On a slightly different note, I'd like to say that knowledge should be applied from general to specific.
In a chess game, you only to need to keep in mind, at all times, the general strategy (piece activity and material). When a more specific, applicable rule comes up, you will automatically know it and how to deal with it, but you shouldn't keep all these rules in your head.
This is how to play decent chess without knowing that much about chess.
On a slightly different note, I'd like to say that knowledge should be applied from general to specific.
In a chess game, you only to need to keep in mind, at all times, the general strategy (piece activity and material). When a more specific, applicable rule comes up, you will automatically know it and how to deal with it, but you shouldn't keep all these rules in your head.
This is how to play decent chess without knowing that much about chess.
Note that this thread was aimed at people who have been asking about learning. Most of us do NOT know a lot of the things we should if we want to improve. Things don't automatically come into your thinking if you never learned those things in the first place! The more patterns you can instantly recognize and the more tactics you have learned, the less likely you will overlook them in the short time you have to think for each move - that's one of the reasons behind the timed, name-the-square Vision Drill on chess.com. So if you're going to go to the trouble to read a book, watch a video, etc., why not make the most of retaining that information?
Sure - there's no reason not to. What I was saying was that people should be careful what they study.
Another dimension of note is Global learner vs analytical learner.
When i went to a language school, the first month was spent on this topic...we determined what learning style we were (from your list, audio, visual, Kinesthetic, etc) and matched that with either Global or analytical.
Global is when you learn the material in a broad sense, with like a Top Down approach. They also like the application of anecdotes or stories to relate the concept to.
Analytical learners are more bottom up approach. They tend to prefer a step by step introduction to the material....lay down the facts, and build up the concept based on the facts.
While at this language school, it was a common generality that Males were Analytical and visual/kinesthetic, while females were generally Audio and Global. This resulted in the men being stronger in reading and grammar, while the women were better at speaking and listening.
Micki, great article. Anyone reading this, he is absolutely right. It is not necessary, so you don't have to do it, but if you are wondering why study time is not as efficient as it should be, here is your answer.
Great post, Mick. It makes sense now that you've laid it out so clearly, and it will improve my own studies.
A related issue in studying chess is what to study. This is a complex question because much chess knowledge is impossible to understand and retain without a certain base of other knowledge and experience. For example, Fischer's 60 memorable games is a great book, but a beginner will get next to nothing out of it. Indeed, most annotators assume a certain level of understanding, without which the annotations have little meaning. Once upon a time, I would get so frustrated with things like "In this kind of position, you shouldn't trade rooks". What elements of the position make it "this kind of position"? A good bit of learning is needed before you can figure that out.
As you noted on another thread, you and I seem to be in similar situations. I am 65 and retired and returning to chess after 25 years away. I intend to play a few tournaments a year in Virginia and Maryland. If you will be playing in tournaments also, perhaps we will meet at one. In any event, best of luck in your chess pursuits, and thank you for your thoughtful posts.
I don't believe passive learning like watching youtube chess videos will get you anywhere. Chess is a game of thinking effort and the player who does more of it is usually the winner of the game.
Also how would you know if the material you "study" on youtube is any good or correct, how would you know if the presenter of the material is an authority on subject or not, because most chess-tubers seem to have some handle like ChessBob and a rating of 1400. Isn't chess already a visual game? Every time you play there is visualisation involved, even if it's just "I go there, he goes there".
I'd rather read a good thick chessbook by a certified IM or GM, having the book and real chessboard side by side and playing all the positions out on the board. Doesn't that cover the kinestetic(moving the pieces), visual(reading and visualising), auditory(we hear our own voice inside of our heads when we read, do we not?) I mean I'm not going to become a sprinter by watching Usain Bolt 1000 times on youtube, it's simply a waste of time and it's a psychological honey trap, the easiest thing you can do, and that's why the masses are seduced by the "here's my video course, just watch passively to become a grandmaster in 3 years!"
There have been several threads lately about books, topics (tactics, openings), etc. here asking basically the same question: how do you learn (improve) in chess?
Since most of us here don't have professional coaches, I thought I'd share my insights in Cognition and Learning as a teacher with an Advanced Professional Certificate.
There are five levels, called the "Dimensions of Learning" that distinguish the different kinds of things we learn from rote memory to abstract thinking and including whether we apply basic skills or adapt skills to new things. I'm not going to confuse this message by getting into them, I'm going to say that we low to intermediate level players do not recognize basic patterns and tactics as well as we should, so our learning should be more rote than abstract (more tactics than strategies) - though obviously applying tactics learned in one position to a similar position requires abstract thinking.
Concentrating on basic learning, then, note there are five ways we accumulate knowledge with our senses and we learn BETTER the more of them we use:
1) Kinesthetic: hands on: writing down information with a pen/pencil, physically moving the pieces or moving a mouse to move the pieces, etc. in an actual game or drill.
2) Seeing: videos about chess
3) Reading: Studying text words in books
4) Visualization: Diagrams, special symbols indicating relationships, visualizing the actual chess pieces instead of seeing the letters "King" etc.
5) Speaking/Hearing: giving yourself a speech or going over a set of instructions out loud, listening to an video or audio lecture.
Some of us learn better reading about something, others seeing/hearing an instruction video, others actually building or moving something around, etc. But ALL of us learn better if we get the same information in as many of those 5 ways as possible.
Consequently, working tactics problems should be a good method of learning since you move pieces on a board or screen and are learning in both kinestetic and visual ways.
So what to do if you read a book? You will learn faster if you write/type an outline or a summary of each chapter or each major topic - then, out loud, give yourself a 1 minute speech about it.
The same with videos. There's one here at chess.com called "The Five Forks You Should Know." Can you name the five forks off the top of your head? Can you describe each one? I can NOT - I'm watching that video soon! These are the basic building blocks of chess and we want to improve but we don't know them. I just watched the beginning (it's a 26 min. video) and they are:
1) Knight Forks
2) Pawn Forks
3) Double Attacks
4) Tempo Forks
5) Loose Squares and Pieces Forks.
Now, I just listened to IM Daniel Rensch state them, then I read them as the words were printed on the screen, then I wrote them here. They are now in my short-term memory and, at age 66 I needed all three steps to retain their names alone! Next is to learn to describe each one: to watch/hear the whole video and write/type notes, then give myself a 1-2 minute speech about what I learned.
That is how skilled teachers design a learning program - working the brain in as many different ways as practical. So once you decide what you're going to study, whether it's tactics or openings or endgames, etc. You need to look at what's available to you and put together a multi-sense way of retaining learning!
Good luck!