Is there still a place for books in chess study?

Sort:
Ziryab
B1ZMARK wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Dmfed wrote:

Pretty sure learning types or styles are mostly a myth; most people benefit from active learning (reading the book or watching the video WHILE taking notes or trying moves on digital/physical/mental board) instead of passive learning (just watching video, just reading the book from front to back, just listning).

Also pretty sure that chess masters don't have that much better generel memory than average people, just mouch better chess chunking.

I agree with your first paragraph which can rougly be summarized,  by simply doing practice excercises on the board,  playing games and analyzing your own games.  

As for saying that chess masters don't have good memory you must be joking.  They have exceptional memory which along with having good spatial visualization is a main requirement of being a good chess player.

I remember there was a study done by someone a while back in the 1900s. He got a bunch of masters and amateurs and set up the position and had them look for two minutes. Then, he’d give them an empty board and have them reconstruct them. 

On positions from actual games, masters did remarkably better. But when they were completely scrambled resembling nothing like a chess game, the masters did not do much better than amateurs, which suggests that they chunk the board differently from amateur players.

 

Adrian DeGroot c.1953 off the top of my head. I could look it up, but I think that's the study you are referencing. DeGroot's work built on a foundation set by Alfred Binet, and became a foundation for the seminal work of Chase and Simon in the early 1960s.

crocodilestyle1
CooloutAC wrote:



Its not about the books being too confusing and difficult for even grand masters.   Its the fact they are simply not as practical ad doing the exercises on the same medium and platform you will be competing on.    And it makes no sense to analyze other peoples games over your own.   And it makes no sense to learn theory when you still fail at basic chess principles, tactics and strategy.

OK so that's where you're right and EVERY CHESS COACH ON THE PLANET is wrong. That seems perfectly legit to me.

You study other people's games, mostly GM games so you can build your thought processes, generally two epxert players, and see the minor things that are going right or wrong and how they evolve a position - that is in addition to spotting the inevitable blunders that most people games (sub 1800 or so) have.

If you can't see the difference between spotting your own blunders, what led to them, and how you might avoid them and AS AN ADDITIONAL part of your practice looking at why Fischer gaining space on the queenside, or Alekhine opening the c files at the right time created winning chances, then I would suggest you stick to playing League of Legends, or Grand Theft My Little Pony.

sndeww

“Grand theft my little pony” I’m dying

llama47

A rough estimate of the number of possible positions in chess is fun, because it's pretty simple.

(64 choose 32) x (32!) which is about 4.8 x 10^53.

64C32 is all the ways the squares can be occupied vs unoccupied, and 32! is all the ways you can fill the squares marked for occupation.

This doesn't count any position with fewer than 32 pieces, and it e.g. treats each pawn as a different piece (instead of 8 identical pieces) but that only changes the number a bit, so the 1 line of calculation works as a good estimate, which I find kind of fun.

crocodilestyle1
CooloutAC wrote:
 

Most chess coaches would agree with me and so would the books you read thats what's ironic.   You seem to think I'm pulling this out of my you know what lol.

Every thing you say and do is pulled out of your you-know-what.

If you are suggesting that chess coaches don't tell you to study master games, I am going to have to call you out - and ask you which ones, I'm going to start with those I know tell you to do so, chime in any time:

Jerry Silman,

Irving Cherniev,

John Nunn,

Jon Speelman,

Robert J Fischer, (not a coach, but it is is his book and writings)

Garry Kasparov,

Bruce Pandolfini,

Judit Polgar

...you know just minor names in the chess world, forgive me, I couldn't find any major or important people famous for their chess coaching to back up my argument....I'm looking like I'm wrong now....maybe I should look again at the whole speedrunning thing?

Ziryab
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

But once you pass the brand new to chess stage or become a  novice that becomes less beneifical then analyzing your own games.

 

“Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself.”


― Eleanor Roosevelt

 

“People never learn anything by being told, they have to find out for themselves.”

― Paulo Coelho, Veronika Decides to Die

in other words,  still not a supplement for practicing and finding your own mistakes.

