Aha! Now it's an arbitrary assumption!
How many books to read before you're a master?
Sort:
Mar 20, 2012
0
#63
You also need arbitrary attitudes like fighting spirit and competitiveness. Arbitrary books alone don't cut the mustard.
firstly.....how fast do you read?
It's fairly laughable to suggest chess strength comes from the ability to visualize moves... I thought only beginners and non-players thought that. Anyone who can play a blindfold game can visualize 100 moves ahead... it's the quality of the moves that counts.
If you can't correctly assess the position you can give up on trying to find a strong continuation... it doesn't matter how many moves you can calculate ahead.
BorgQueen wrote:
Ah, so now there is an arbitrary number of years before you are magically transformed into a GM!!
It's been said before, no amount of books or time will do the job. A certain skill is involved, spacial acuity or something, that allows the player to visualise the board accurately in, say, 10 moves ahead.
Without having that skill in abundance, the candidate will NEVER be a GM.
By the way I used to solve tactical puzzles by writing out my solution (all at once) before checking the answer. I've written 10 move solutions (usually going past the point of the puzzle a few extra moves just for fun). Sure it took me longer than would have been practical in a real game, but visualization itself must be one of the least important skills a great player has.
Sure there are the rare positions where you must see that far ahead... and it's amazing when they do accurately... but the accuracy is the amazing part, knowing which moves to ignore. Even a beginner can visualize 1.a3 a6 2.a4 a5 3.b3 b6 etc up to 10 moves.
You must read precisely 304 books, one more and you put yourself in an ivory tower and will never become a GM. Any less and you lack the sufficient theoretical knowledge.
Congrates borgqueen!
Mar 20, 2012
0
#69
I believe it is the evaluation part, which ist the hard one. Especially when the variations/positions contain lots of abstract, "non-countable" elements like piece coordination or initiative, which have to be valued against "countable" factors like material, space ... etc.
BorgQueen wrote:
Well that is a fairly easy line to visualise, but when it gets more complex I think you'll find that calculative accuracy by the talent I am referring to is absolutely paramount to being a master of chess.
It's hard to explain I guess. Once you undertstand the skill I am referring to, you will agree it is critical. I wish I knew what it was called. Bobby Fischer had it in abundance.
It's not just tactics. It's not just positional guides. It's not just simple visualisation and being able to follow one line down a path to 10 moves. It is the whole ability to move pieces in your mind accurately and correctly evaluate the results of the lines.
Imagine a given position that is complex,... you can calculate lines in all kinds of directions... lots of branches. Being able to accurately 'see' and accurately evaluate the end positions after your calculated lines is critical.
I was wondering if you meant something like this, and almost didn't post my reply, but you seemed to be focusing on visualization and spacial stuff. So part of beaing really freaking good is... being really freaking good 
... heh, no, I think I see what you mean, words fall short I guess.
And if you really want something to read, head over to that gg must read thread, it's as advertised.
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.
Why is this thread still going on? I already gave the definitive number
304. END OF DISCUSSION!!!
10000
Mar 20, 2012
0
#75
Cainite wrote:
Those with talent that put in the same amount of work will always be better.
The ability to work is the most important talent. Bring that talent to reading 304 books, if they are the right books, and GM is a mere fifteen years away.
Now, who will please list these magical 304?
Interesting
1) Reading a book means nothing unless you retain that information
2) Trying to get good at chess by reading books is sort of like trying to become a good boxer by reading books. No matter how many books the average person reads about boxing they will probably never be able to get in the ring with a professional boxer.
3) Practice is more important than reading. A person who plays chess for 2 hours a day will most likely be better at chess than the person who reads about chess for 2 hours a day.
4) A book can only give you a general rule of thumb to go by. Such as a bishop pair is a little stronger than 2 other minor pieces, or trade off queens if you are stuck in the center, promote to a queen, or doubled pawns are bad, or develop towards the center, or a knight on the rim is dim, or castle as soon as possible... all these things and more are generally a "good idea" but not always a good idea. You can only learn the difference from experience and not books.
Mar 20, 2012
0
#78
Frankdawg wrote:
1) Reading a book means nothing unless you retain that information
2) Trying to get good at chess by reading books is sort of like trying to become a good boxer by reading books. No matter how many books the average person reads about boxing they will probably never be able to get in the ring with a professional boxer.
3) Practice is more important than reading. A person who plays chess for 2 hours a day will most likely be better at chess than the person who reads about chess for 2 hours a day.
4) A book can only give you a general rule of thumb to go by. Such as a bishop pair is a little stronger than 2 other minor pieces, or trade off queens if you are stuck in the center, promote to a queen, or doubled pawns are bad, or develop towards the center, or a knight on the rim is dim, or castle as soon as possible... all these things and more are generally a "good idea" but not always a good idea. You can only learn the difference from experience and not books.
1. true
2. bad comparison, but even the boxer can learn something of value from books
3. you are collapsing play and practice, and then posing them against reading; reading is a component of practice, and these should be posed against play
4. You are referring to children's books. You'll find no simplistic rules of thumb in Mark Dvoretsky, Secrets of Chess Tactics, for example. Working though that book with a chessboard and a notebook will do vastly more than hundreds of hours of play against weak players.
I played chess for eight years without gaining any skill. Then, in two months I outstripped the skills of everyone I knew through reading chess books. Over and over since then, skill deficiencies revealed in play have been cured through effective practice focused through learning from books.
See http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-first-chess-book.html for more details.
The boxer's time spent in training must greatly exceed his or her time spent in the ring in competition in order to improve. How much more must a competitor in a mental game develop through cultivation of mental practice in the study of books.
Nice
...not arbitrary "BorgQueen"...the assumption here is that all the necessary ingredients are in place, including talent etc.