Chess with no study
Sort:
Hi all. At my local chess club a player said he never studies chess just plays on instinct. He's at a decent level about 1700-1800. So is it or has it been possible to reach a very good level just playing on an understanding of the rules alone and no study? Do you think the player may be exaggerating a bit in an attempt to look good? I would ask him but he might get mad!
Yes it's possible, I have friends that are that strong or stronger and they just play chess.
Feb 2, 2017
0
#3
Yeah, if you absorb what your opponents teach you, that's still study, just not book study.
Maybe he means not using a chess book, which I have never used either. However there are many other ways to get better than reading chess books 
Feb 2, 2017
0
#5
"Study" means different things to different people. You can't reach 1700-1800 without learning from your mistakes, copying good ideas from others, and just in general improving.
And sure, people omit details all the time to try and sound impressive. Imagine if he had a family member who was 2300 and they played and analyzed all the time. That's like having a private coach for 10 years even though technically he never studied or had a coach
It makes me think though , if they're this good without reading books would they be very very good if they did read/study.
Feb 2, 2017
0
#8
Maybe, although sometimes books don't help. What matters is the work you put into it. People can put in a lot of work with or without books.
I do not study books either. But I do analyze old GM games. It's fun figuring out their strategies.
I had never study or read a chess book, but I am playing and learning from my mistakes!
Hel-Reaper wrote:
It makes me think though , if they're this good without reading books would they be very very good if they did read/study.
It's not that they are not studying. It's their method of study.
akafett "It's not that they are not studying. It's their method of study."
I agree with you to a point. We have lectures which are informative and many things can be observed and mimicked. However surely by studying , say an opening , you will 1. Learn the correct moves 2. Learn them quicker than trial and error which could take many games figure out.
I agree with you to a point. We have lectures which are informative and many things can be observed and mimicked. However surely by studying , say an opening , you will 1. Learn the correct moves 2. Learn them quicker than trial and error which could take many games figure out.
Feb 2, 2017
0
#13
Openings books aren't the best way to learn an opening though. The author picks the lines he likes, and even though other lines are sometimes mentioned, most alternatives are completely ignored.
A better way to learn openings is with a database where you can see all choices, compare statistics, and then when you find a line you like, you have tons of example games to learn from.
Hel-Reaper wrote:
akafett "It's not that they are not studying. It's their method of study."
I agree with you to a point. We have lectures which are informative and many things can be observed and mimicked. However surely by studying , say an opening , you will 1. Learn the correct moves 2. Learn them quicker than trial and error which could take many games figure out.
I agree with you to a point. We have lectures which are informative and many things can be observed and mimicked. However surely by studying , say an opening , you will 1. Learn the correct moves 2. Learn them quicker than trial and error which could take many games figure out.
Yes, it does take time. But think of what you may learn by taking the hard road. Analyze many games as mentioned above. (Telestu)
I've heard one very famous guy I can't remember his name, but you can search on Internet I read it once that he reached 2400 without study.
hasn't it been said yet? capablanca said he didn't study.
most guys figure he was a 2600 level player.
we could have a lot of boring posts parsing what it means to "study".
oh
corrected. we HAVE had a lot of boring posts.....
also. btw. did you think the question is a bit irrelevant.
the op presumably isn't studying Too hard and isn't 1800.
so is "not studying" working for him? no.
and if He is studying- surely stopping the chess study will not move him towards 1800 either. Just sayin.
Feb 2, 2017
0
#18
thegreat_patzer wrote:
hasn't it been said yet? capablanca said he didn't study.
most guys figure he was a 2600 level player.
we could have a lot of boring posts parsing what it means to "study".
oh
corrected. we HAVE had a lot of boring posts.....
Both Capa and Morphy studied a lot, it's the legends that say neither of them studied at all.
what is your proof that both "studied"?
I find your certainty, unlikely.
Feb 2, 2017
0
#20
Morphy supposedly read the chess books available at the time, studied endgames, and played over the tournament books... in fact isn't that one of the often told Morphy stories? On one of the tournament or match books he wrote "a collection of dreadful games" or something like that.
I recall similar stories of Capa, reading books, studying, that sort of thing. I'm overflowing with details I know Better to ask a chess historian. This is just what I recall.