What is interesting about de la Maza that he in fact realized that he was awful. Then, he tried to figure out why was he so awful (lack of touch, maybe). His realization was that his game always collapsed with a tactical blunder. Then, he came up with a self-administered program and one can not deny that his ratings increase in 2 years would leave many of us envious. He wrote a book, got into a fight with Silman...At the end Silman was right, you can not simplify or degrade chess into nothing else but tactics, it is more complex and beautiful than that.
How many books to read before you're a master?
Sort:
Mar 19, 2012
0
#43
TheGrobe wrote:
Incidentally, if someone would like to fund my current lifestyle so that I can quit my job and focus exclusively on chess we could perform a little experiment....
That makes two of us.
Ha.....I want to see the look on my wife's face when I tell her I am into full time chess....she already banned me from buying new chess books....but sometimes Amazon still slips in a few chess books in my order....
Ah, the lure of Amazon chess book section...
I have always liked "Chess for Zebras" by Rowson. The Scottish GM makes the valid point that there is a great difference between knowledge and skill. Huge knowledge is no help if you have no skill set. An analogy is studying a subject at say University; there are lectures and books on one's subject but also a lot of exercises and problems to do but even then a new graduate isn't necessarily as good in his chosen subject as somebody who has had continuous practical experience, thereby developing skills.
Obviously, you can't play strong chess without knowledge of typical ideas, derived from study of classic and high quality books (as Natalia Pogonina noted), however you can't play strong chess if you don't develop a variety of skills, such as the ability to analyse quickly or developing good visualisation. (On the latter, "Improve Your Chess Now" by Jon Tisdall offers some good advice.)
It's a question of how you read them I think. Too many people read books by GMs and take everything as unchallengable gospel, thereby learning nothing about chess from the book. It's better to read with a "question everything" approach - that way you try things out for yourself and see how they work for you (or otherwise) in practice.
Most useful books I've ever read (for me, anyway):
Understanding chess tactics - Martin Weteschnik
Secrets of modern chess strategy - John Watson
Dvoretsky's endgame manual
Chess for Zebras - Jonathan Rowson
There are loads of good opening books, but personally I prefer learning openings from game databases.
SimonWebbsTiger wrote:
I have always liked "Chess for Zebras" by Rowson. The Scottish GM makes the valid point that there is a great difference between knowledge and skill. Huge knowledge is no help if you have no skill set. An analogy is studying a subject at say University; there are lectures and books on one's subject but also a lot of exercises and problems to do but even then a new graduate isn't necessarily as good in his chosen subject as somebody who has had continuous practical experience, thereby developing skills.
Obviously, you can't play strong chess without knowledge of typical ideas, derived from study of classic and high quality books (as Natalia Pogonina noted), however you can't play strong chess if you don't develop a variety of skills, such as the ability to analyse quickly or developing good visualisation. (On the latter, "Improve Your Chess Now" by Jon Tisdall offers some good advice.)
Great points.
Mar 19, 2012
0
#48
The first book that I read was Irving Chernev, 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955), and I'm now going through it again 37 years later. Reading the reviews on Amazon turned up a claim by another reader that this book alone led to chess mastery.
Incidently, I wrote a bit about this text this morning. See http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-first-chess-book.html
I agree with Natalia, "A lot depends on how the quality of the books, how deeply you understand the material, and how you put it into practice." And I would not rate Chernev's 1000 Best as particularly high in quality. Even so, time spent studying these 1000 miniature will teach a lot about exploiting vulnerabilities.
This is the puzzle about adult learning; while a child can learn voraciously and store almost unlimited amount of material in memory for later use (they can just throw it all in), adult learners have to have a practical example (or more) to aquire a given principle and show its application. (The Robert Snyder book, "Unbeatable Chess Lessons" has italicized one sentence rules during a discussion of a game and it shows the value of creating a doubled pawn for example.)
Three to four kilograms.
Even better: 450 MB...
Cainite wrote:
AndyClifton wrote:
I'm still going with my initial answer of 10,000, Alex (studies have demonstrated that to be true and extrapolational & stuff).
I'm pretty sure the studies were talking about hours of study dedicated to chess, not the amount of books you've read... If so that'd be well over 50 000 hours.
It's a long-time joke around here...lampooning that whole simpleminded "10000-hours" business... 
Capablanca's book Chess Fundamentals is AWESOME.
i believe Botivinik said it was "THE best chess book EVAR".
Mar 19, 2012
0
#54
How many books to read before you're a master?
None, if you're Morphy, Reshevsky or Capablanca.
An infinite number, if you're me.
Capablanca's book Chess Fundamentals is AWESOME.
It's available as an eBook for only 99 cents.
a lot ;)
Mar 19, 2012
0
#57
e4nf3 wrote:
Capablanca's book Chess Fundamentals is AWESOME.
It's available as an eBook for only 99 cents.
I bought the hardcover (1934 edition) in a used book store for $6.50 twenty years ago. And then, a month or so ago I got a free ebook version when I downloaded the e+Chess app on my iPad. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/e+chess-books/id475177331?mt=8
Thanks for the app suggestion!
I think I read it in the mid-fifties. Back then, I used to read an awful lot of chess books. I would get them for free from the public library. At one point, I remember having "checked out" 13 chess books at the same time. 
Well, the question assumes that there is some magic number of books one must devour which will magically transform one into a "master".
The truth is that one can read every book ever written on chess, and still suck at it. The point being that the "master's journey" is only partly covered by reading. There are a host of other trials that one must pursue in order to attain this level...which is why it takes 10-15 years to become a GM.
Interestingly he (Capablanca) actually wrote more of an endgame book. Plus, you do not have to read 'em to write 'em. De la Maza obviously retired from chess. Although in his book he planned to achieve a Master level, you can check out his youtube video, now he is into corporate self help stuff (something about the power of touch, two dudes are sitting on the floor, with their feet touching each other and are very happy. Weird stuff). He also spent an entire year with nothing else but with tactics, the circle of rings, the CT-ART...To me he is an evolutionary dead end (like a Dodo bird), proving that tactics alone can only take you so far.
look what chess did to him...