment was clicking on Chess.com this morning and watching IM Danny Rensch and WGM Jennifer Shahade commentating on the Sergey Karjakin - Georg Meier Speed Chess Match.

I'm listening to these masters explain things, and I'm like, oh my gosh!  The level of thinking and analysis is so helpful!    Seriously, if you never crack open a chess book, and instead, just do online chess and watch videos and live chess commentating, and if you're young and bright enough, I don't see how you can't become at least 1800 or higher in a fairly aggressive timeframe.

Active Learning of course, is better.  But the next best thing?  It's gotta be watching videos of masters commentating on other master's games, and making it fun.

The only thing I would want is to get rid of the live chat box that's next to the screens.   The peanut gallery is SOOOOOO distracting.  I keep glancing over to watch comments.  And it just gets ridiculous.  "Hi Naka!"   "Danny Rensch has got a Stench!"  "Can we have Anna instead of ....?"

I mean, c'mon.  I'm looking around for an "x" to close off that chat box, but there is none.

But seriously, if you don't have time for active learning, watching masters live commentate GM games in progress is really helpful.

If you think that Mr. Rensch and Miss Shahade are good, you should watch Maurice Ashley and Yasser Seirawan during the U.S. Championship and GM Judit Polgár during the World Chess Championship.  The latter is perhaps the best.

That said, I think active learning is still the best, but since the younger generation seems to have their noises interminably in their iPhones and Androids you may be correct.

As far as these side comments, it argues for a pay-only site in my opinion.  Then only the serious would be here.

what is active learning when it comes to chess? analysing your own games?

Great Question.  As I understand it, active learning is working out solutions on your own.  For example, like going over annotated games, and covering up the next move, and trying to guess or determine what the Grandmaster is going to play next.   Or to solve tactics puzzles on your own.

Passive learning is being told what to understand.  It's still learning, and learning, whether active or passive, is still great.  But active learning, where you're trying to figure things out on your own first, will generally stick with you longer than if you are told what to think or see in a position or a problem.  Active is like being the actor in a play.  Passive is like being the audience that is watching the play.  

If someone has a better explanation, please post.

Thanks for the tip, Fighting Bob.  I'm going to search for it on YouTube, if they have it on YouTube.

Ya know, when I was watching Danny Rensch and Jennifer Shahade commentate on the Speed Chess Match, they were talking about things and concepts that I almost never conceptualize when I play.  They talk about Light Square and Dark Square weaknesses.  (I always think in terms of open files and diagonals, sometimes in open ranks.)   

Then they get their virtual arrows out and suggest piece maneuvers.  They give positional evaluations.  I mean, I'm getting a big lesson just watching these two kibbitz the speed match between Karjakin and Meier.  Very cool.

No silly that's too active, just have to watch top teams playing soccer.

Roy Keanes and Ruud Gullit are brilliant at drawing the tv spectators into the match.

Right click on chat box

Inspect Element

Spam the delete Key

Problem solved

 It depend what you want? If player wants become a otb 1800 to expert level passive learning doesn't work, just watching doesn't teach you how to calculate and analyze a position and to assess and evaluate the best moves or solution; one the hardest things to learn is to visualize, to calculate at least five moves ahead or select candidate moves and evaluate each move and eliminate the ones that doesn't improve your position. If a player just want to play for fun and be entertain, yes, passive learning is entertaining and fun but does it really teach you chess? Growth comes from hard work and pain, its a process of learning, some learn quickly and other take time; passive learning can teach you some things but can't teach you how to play chess correctly, the GMs, IMs and masters cannot cover every necessary basics to become a strong player, in their discuss or lecture they might leave something out that might be essential for a player growth. Book learning is the best because it cover a lot essential basics that player needs, it compress time; I give you an example: If a player bought Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev and study it for one month, that player will know more about chess than a player who listen to videos or lectures. Why? Because that book { Logical Chess Move by Move} covers a lot basics and in a lecture the GM, IM and master cover very few basics and their explanation might be to difficult to understand or leaving out essentials. A strong player can take a look and say to himself I need to sacrifice the exchange because it demand it in the position and another player who doesn't have  their basics completely overlook it; to play good chess knowledge is essential.  

i wonder which is better, passive learning or active without the learning aka just playing thousands of games and never studying them.

or maybe even combine passive learning with active without the learning vs active learning

the spirit of bullet!

Every player needs to develop the ability to see three moves ahead, every day when I doing my tactical training, I see three mover combination and if a player cannot see three moves ahead what good is lecture without this ability to calculate three moves ahead. The only to develop this skill is tactical training, passive learning cannot teach you this skill. Of course a strong player needs to calculate much more moves, not even five moves ahead is not enough.

Thanks for the tip.  I'll try it next time.  

You'd probably love Josh Waitzkin's annotated games, from Chessmaster, if you haven't already seen them. He explains lines and ideas quite clearly and simply, walking you through his games against other masters.

Here's the link to one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_bmbmp-928

There are many more to watch, if you like. Enjoy!

hi

Leave it to jengaias to hit the nail on the head.

OP is fooling himself.

Nah he's not, and it was a stupid analogy. 
Watching the bullet brawls just by themselves are not only very entertaining but very informative. You get to see real time analysis of regular people like us playing a real player like Danny, and what mistakes were made and why they were mistakes. All kinds of incredible things can occur to a regular player this way. Watching high level players basically annote Grandmaster games verbally can bring a whole new dimension of understanding to the game for players. Some people learn by reading, some learn better verbally. It's amazing though, the people who can, apperently read minds, and tell someone else that listening to high level players explain every aspect of the game is not helping them understand things better. 

Using a real board and pieces while working with a book.  

Working with a coach.  

Uisng online tools, 2D boards/pieces, videos are passive learning.

Why? I love a real board too. But why is using a 2D board automatically passive? Why is software, which often requires you to think long and hard, even keeping track of variations in some cases, and writing out the imbalances, thinking hard, passive?