How do you improve your understanding of chess without playing much?

I've actually been thinking about this indirectly (never seen the thread till now).

When you look at the old masters before computer era (who are much stronger than probably anyone posting on this thread still).  They were not playing online 24/7...so study-wise, you dont /need/ to be online playing that much (thats my theory anyway).

BigKingBud had intesting post too: "I'm in the last chapter of TAM at the moment, and it has become VERY clear to me, that I need to start playing longer games each day for a while, and completely avoiding the 2 and 10 minute games."

I've had problems otb from playing online blitz.  I just dont do it now.  Dont claim any words of wisdom.

Study from books- that's how you improve. I find video lessons to be helpful too, but with books you can go over the material at a slower pace, studying and playing through the variations to better grasp the concept of the lesson. 

Playing longer games (as opposed to blitz) also gives you more time to think, which is more helpful. Blitz skill comes from experience after you've played many long games, as you're pretty much just automatically making moves based on intuition, which comes from experience.

To get better at chess, you have to both study chess and play chess. Studying gives you the knowlege you need; playing games allows you to practice what you've learned. Playing against computers will help you solidify your game and avoid tactical blunders, which will ultimately help you spot your (human) opponent's blunders and take advantage of them.

Oh, one more thing...  practice tactics problems!

But that's just my 2 cents... Cheers!

http://www.chess.com/blog/hicetnunc/resources-for-systematic-training

edit : however, this is not a correct answer to your question. To improve your chess understanding, your best bet is probably to go over old annotated master games. My personal recommendation is Reti's Masters of the Chessboard.

I really wish there was a recording in video of someone who has done this because I don't know how "deeply" I should go about it. When I spend an hour going over GM games over a real chessboard it never feels satisfying like I don't know if I'm actually progressing. It feels like I"m just staring at it. 

Yeah I thought about this as well. Like.. I don't even think Carlsen plays blitz online 24/7 a day like some of the player you see do on chess.com. 

I know video lessons can help but often time it's hard to stay focus on it, even when I pause the video. There are just way too many video options. 

Riv4L. According to your rating we are very close in strenght.

I think its time for you to study now, and play 3 day online, maybe 5-10 games simoultanously.

To me I need to try what i read in games. So a limited amount of 10minutes blitz or rapid 15, maybe 20+5, is good. I did like the advice about 1 game a day.

Playing otb, taking notes, and analyzing with a strong player is very helpful.

Looking at good games from other players is fine.

Thanks, but I think you're a bit stronger than me. 

With all due respect to hicetnunc, I really don't think looking at GM games is useful for class players. When I was under 1000, I looked at a GM game every day, usually by Sergei Rublevsky (after whom I was modeling my repertoire at that time). I usually had no idea what was happening and could not even come close to calculating everything out in the complicated positions. Even now, as a 1796 USCF, I rarely study GM games unless I am looking for opening ideas. The simple reason is that GMs don't make instructive errors. They make errors which are too subtle for class players to notice. I look at my own games and analyze them deeply, because if nothing else, I know that my errors will be instructive.

I had NEVER played correspondence chess until the last 6 months(I've played chess since the 1900's), it has really opened my eyes to how there is a 'rhythm' to a timed chess game.  Sorta like shooting a basket ball, in basket ball the 'free throw' shot is MUCH harder, because the player can't dance his body into a rhythm to jump, and shoot.

So goes for correspondence chess(Online chess).  There is ZERO rhythm.  It is ALL logic with no pressure on either player.  I've come to the belief that in order to strengthen myself any further, I'm gonna have to focus on the logic only.  Spending A LOT more time before each move, and learning to read the game properly(and 'go over' ALL the crap in Amateur's Mind, trying to 'incorporate it into' my game).  Then, go back to the rhythm shooting later(I'm thinking about 3 months worth).

I agree looking at contemporary games is probably useless, as they are way too complex. But I think looking at old annotated masters games can be very beneficial : I went over the Reti book when I was a student and I learnt a lot about chess from it (because there are many explanations and illustrations of general principles). There's also Chernev's book (Logical chess), which explains a ton of things.

