If you have a coach or a strong player helping you, it means you are already studying chess. The op asked if it is possible to improve, without studying.
It is possible to improve without studying, but the improvement will be somewhat limited or it takes more time to rise to a certain level. What I think is a fine solution for Corbellino is mostly play and have fun, but when getting curious, he can study what he wants.
I am rubbish at chess. Sub-1000 rating. I like most people am busy. I don't have a lot of time to study chess (though I do try sometimes). My question: can you get good (1600+) just by playing a lot and trial & error type learning? or do you NEED to study, find a mentor, etc.
I am rubbish at chess. Sub-1000 rating. I like most people am busy. I don't have a lot of time to study chess (though I do try sometimes). My question: can you get good (1600+) just by playing a lot and trial & error type learning? or do you NEED to study, find a mentor, etc.
Deirdre advice is excellent but in one respect I find myself in a position of contrast. Essentially I think chess is completely empty. Ok I may be a nihilist but there are worse things.
Can you get better at chess by simply playing lots of chess? Its an interesting idea. We are creatures of habit and tend to make the same mistakes again and again. We need to address those mistakes which takes reflection. If our process is fundamentally sound though probably as you exercise it you will get stronger.
Doing the rubiks cube is not the same as playing chess, its a false equivalence.
Interesting thoughts but how can you tell if your process is "fundamentally sound"? Seems to me like you trade one gamble for another.
I think the way to tell is in post game analysis. We go over our games and attempt to ascertain what transpired and why. Is there a pattern of behaviour? Perhaps we are making sound but passive moves, or perhaps its the opposite we are engaging in reckless king hunts with little to no chance of success. Perhaps we are weak in the opening getting inferior positions but not necessarily losing because of it, perhaps our calculation lets us down etc etc No gambling simply applying the scientific method.
Interesting thoughts but how can you tell if your process is "fundamentally sound"? Seems to me like you trade one gamble for another.
I think the way to tell is in post game analysis. We go over our games and attempt to ascertain what transpired and why. Is there a pattern of behaviour? Perhaps we are making sound but passive moves, or perhaps its the opposite we are engaging in reckless king hunts with little to no chance of success. Perhaps we are weak in the opening getting inferior positions but not necessarily losing because of it, perhaps our calculation lets us down etc etc No gambling simply applying the scientific method.
Ok , but you said you disagree with me and I said exactly the same , no?
"Play long time control games and analyse them"
*by yourself, Hey deirdreskye Check out my blitz rating , i started playing 10 min match and have improved ALOT , also i make only 1 or two blunders a day... THANK YOU !!! You're awesome
I reiterate what I said earlier:
Yes, playing lots of chess can improve your game.
But if you really want to improve and you have 4 hours a day for chess, spend three of those hours studying and one hour playing.
Interesting thoughts but how can you tell if your process is "fundamentally sound"? Seems to me like you trade one gamble for another.
I think the way to tell is in post game analysis. We go over our games and attempt to ascertain what transpired and why. Is there a pattern of behaviour? Perhaps we are making sound but passive moves, or perhaps its the opposite we are engaging in reckless king hunts with little to no chance of success. Perhaps we are weak in the opening getting inferior positions but not necessarily losing because of it, perhaps our calculation lets us down etc etc No gambling simply applying the scientific method.
Ok , but you said you disagree with me and I said exactly the same , no?
"Play long time control games and analyse them"
I disagree that chess has any inherent value, like beauty for example. I think its empty, this was my contrary thought.
Interesting thoughts but how can you tell if your process is "fundamentally sound"? Seems to me like you trade one gamble for another.
I think the way to tell is in post game analysis. We go over our games and attempt to ascertain what transpired and why. Is there a pattern of behaviour? Perhaps we are making sound but passive moves, or perhaps its the opposite we are engaging in reckless king hunts with little to no chance of success. Perhaps we are weak in the opening getting inferior positions but not necessarily losing because of it, perhaps our calculation lets us down etc etc No gambling simply applying the scientific method.
Ok , but you said you disagree with me and I said exactly the same , no?
"Play long time control games and analyse them"
*by yourself, Hey deirdreskye Check out my blitz rating , i started playing 10 min match and have improved ALOT , also i make only 1 or two blunders a day... THANK YOU !!! You're awesome
Very good , but I am not the one you must thank. I am only saying things that better trainers and players have said.
Thank Botvinnik , Averbach , Dvoretsky , Yusupov and Nezhmetdinov.
I think you should use your time on something you're actually good at instead. 
Oh! It is quite surprising that a chessplayer finds no beauty in chess but ok.
I think the 'beauty that we see', is simply a projection of our own mind. Its quite interesting, we often here of someone making a 'beautiful queen sacrifice', for Reti such things were mundane, even crass and vulgar. Its simply a matter of perception I think.
I have detractors? Are you sure? You mean they don't see me as the happy go lucky peasant farmer and existentialist philosopher?
O wad some Power the gift tae gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
- R Burns, (peace be upon him!)
I reiterate what I said earlier:
Yes, playing lots of chess can improve your game.
But if you really want to improve and you have 4 hours a day for chess, spend three of those hours studying and one hour playing.
This plan is very strong, but it takes more effort than I like to put in. The other way around suits me better. I tend to fall asleep when I watch tutorials.
I reiterate what I said earlier:
Yes, playing lots of chess can improve your game.
But if you really want to improve and you have 4 hours a day for chess, spend three of those hours studying and one hour playing.
That is! I totally agreed, at least 70% should be studying especially when you are <1600, <2000. But I guess at master level, 2400>, your own analysis and instinct ,own idea may largly influence back, "may be 30% studying and 70%" playing again. Playing helps but will be slow. Similar to that "before you write you own thesis or research, study others' first" At master level, most of the books and theory would be already known to those players. What make a difference between them would be "experience and precision" For example, a master who is well prepared with his own sicilian certain variation will precisely smash same level master who dont have good preparation in that opening. Similar rule apply to ending as well.
Btw, Nakamura played bullet almost every waking moment when he was a teenager. He got pretty good.
Nakamura as a kid has his step father(a master) to help his chess development.
@OP You can still improve without studying, but it will take much longer for you to improve and you might hit a road block on your improvement that you might not overcome. An improvement ,that you might find after many years playing, a 1 hour of chess study might give you. Solving few puzzles per day won't take much time and will improve you.
If you can identify that roadblock, then you can work specific on that roadblock, maybe with a course, maybe with a strong friend or chess teacher. Maybe with analyzing alone or with computer. Or even better, the best way to analyze is after a otb -longchess tournamentgame with a strong opponent or a strong player in your club. Blow that roadblock to pieces, and move on.
If you have a coach or a strong player helping you, it means you are already studying chess. The op asked if it is possible to improve, without studying.