Pros and Cons of reading chess books

To the OP:

Books wont make your play more robotic, they'll give you  more to work with / think about during your games.

Also all of us make mistakes in our games, no matter how good we are.  You're likely to pick up some info that will help you avoid mistakes in the future.

 learn to live with it and/or get a thicker skin

That teachin' lady tried to make me learn the alphabet, but I told her the only letters I needed to know are U, S, and A.

I found a crosstable for a high school league champion tourney in which you played and you did not finish first so how can you be the champion ? First place was 4-0 and you had 3-1 . You have yet to win against anyone over 1200 .  Thats not a sign of chess talent, hate to break it to you.... The  first thing you need to become a strong player is to be completely objective . 

Your rating is provisional ( as opposed to "established") as long as you have less than 26 rated games played. 

+1

Depends on how good you want to be, ive been playing chess for a while and never read a book, I have steadily improved with playing better players, the more you play the better you will become. I dont take it seriously, its just a bit of fun, and have never had any intention of making anything more out of chess, thank just a bit of fun, if you want to be more than that and think you have potential, best get a coach, some books, and get playing stronger opponents.

u dont need opening for any games under 2000. 

Looking at some of your games, I think your opening does need a bit of working on. Don't just expect to bring your queen out early and get a checkmate in less than 10 moves.

Here is an example of real development:

Threads always get more interesting when the dorsal fin of a titled player surfaces near the chum-filled waters.  :)

To the OP's question: Whatever works for you to make this game both fun + continuously challenging.  Books, coaches, videos or good ol' fashioned sponging from stronger players (yes, they exist!) at local clubs.

I don't think it is wise to generalize a "pros" and "cons" of learning chess from books.    You take what you can get from it.   

white just lost his bishop so how is that good?

It is not at all clear that Alexhine became a better player than Capablanca.  Outside their Championship match, Alexhine only beat Capablanca once, the last game they played in 1938 when both were clearly over the hill.  Alexhine made sure that Capablanca never got a rematch although he was the obvious challanger.

Malheureux.

@reb

it was either use the restroom or piss my pants XD

@ deranged

i use that opening because people castle on kingside and i add pressure with my two bishops and queen.

but i know that wont work with better players

i'll take any criticism, thanks for yours

Translation:

"I admit my post about being champ was a lie XD" 

 haha i really dont care what you think

idk how to copy a game on to here, but if you look at my last game against louisG, my opening was terrible. at one point he had developed 3 pieces and castled, while i only had a poor bishop and queen. is it ok to sacrifice development for positioning, seeing as i won the game? or should i always work on development?

Translation:

"I want you to think I don't care what you think"

trolling wont solve anything >__>