There is a "natural rythm" to otb and regular chess.  I agree.  Its one of my aims to avoid this rythm (of my opponent, specifically).  For example, When I play a 45/45 game, and he plays the opening quickly.  I think that is horrible.  But my natural inclination is to play the opening quickly as well.  It takes a lot of discipline to move slow and think it out.

OTB, little kids do this to demonstrate they know the opening well (or something, not sure why).  Its --really-- hard not to fall into that trap.

You need to beware the little kids too.  They look little & cute...but they are 1900.

I've had funny cases.  Once I followed the rythm, and I played e5 before I had castled in the KID.  I was monkeying around trying to get my music to play right, and just blitzed out the moves.  I had such an excruciating painful loss.  Forced queen trade, no castling, etc.

Another case I had, where I didnt blitz it out, I played the sozin variation (as white).  And the kid was like 'oh yea, I'm all about this' (move-wise, nothing was said).  He blitzed out his moves and hung a knight on like move 7.

Anyway, beware that natural rythm.

There must be some value in going over master games (annotated ones).  It must have been how people learned pre-computer era.

You are kinda playing 'guess the move' while reading.  I would almost think there is more value to that than actual playing (online, anyway).

Not like I know anything; I dont claim to be good even.  Maybe its just because I enjoy reading master games.  And dont want to think its all time wasted :-p

I suggest playing the "Online" time control on this site, that is 1-3 days per move. That way you can ponder over your move in your leisure time and not worry about dedicating a large chunk of your time in one sitting to playing a whole game. The online version also lets you move the pieces around when you want to analyse a position so that you can check out possible continuations on a board, suppose that could be a help or hinderence if you find yourself relying on it too much. Have to reiterate that you should stop playing blitz or severly limit it, use that time you use to waste on blitz on improving your tactics using Tactic trainer or other methods.

play 3 day turn base games

Reading over master games is one of those things that's hard to concretely say how much it's helping you.    I firmly believe that reading over lots of instructive, annotated games is the De Le Maza 7 circles of positional/endgame play.    It's more pattern recognition, except you aren't looking for an attraction tactic to win a piece.  Instead you settle on a plan to go after the king with the aggressive g4!  There's no immediate mate or tactic, but it just "felt right" in that position.  Where'd that idea come from?  You probably saw it before.  The more games you go over, the more ideas you store for later.

Get good collections from instructive writers like Chernev, McDonald and Giddins.  Don't spend an hour going over the game trying to memorize everything and going down each variation to a conclusion.  Just play the moves and read the annotations.  Certain ideas get repeated, just like tactical motifs.

Silman has said he used to get the latest tournament reports and just go over all the games at lightning speed.  Heisman says you should go at a pace of about 15-20 minutes per game.  The latter is for annotated game collections though. There's definitely a belief by master level players that you can learn ideas by osmosis this way. 

Not-playing is a funny idea.

There was this 'Friends' episode where Pheobe was teaching Joey to play the guitar, but Joey couldnt touch the guitar.

I'm just wondering, if you took it to extremes:

Lets say a guy plays one standard game (like g120 or something that is /really/ standard, not g15), doesnt play online, and analyzes his game and studies master games.  Maybe plays in a tournament or two a month.  Plays at coffee shops regularly.

I think he can fair well.  There are still a lot of players who do not play online.  I dont blame them.  Its a cesspool of cheating.

That's a really good question, and I don't have an answer.

What I do know is what helps it feel useful for me. First of all, try to get engaged. Cover up the moves, do some minor calculation, and create a list of 2 or 3 moves as guesses. Not every move, just now and then. For any position that strikes me as interesting or critical I do a deeper analysis and only then continue with the game.

It's also helpful to know some things about the opening and the type of middlegame already. That way you have a structure to build on. If it's just some random difficult game then even if I took the time to memorize every move and all my analysis it's not going to feel like I learned much.

How can most of the cheating be by lower rated players? That seems to assume chess.com is quick at banning cheaters (so quick their rating doesn't have time to go up much). Unfortunately I don't think this is true.