Pros and Cons of reading chess books

All the book reading in the world won't make you what you have not the talent to be. All the training of whatever sort will not produce talent.

By dedication, reading and training you will make the most of what you have been given.

Mir Sultan Khan became one of the worlds top ten players not because he studied books but because he had the talent to start with.

100% Agree!

 There is no such thing as talent.

Instead of talent you can say rate of learning ability. Some catch on faster then others, but those others are not necessarily lost, just have to work harder, "keep the faith"!

"There is no such thing as talent."

SO EVERYONE CAN BECOME EINSTEIN IN TODAY'S GENERATION!

 Don't confuse the term talent and genius. "Talent" (as a non exclusive and not innate potential) is a learned skill that you perform better than others based in early (and/or constant) practice. Genius is when the activity that some performs is not even understood because involves a new way of thinking (einstein and the theory of relativity).

I should say before "there is no such thing as talent, seing talent as a metaphisical gift, etc...". Of course some disagree, as many psicologysts won't.

Here is what talent means:(someone who has) a natural ability to be good at something, especially without being taught 

Here is what genius means:Here is what genius means:very great and rare natural ability or skill, especially in a particular area such as science or art, or a person who has this

And here i am giving the links from where I derived the meanings so that you know that i did not make it up on my own:

talent:http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/talent_1?q=talent

Genius:http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/genius?q=Genius

Approach the question from a different angle have some people got higher IQs than others ? Answer Yes there is a wide spread of IQs.

Question  Why?   answer   They are born that way.

Can we improve our IQ by diligent study ?     Answer    No

Exactly the same simple reasoning applies to any ablity.

You cannot become William Shakespear by studing english.

You cannot compose music like Mozart by studying composition.

If you are interested in chess and want to become stronger and/or learn more about chess there are no "cons" to reading books on chess imo. 

Experience tells me that you got a high IQ and you can be a complete fish; you are under 100 IQ and still you can be a great chessplayer. Actually I know a lot of really good chess masters that are not brilliant at all, and I doubt all of them have a high IQ.

@Don3: c'mon, a dictionary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptitude

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talento_(aptitud) (the only one in spanish, I promise)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius

besides:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2010/08/nature-vs-nurture-is-there-such-thing.html (you believe in the polgars, huh?)

and!:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/whys_20100826-1900a.mp3

and!

http://www.brain.riken.jp/shogi-project/project_en/relation.html

Of course you can still argue, but not a dictionary my friend (by the way, if talent is "a natural ability to be good at something, especially without being taught", in this case, chess talent, are you telling us that chess is in the genes, (or whatever another skill)? hmm ). And if you can allow me a couple more of links, this time two articles written by me, where I tried to explain it super-simple, and still I think there is more things to write. But Im not a psicologist, just a chess player and coach.

http://chess4real.com/talent-in-chess-first-part/

http://chess4real.com/talent-in-chess-second-part/

Over there I tried to explain the paradox that GlennBk wrote in his post.

Of course I can be wrong. ;)

it paid to believe in the dictonary sometime my friend.

psicologist -correction: psychologist  

 It paids to believe in the dictionary sometimes, my friend.

(Contest: Can you spot five differences?)

English is not first language, besides I write fast because I do not want to lost the thread, and I do not pay attention to some little details when I am trying to expose an idea; because I think you are interested in the ideas, don't you?

Chess books I think there are no cons. Studying exclusively, and deeply opening books as your opponents seem to be suggesting, ya it will stifle your creative and not improve your chess. Tactics, endgame, strategy, attacking (art of attack), defending, and pawn structure books are what you want.

a wisecrack are you.

English is not my first language, besides I write fast because I do not want to lose the thread, and I do not paid attention to some little details when I am trying to expose an idea; because I think you are interested in the ideas, don't you?

and english is not my strenght either.

 Thank you, you just made my point.

(And thanks again for correcting me, I´m always open to learn new things and I understand that accepting criticisms forms part of it.)

Can we be friends again?

we wasn't enemy in the first place.

We weren't enemies? Good. So wisecrack comment wasn't offensive, right? Great. Can we talk about chess, please?

As someone who has gone over countless chess books I will just post a few threads which show some games and or combinations from my personal games. I am not claiming to be a great player, but tell me if you think I have lost creativity?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/more-dasher-dashing-my-hopes

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/i-am-sick-of-losing-to-you-david

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/this-is-why-i-play-the-game

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/taimanov-miniature

and last and probably my favorite

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/another-one-that-came-from-one-of-my-games

I am not trying to brag( I think I actually lost half those games). But, just show you that interesting play can still arise even after you have learned about a lot of "book knowledge"

@erikido: great positions.

the first one I think g5 is ehem, "super-confident", let say it that way. But it had an interesting follow up.

the second one you could take in e5, and still have a great attack. the continuation looked superb though :)

the third one I wonder why not take in g6 right away.

the last one is probable that Ne6 wins as well. (thats what I saw, not Nh7, more original)

 It's necessary the offense? have you even read all the comments? Why, people?