How did the first chess player improve?

I read Silman's article (http://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-turbo-charge-your-game) where he talks about using a chess coach to improve faster than going it alone. Books also help us to improve faster than we could on our own.

So in those examples, improvement happens because someone who knows more than we do tells us something we don't know. But there must be another way!

There must be another way, otherwise the first chess player could never have improved. The first chess player obviously did not have a coach, or better players to explain things to him, or books to learn from, or master games to study. So how did he improve?

Obviously the first chess player was terrible, so I'm not specifically interested in how that person improved. I'm interested in general, how someone would improve on their own without any outside resources?

In his "Manual of Chess" Lasker had a theory----at first there were players with more natural tactical ability who were recognized as being the "stronger" players.  Then some unknown player started writing down the games of these stronger players and showing them to his friends.  The result was that weaker players starting beating stronger players merely by following their own moves.

So it follows that players got better by using ideas from "coaches" or whatever you want to call them.

By answering your question, we would be an "outside resource". Therefore, we cannot answer your question.

meh.

How did the first chess player improve? By finding a second chess player. 

The best way to study Math is to find a teacher. But there should be another way, or first Mathematician would never progress, right?

I mean, lots of talented people spent their entire life to get chess theory at current level. It is impossible to do it by yourself. Of course, if you are gifted it would be easier for you to understand these concepts, but even though you can improve by studying greatly.

Well, there does have to be a first person at everything... otherwise it wouldn't exist!

The first game obviously had two players, so was the player with the white pieces the first player?

Maybe the first player didn't improve.

Seriously though...by studying other players game.

Remember that the search for chess truth revolves not around information itself but what information is most important. To become a great chess player, one must find what is most important to them and keep that in their heart. Chess is at the absolute highest level a draw but don't let your opponent draw but carlsen demonstrates the technique of playing for a win. One must think like, how can I win in this position, and if there are multiple ways, choose the one that fits you.

The unmoved mover...

I think your initial position is flawed. Having a coach makes you learn faster, but not having one doesn't mean you don't learn at all. The first chess player would simply have improved by the way anyone else would who didn't have a coach or books.

He would play, learn from his mistakes, and do better the next time.  We as generations of have been doing the same thing.

The first chess player improved by writing the first chess engine. It started beating him and so he hired it as his coach.

The end.

takeoffeh wrote:

The first chess player improved by writing the first chess engine. It started beating him and so he hired it as his coach.

The end.

@@@@@: Stop inventing cows wearing trousers and sunglasses

The first player improved as the 2nd and 3rd etc.,players improved,unless of course he played himself,then he could develope on his own

Who says the first player improved? Most likely he sucked.

Well, first he invented the Ruy Lopez opening, THEN he sucked.

Obviously, the very first chess player was coached by aliens.

One of the earliest games in my database:

That player, had a copy of How to Reassess Your Chess, too!

If it worked for him, maybe if can help you, as well!

He didn't have to.  He was, by definition, already the best.