How to study chess books
Sort:
I would set up a board. Then you easily explore other scenarios
Jan 7, 2019
0
#3
ok .. the only reason i am against setting up a board is that you end up not flexing your mental muscles. in that you don't use your imagination quite as much. and developing imagination is key to improving in chess.
Depends on the book (and the reader)?
Jan 7, 2019
0
#5
@kindaspongey, how do you mean? I'm studying Pump up your Rating by Axel Smith at the present moment and I feel like I should read it blindfold, i.e. not use a board.
I wanted others to share which books they have read and whether they used a board or not. If they did use a board, how did it benefit them. If they did not, likewise.
"... You absolutely must play through all the examples and all the variations on a chessboard. …" - GM Artur Yusupov (2008)
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Build-up-Your-Chess-1-exceprt.pdf
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/PumpUpYourRating-excerpt.pdf
I do not think that I could get much out of this without a board.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#8
@kindaspongey, thanks for your insights. I am thinking of going first through the book without a board then once with the board and finally to cement things, once without the board again. If need be i'll repeat this till all the knowledge is properly assimilated.
hi
Jan 7, 2019
0
#10
I personally think you should use a board, so you can recognize the position much easier and you can see where the pieces are. In an actual game, you’re not thinking about coordinates too much, even though its good to memorize variations. You’re mostly going based off where you see the pieces going. Just Pattern Recognition mostly.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#11
I also have Pump Up Your Rating. I always use a board. You're not working on calculation when you're studying a book (unless it's about calculation!), you're studying the specific content being taught in that chapter. So, best to put all energy into learning what is being taught, than using that energy on trying to do it blindfolded. The more you study, the easier it will become to follow without a chessboard anyway, and as you say, you can always go back and review the book again later without a board.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#12
andrewnox wrote:
I also have Pump Up Your Rating. I always use a board. You're not working on calculation when you're studying a book (unless it's about calculation!), you're studying the specific content being taught in that chapter. So, best to put all energy into learning what is being taught, than using that energy on trying to do it blindfolded. The more you study, the easier it will become to follow without a chessboard anyway, and as you say, you can always go back and review the book again later without a board.
totally true. I just went through a game without a board then with the board and then twice without the board and already I feel like I learned something.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#13
Jester_Entertainer wrote:
I personally think you should use a board, so you can recognize the position much easier and you can see where the pieces are. In an actual game, you’re not thinking about coordinates too much, even though its good to memorize variations. You’re mostly going based off where you see the pieces going. Just Pattern Recognition mostly.
@Jester_Entertainer,
you have a point that you work to assimilate patterns while reading a book, but there is a problem here. if i use a board i tend to go through the moves really fast without it registering anything. if i don't use a board, i find it hard to visualize. therefore, first not using a board then using a board and then vice versa is the perfect method. one should also by the way try to memorize the games as it will help in building a mental library of patterns.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#14
There are several kinds of reading, especially with any complex text such as a chess book or theoretical work in an academic discipline. Try to wade through something by Jacques Derrida or Gayatri Spivak if you want an example outside of chess.
First reading is basically skimming. With a chess book, that means you can read every word that is not chess notation and maybe glance at a few diagrams. With Derrida or Spivak, that means reading a sentence or two in each paragraph, looking for the topic sentences and core claims. With most chess books, that takes about two hours.
Second reading of a chess book goes through the games, but not the variations. Your coach likely can do this without a chess board.
You can develop this skill. Learn to remember whole games. Start with short, logical games of less than twenty moves. By logical, I mean games between masters and strong amateurs. Games between rank beginners are too random—they have no usable patterns and so will not help your process.
The third reading takes forever. Now, you go through the endless annotations.
An alternative to this reading process that works with any chess book that consists of game collections is what I am doing at present with Neil McDonald, Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking.
I describe that process here: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2019/01/exploiting-open-file.html
Essentially, it involves playing through a game on a chess board multiple times, then reading what the book’s author says about the game.
Some games show up in multiple books. If you have studied the game well, you can read almost any book’s discussion of the game, including long variations, without reference to a chess board.
First reading is basically skimming. With a chess book, that means you can read every word that is not chess notation and maybe glance at a few diagrams. With Derrida or Spivak, that means reading a sentence or two in each paragraph, looking for the topic sentences and core claims. With most chess books, that takes about two hours.
Second reading of a chess book goes through the games, but not the variations. Your coach likely can do this without a chess board.
You can develop this skill. Learn to remember whole games. Start with short, logical games of less than twenty moves. By logical, I mean games between masters and strong amateurs. Games between rank beginners are too random—they have no usable patterns and so will not help your process.
The third reading takes forever. Now, you go through the endless annotations.
An alternative to this reading process that works with any chess book that consists of game collections is what I am doing at present with Neil McDonald, Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking.
I describe that process here: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2019/01/exploiting-open-file.html
Essentially, it involves playing through a game on a chess board multiple times, then reading what the book’s author says about the game.
Some games show up in multiple books. If you have studied the game well, you can read almost any book’s discussion of the game, including long variations, without reference to a chess board.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#15
Read your book sat next to a chess board and play over the examples given.
pdve wrote:
… one should also by the way try to memorize the games as it will help in building a mental library of patterns.
"... how many chess games can you replay (till the end) ..." - VimalKumarK
"I couldn't replay any although I could recognise quite a lot." - CM JamesColeman
"Good point. I could have replayed that one. Also Reti-Tartakower where White sacrifices his Q on d8 and then forces mate with a double check. So maybe 2. Both of those are rather short though." - CM JamesColeman
"Oh yeah, that one. Maybe 3 then 
" - CM JamesColeman
"There are many many must-know games for general ideas and themes but not sure of the practical value of having all of them memorised move by move all the way through to resignation?" - CM JamesColeman
"I don't think you have to have them memorized. Just playing them over, even fairly quickly will help put the patterns and ideas into your head." - Morphysrevenges
"Yes, agree with you entirely Morphysrevenges, but the OP was asking about memorised games that you can replay out at will. For me at least, that's not many." - CM JamesColeman
Games mentioned in the January 7, 2017 discussion:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250654
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259009
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1224575
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132699
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132581
Jan 7, 2019
0
#17
pdve wrote:
My coach says he can read chess books without the aid of a board. Should I feel particularly handicapped if I can't do this. Should I set it up on a board. How should I do this. I feel like I can half follow the moves. Not fully and not not at all. And it helps my visualization if i read blindfolded. Should I do this or set up a board.
Any advice appreciated.
You want to simulate OTB tournament conditions as much as possible when studying. This is why you use a real board, pieces, and ideally a clock/timer.
Someone told me once, that they can go through chess books all in their head, and didn't need to use a board, and pieces. So i asked them this...You can read medical books on brain surgery/physiology/etc., but does that mean you can perform brain surgery, without any real hands on experience/practice?
What Ziryab said. Although don't read Derrida, lol.
My coach says he can read chess books without the aid of a board. Should I feel particularly handicapped if I can't do this. Should I set it up on a board. How should I do this. I feel like I can half follow the moves. Not fully and not not at all. And it helps my visualization if i read blindfolded. Should I do this or set up a board.
Any advice appreciated.