Why do you think that?
Because most anyone who is really interested in becoming a better chess player will not restrict himself?
Maybe he sees that as a challenge.
Why do you think that?
Because most anyone who is really interested in becoming a better chess player will not restrict himself?
Not really! There are a few people who dont want to ask/learn. (?ego, ?grandiosity)
I reached 2100 only knowing the most basic 1/4th of silman's endgame guide ( you know, the basic reti endgame, the f and h pawn vs queen draw, and other small very modest tecniques. i actually didnt know the basic pawn vs king endgame or key squares or any of that which is embarrassing for a 2100!
I did however, use chess engines and some databases for openings, i did have chess opening books when i felt they could tell me of some novelty (thing is, i only play weird openings, 1.b4 1.b3 and 1.nc3 for white 1.nc6 and 1.b6 agaisnt any of black's replies) so to research some obscure testing lines, i needed all the resources i could get.
I also learned some chess history through the chessmaster program as a kid, so knew the name and some history of the big names of chess and the name of a lot of openings superficially.
Most chess books in my opinion are suboptimal for learning. (aside from endgame studies) especially with the fluid learning of masters with engines nowadays, which resembles more intuitive stream of consciousness pattern recognition coupled with concrete computer lines, then the kind of old school thematic principled breakdown approach. they do have their place though
Wow. That's unusual.
More unusual is believing in nonsense troll's post!
Yes, but it might be helpful to learn from stronger players who do.
I knew a player who hated to read books and thought studying opening theory ruined his play, but he was wildly inconsistent and seemed to have problems with objectivity in his evaluations. He reached 2000 USCF for a moment, but did not maintain the rating and dropped over a hundred points into Class A. He always dreamed of playing unexpected moves to win against titled players, but he lacked a solid foundation in his development. I think he had greater potential, but I also think he had self-imposed barriers in the form of pride over his identity - some the steps he could have taken to improve would be rationalized away under the excuse of undermining "creativity."
Studying books is not tremendously important when you are starting out, but I would keep an open mind about the future. If you learn to use Chessbase well and form a good training program, you probably won't need many books anyway.
I love what you wrote and you express a lot truth. I mentor my friend who was 1400 uscf and guide and help him to high 1800 uscf; but he never had a solid foundation. Chess books gives you a solid foundation, only a title player can give you the fundamentals to build on; there is too many rules and principles and when you are unknown territory what is going to guide you. The higher players you play the more difficult problem you need to solve, higher rated players defend well in bad position, they make it complicated for you to earn the win.
I will say NO!; Without chess books you can't get to expert level 2000 elo +, if you lack the discipline better just play for fun.
if you "need" books to get to expert, chances are you dont have chess talent. nothing more sad to see than old players who are eternal 1600 carry some copy of "my 60 memorable games" with them in chess tournaments, despite having played the game for over a decade. they must love the game bc i would be too frustrated to continue playing lol.
but then again i really am bizarre case. i started chess serious in 6th grade (before i was your usual below 1000 player for fun) with just a chessmaster program and lots of hours playing online and going over famous games briefly, and was at 1800 strength by 8th grade without a coach but my rating didnt catch up to me until years later.
i know this bc i had a 2000+ performance tournament (performing 5.5 of 6 agaisnt 1800 opposition, including 1 draw agaisnt an 1800 being a whole knight down) at the 2007 u.s junior open u 14 which i won. sadly, i barely played in high school, bc of a very advanced school curriculum which let me finish my first two yars of college by 17, so nothing big became of my precocious years.
so i had some talent but nothing prodigious or anything. especially now that we have so many 10-12 year old 2000 players. last time i went to world open and played in the u2200 , i swear to you, 7 or my 9 rounds where asians or minors with over half of the 7 being asian minors. incredible talent, especially in tactics.
"More unusual is believing in nonsense troll's post!"
What the hell are you talking about??
i have also witnessed what i call "chess rednecks" who pretty much know almost NO opening theory and play very aggressive , and lots of blitz, yet are actually 1800-almost 2000 in OTB. you would think its impossible, but no these guys are amazing and super fast at Tactics , at least as good at me at brute calculation but much quicker. except the rest of their chess skills is meh at best. i have even seen them win their local tournaments in the u1800 section without taking more than 30 minutes on their clock.
a diet of lots and lots of blitz and chesstempo tactics with nothing else leads to that. they are talented in their own way and with proper training might even be able to make it to 2300-2400 but old habits die hard.
This sounds like a typical millenial. The generation where 90% (notice I didn't say "all") of them are lazy children and young adults that want everything handed to them and don't want to do the hard work themselves!
If you want to be any good, you need to study!
No need for generation bashing. Each successive generation has strengths and perceptions that are often misunderstood by preceding generations.