 

The word you want it replacement rather than supplement.

Studying others' games makes your study of your own games better informed.

In his provocative Chess Training for Budding Champions, Jesper Hall offers the idea, "in your own games you have all that you need to improve" (15). But it is clear in the annotated game that he presents to illustrate the point that he finds it necessary to reference the games of others: "a rare move in this position, but I thought it looked playable", "This is considered best", and several lines that have been played by others (16).


llama47
CooloutAC wrote:
llama47 wrote:

A rough estimate of the number of possible positions in chess is fun, because it's pretty simple.

(64 choose 32) x (32!) which is about 4.8 x 10^53.

64C32 is all the ways the squares can be occupied vs unoccupied, and 32! is all the ways you can fill the squares marked for occupation.

This doesn't count any position with fewer than 32 pieces, and it e.g. treats each pawn as a different piece (instead of 8 identical pieces) but that only changes the number a bit, so the 1 line of calculation works as a good estimate, which I find kind of fun.

Ok i was wrong the 72,084  is the amount of possible positions after 2 moves.     Its literally 288 billion possible moves.    but the longest theoretical match possible is less then 6,000 moves.    So its not like they are memorizing all the moves possible,   just have to memorize the possible good lines.     Also when preparing they don't have to memorize every opening.    So the number comes way way down.  Again I dont' think Wesley So was saying Chess will have to be changed in 80 years cause the theory will take over the game because he's crazy.  I  think he knows what he is talking about and it seems like common sense.    These guys can easily memorize 70,000 positions.  Their ability to visualize and memorize is uncanny.

Yeah man, I have no idea. I'd have to look into exactly what So said, and in what context, because taking anything you say at face value would be... a bad decision.

IMKeto
CooloutAC wrote:
IMKeto wrote:

Using books with real board and pieces is active learning.

Watching videos, using software is passive learning.

Using a real board over a digital board on the pc is only beneificial if you aspire to be an OTB player.   If you want to get batter at playing online,   you are still actively learning by doing practice exercises and analysis on the digital board.

They are both forms of learning.  Its just that active learning is more beneficial.

IMKeto
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

But once you pass the brand new to chess stage or become a  novice that becomes less beneifical then analyzing your own games.

 

“Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself.”


― Eleanor Roosevelt

That Eleanor is a pip!

Steven-ODonoghue
CooloutAC wrote:

but the longest theoretical match possible is less then 6,000 moves. 

The longest match possible is unlimited. The longest that comes to mind was Kasparov vs. Karpov for the world title which lasted 5 months, but it is quite possible that there have been longer ones.

You seem to be confusing the terms "match" and "game". Which is common among beginners.

https://www.chess.com/amp/terms/chess-match

 

Either way, the longest "theoretical" tournament game possible is far longer than 6000 moves, because the commonly given 5898 moves is assuming that one of the players will immediately claim a draw via the 50 move rule at the earliest opportunity, when in actual fact thay can wait until move 75 before the arbiter interferes and the game is declared drawn regardless of whether the players like it or not.

Steven-ODonoghue

You made a factually incorrect claim and I corrected it. I dont especially care whether or not it was relevant to whatever BS argument you were trying to support. I gave up trying to have a reasonable argument with you long ago.

IMKeto
CooloutAC wrote:
IMKeto wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
IMKeto wrote:

Using books with real board and pieces is active learning.

Watching videos, using software is passive learning.

Using a real board over a digital board on the pc is only beneificial if you aspire to be an OTB player.   If you want to get batter at playing online,   you are still actively learning by doing practice exercises and analysis on the digital board.

They are both forms of learning.  Its just that active learning is more beneficial.

athere is literaly no difference when moving pieces on a physical board or moving them on a digital board besides the different visualization.  Again you must ask yourself are you practicing for competitive OTB matches or online ones and which is more important to you.

Yes...there is a difference.  But since all you want to do is argue.   I made my point so my work is done here.

