Before you get into a 'study' pattern just play games and don't worry about the results, its looking at them afterwards that gives you the chance to learn from your mistakes. If you can see what needs to be fixed, then research the web for finding books and software that can help in those areas. I did this ass backwards and tried to learn how to get better by reading books and watching videos and hardly playing any games. Thats completely wrong, you need to play and then you absorb the lessons from your own games much easier because you know what you were thinking, not what Alekhine or Kasparov were thinking...
"Studying Chess"
Sort:
smellslikestinks wrote:
I often go to Santa Monica and watch alot of really good players alot of them i noticed wear baseball hats to cover their eyes . So i made an effort to angle my self in a position where i could track what their eyes were looking at while playing . I suddenly noticed alot . Ever since, my rating seems to have improved dramatically . I play alot of otb . This is just one way that i study . it may not be for all .
I've never heard of that one before (kinda sounds like poker), but I can definitely see how it can be effective. Being a terribly lazy player, one of the main reasons that I lose my games are that I don't really look into my opponent's candidate moves. Following my opponent's eyes may actually remedy this issue.
Looking back, you might have been referring to using this method in a game that you are merely spectating. If that's the case, sorry for misinterpreting.
@Vease, I've actually started doing that recently with 30+ min games (albeit most of them are against computers). One issue I have with this (aside from finding human players to play longer games with) is trying to pin point my weaknesses. I can see the individual mistakes and I can make general assertions like "I need to work on my positional play" or "my tactics suck," but then I'm stuck. The reason that I cannot narrow down my weaknesses any further may very well be that I'm a well-rounded, crappy-all-around player. I'm still kinda new to this, so things might get better as I get more used to this.
If you have something like Fritz or another program that does infinite analysis let it look over your games and annotate them. Maybe you just miss tactical shots in critical positions or maybe you just get ground down by an accumulation of positional errors, either way looking at the analysis shows you where you went wrong.
Sometimes its actually playing the wrong openings, I'm a very cautious 'positional' player and it took me a while to find the right opening systems with Black (thank god for the Hedgehog!) to mostly avoid the positions I'm not comfortable with. If you play one of the main line Sicilians or the Semi Slav 'because thats what the the top players play' but keep getting blown away, don't be stubborn, find something that gives you a playable position that you actually understand...
Feb 3, 2012
0
#5
Studying (ie. expanding your knowledge) is only one part of the chess equation. You also need to train your chess skills.
When analyzing your games, you say you don't take into account your opponent's candidate moves because you're lazy. You don't need much study here : what you need is to take a handful of positions (from your game, or from any classical game) and when it's your turn to play, ask yourself : if I play this, what are my opponent's likely replies ? I you still miss their replies more often than not, then come back with some example and let's see the kind of reply you're missing. We can then find other relevant exercises. 
On a side note, Soltis answers your question, albeit indirectly (p.31, advice #1)
Lot of weaker players think an other book will help their game, or studing something. Of course tactical puzzles are always good, but many forget the (boring) basics or never heard of them.
How many weak players ask: "Is my candiate move safe?". On every move!
I forget to do this very often, and that's biggest cause of my low OTB-rating.
So when chosing between studying an other opening book, and working on your bad thought process what gives the most bang for the buck, do think?
One of the biggest obstacles that beginners and intermediate players face when trying to improve their game is that they don't know how to study chess. I recently read Andrew Soltis' Studying Chess Made Easy, which stated that one shouldn't study chess like one studies for a midterm. Unfortunately, that's exactly how I've been trying to improve my game for the last few years. Aside from that, I've been "studying" by watching Youtube videos of annotated games, which I'd imagine is akin to studying for the MCAT by browsing Wikipedia.
My question is this: What does it mean to study chess? I'm not necessarily looking for the right answer, but I'd like to know what the majority thinks of when the expression "studying chess" is used.