- an elderly millenial 
if you "need" books to get to expert, chances are you dont have chess talent. nothing more sad to see than old players who are eternal 1600 carry some copy of "my 60 memorable games" with them in chess tournaments, despite having played the game for over a decade. they must love the game bc i would be too frustrated to continue playing lol.
but then again i really am bizarre case. i started chess serious in 6th grade (before i was your usual below 1000 player for fun) with just a chessmaster program and lots of hours playing online and going over famous games briefly, and was at 1800 strength by 8th grade without a coach but my rating didnt catch up to me until years later.
i know this bc i had a 2000+ performance tournament (performing 5.5 of 6 agaisnt 1800 opposition, including 1 draw agaisnt an 1800 being a whole knight down) at the 2007 u.s junior open u 14 which i won. sadly, i barely played in high school, bc of a very advanced school curriculum which let me finish my first two yars of college by 17, so nothing big became of my precocious years.
so i had some talent but nothing prodigious or anything. especially now that we have so many 10-12 year old 2000 players. last time i went to world open and played in the u2200 , i swear to you, 7 or my 9 rounds where asians or minors with over half of the 7 being asian minors. incredible talent, especially in tactics.
It took me three years ( 17 years old to 21) to get to expert level, most players in my chess never get to expert. I noticed players who don't do book study have a lot defects in their game, eventually they drop in rating; like my friend who is basically lazy and just wants to play blitz and hoping to get to expert, he was once high 1800 but drop to 1720. I know kids who were master and drop to expert level, only those players who have solid foundation continue to grow and get stronger. Not being book smart and being lazy going to youtube for information or avoiding sound opening you develop some really bad habits and have major defects in your game.
This sounds like a typical millenial. The generation where 90% (notice I didn't say "all") of them are lazy children and young adults that want everything handed to them and don't want to do the hard work themselves!
If you want to be any good, you need to study!
I agree! Try to become a doctor by getting your information in youtube, it won't happen. No player will ever become a GM through youtube, being lazy you become mediocre chess player.
It took me three years ( 17 years old to 21) to get to expert level, most players in my chess never get to expert. I noticed players who don't do book study have a lot defects in their game, eventually they drop in rating; like my friend who is basically lazy and just wants to play blitz and hoping to get to expert, he was once high 1800 but drop to 1720. I know kids who were master and drop to expert level, only those players who have solid foundation continue to grow and get stronger. Not being book smart and being lazy going to youtube for information or avoiding sound opening you develop some really bad habits and have major defects in your game.
most people dont reach expert and master period which is like 95th percentile and 98th-99th respectively. so the amount of people to reach these levels unconventionally is even lower.
BUT they do happen whether you believe it or not. I am NM and did it without conventional study. even rarer but not totally unheard of is reaching about 2400 this way. I believe Lakdawala's brother got to 2300 without books but dont quote me on this one.
I am not even recommending this. most people will benefit from books. But it just annoys me when people swear what can and cannot be done without knowing what they are talking about.
i liek tacos c:
A lot of chess players cant afford 25$ an hour coaching by an IM or GM to go over a game and get a talk of what went wrong. Chess engines if used correctly can actually do a lot of the job that strong masters used to do.
Doing extensive post-mortem on your OTB and 15 minute online games with an engine is extremely fruitful as the engine costantly punishes your bad ideas and you get exposed to very high level plans this way. pound for pound i have found this much more useful then checking out some historical game from 1930.
Post mortems on an engine + lots of chesstempo tactics can take you very very far. How far idk, but it can make you a titled player for sure.
I got to 2085 by reading tons of books but that was long ago before there were such great sources on the web. I'm working now to get back to 2000+ and my main activity is tactics trainer and drills on chess.com. I still need a revised opening repertoire and I am using books, articles, and databases to fill up my 3-ring binders again. Sadly I threw away my old binders.
It took me three years ( 17 years old to 21) to get to expert level, most players in my chess never get to expert. I noticed players who don't do book study have a lot defects in their game, eventually they drop in rating; like my friend who is basically lazy and just wants to play blitz and hoping to get to expert, he was once high 1800 but drop to 1720. I know kids who were master and drop to expert level, only those players who have solid foundation continue to grow and get stronger. Not being book smart and being lazy going to youtube for information or avoiding sound opening you develop some really bad habits and have major defects in your game.
most people dont reach expert and master period which is like 95th percentile and 98th-99th respectively. so the amount of people to reach these levels unconventionally is even lower.
BUT they do happen whether you believe it or not. I am NM and did it without conventional study. even rarer but not totally unheard of is reaching about 2400 this way. I believe Lakdawala's brother got to 2300 without books but dont quote me on this one.
I am not even recommending this. most people will benefit from books. But it just annoys me when people swear what can and cannot be done without knowing what they are talking about.
Its hilarious Lakdawala writes a lot chess books. Maybe its about the dollar sign $$$$. 
Why do you think that?
Because most anyone who is really interested in becoming a better chess player will not restrict himself?