Steven-ODonoghue
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:

 I gave up trying to have a reasonable argument with you long ago.

^^^

And if you are just going to lie constantly you shouldn't be surprised when others do the same.

llama47
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

but the longest theoretical match possible is less then 6,000 moves. 

The longest match possible is unlimited. The longest that comes to mind was Kasparov vs. Karpov for the world title which lasted 5 months, but it is quite possible that there have been longer ones.

You seem to be confusing the terms "match" and "game". Which is common among beginners.

https://www.chess.com/amp/terms/chess-match

 

Either way, the longest "theoretical" tournament game possible is far longer than 6000 moves, because the commonly given 5898 moves is assuming that one of the players will immediately claim a draw via the 50 move rule at the earliest opportunity, when in actual fact thay can wait until move 75 before the arbiter interferes and the game is declared drawn regardless of whether the players like it or not.

If you let x be the number of moves before a draw (in this case 75) the formula is just (118*x) - 1.5

So for the 75 move rule the longest game is 8848.5 moves.

DiogenesDue
CooloutAC wrote:

You literally confirmed my claim by providing the exact quote I got it from with the exact "commonly given number of 5898"r and the practical reasoning for it.  thankyou.  lol  The reason why you gave up arguing with me,  is because there is nothing to argue.  Fishing to prove me wrong for the sake of it will only prove fruitless.

All interaction with you is ultimately fruitless.  Somewhere deep down, you know this...but you crave interaction anyway and your body of trolling posts is the best you can manage.

llama47

It's kind of interesting to see how @CooloutAC has united so many people against him without being vulgar or flamboyant.

Some sort of... inverse charisma, but not by taking the easy route heh.

IMKeto
llama47 wrote:

It's kind of interesting to see how @CooloutAC has united so many people against him without being vulgar or flamboyant.

Some sort of... inverse charisma, but not by taking the easy route heh.

Since i can only speak for myself...I for one am not against him.  its just another account that loves attention and will do anything to get it.  Its like being told the same joke over and over and over and...the only person that still thinks its funny is the person telling it...to everyone.

llama47
IMKeto wrote:
llama47 wrote:

It's kind of interesting to see how @CooloutAC has united so many people against him without being vulgar or flamboyant.

Some sort of... inverse charisma, but not by taking the easy route heh.

Since i can only speak for myself...I for one am not against him.  its just another account that loves attention and will do anything to get it.  Its like being told the same joke over and over and over and...the only person that still thinks its funny is the person telling it...to everyone.

Sounds like you find him annoying at least.

I'm not vehemently against him, I mostly just ignore him.

IMKeto
llama47 wrote:
IMKeto wrote:
llama47 wrote:

It's kind of interesting to see how @CooloutAC has united so many people against him without being vulgar or flamboyant.

Some sort of... inverse charisma, but not by taking the easy route heh.

Since i can only speak for myself...I for one am not against him.  its just another account that loves attention and will do anything to get it.  Its like being told the same joke over and over and over and...the only person that still thinks its funny is the person telling it...to everyone.

Sounds like you find him annoying at least.

I'm not vehemently against him, I mostly just ignore him.

If his antics were something new then sure i would find him annoying.  But when its the same ole same ole?  Its like getting upset at the retarded kid.  They cant help themselves.

Stil1

Another thing I like about chess books is that the text is usually pretty neutral. You're given the moves, some diagrams, and some annotations to explain the ideas behind the moves ... and not much else.

You can read at your own speed, and move ahead to different chapters, to focus on what you want to study.

In a lot of videos, though, you aren't just exposed to the chess content, but also to the presentation style of whomever is making the video. Sometimes this means suffering through time-wasting jokes or irrelevant anecdotes ... or adjusting the video speed based on their rate of speaking ... or perhaps even having to ignore a strange piece style or color scheme that they like to use on their digital board ... they might drone on and on about a particular variation that you're not interested in ... then say only a few words about the one you actually hoped to learn about ... and so on, and so forth ... with videos, it can often be hit or miss.