Read or Play towards Chess mastery?

My Chess playing friend claims to study Chess strategy through books or old master’s games, and yet he is amazing and beats me every time (bar once – oh happy day).

Now, I believe it is important to study chess in as many variable ways as possible. I do not feel I could  just play games and watch my rating grow.  I read books, study master’s games, do some opening and endgame preparation, work on tactics to see the improvement through analyses etc.

After finding out my friend does not read, I have found myself feeling that the preparation I do to improve in not necessary.

What approaches do you have towards developing your own skills in Chess?

-Elona-

Yep, the two are not substitutes for each other. But analyzing all games you played, and when you read a book, trying to calculate yourself, instead of just skimming through the annotations are necessary to improve, imo.

"Chess Hero" (google it) is an excellent freeware that you can mix in playing and going through GM games, although not exactly, but to a good extent.

That seems like a nice tool. Thx!

I can onely agree with everything said here paulgottlieb.

 Excellent points!!

 I was very happy reading the whole thread, because after paulgottlieb, I thought everything needing to be said, it was... and then you said very good points as well. But your last statement (Nobody did it alone) is not entirely true, although I think is better to have somebody more experimented than yourself to help. You forget all those masters before Euwe, and now, in the modern world, there is a lot of kids (and some not that young) that computers, databases of commented games, literature and access to online games without moving from their homes have helped inmensely. I repeat, I agree with what you said, (and with gottlieb as well), but for those who cant afford to pay for a chess coach the whole time to help them to reach their dreams, there is a harder way to get it. Thanks.

I reached 2200 uscf alone..... I never had a teacher/coach/trainer and the internet and strong engines also were not available until  well after I was 2200 ( 1984 ).  I am living proof that it CAN be done alone . I know many others who did the same.... 

Thanks for posting! That brings a new light to the subject. 

So, you do not think trainers are neccessary? (books etc) The use of computer programs and the internet are reasonably new, but did you not make use of books for theory?

I wonder if many others can relate to your experience. I know I can't, as I was lucky enough to have my Grandfather teach me rather thoughraly when I was young.

-Elona-

I did use books, yes and now have a library of some 250-300 chess books. I studied much more than I played the first few years because I had no choice. I grew up in a rural area of Georgia and there was very little chess activity and the nearest club  was about 45 minutes away by car. I also had a job and many other normal interests so when I did spend time on chess it was more often studying some middlegame book or going over master games, especially involving openings I was using or wanting to use... I was lucky if I was able to make 2 or 3 chess tournies a year and if I could make it to the chess club once or twice a month ( it met every Wednesday and was in SC ) I was thrilled. If you are improving through play alone you may get by without studying for now, if you dont want to study. You will reach a point though where improvement will stall or completely stop then you will likely be forced to study if you want to continue to improve. Teachers/coaches may help you reach your goals faster than going it alone and if you have the money and are in a hurry then by all means use them but dont let them tell you you cannot improve alone because thats simply not true. A lesson with most any teacher these days will be around $40. an hour for private lessons and after 1 hour you are out $40. whether the lesson really helped or not. That same $40. will buy you a very good book ( when I was young it would buy two ) that will last your entire life . 

@Caesescu: Ok, that's true. But when I said computers, I didnt mean engines, I meant databases and games extensively commented, and books in digital format and so on. I dont recommend at all the use of an engine to base your opinions. And of course if you have someone to help you, you will get better faster... for example...

@Reb. Hi, Reb, good for you. And I can tell you that 2200 in your time it was a good rating, much better than now (maybe 2350 or better), so it was a good acomplishment, and we can say you are an example of what I "preach". but you have to admit it was hard, right? Also, what you would have achieved if you had some help, huh?

@Elona. As you can see, there is options, one harder than the other one, but both have to have your commitment and will power. Good luck.

You can only reach the limit of your capabilities by practise. So your eventual end will be when those natural talents have been reached. Remember those who quote their own stories are only individuals and we cannot judge ourselves by others we may be more or less talented than they are.

I hope you are a talented chess player but if not go as high as you can.

Wow, lots of great comments.  Let me jump in and ask a question.

I'm not looking for a coach, but I'm wondering what kind of training exercises I could use with a player who is around 150-200 points stronger than me.  I'm thinking even though they're better they'd benefit from it too right?

I was thinking thematic positions or endgames or even just games out of an agreed opening line.  Have you masters ever used anything like this and do you think it would benefit my friend who is stronger than me?

Thanks, and yes, it was hard and took me 11 years to reach NM/2200. I dont doubt that I could have done it much faster with a good trainer/coach but I simply could not afford to pay for lessons and at that time there was no such trainer/coach available in my entire state, even if I could afford it. Ofcourse I believe I also could have improved faster if I lived in an area with more chess activity  and stronger players to play against regularly. My home state of GA only had 1 or 2 players over 2200 back then ( early 70s ) and even today there are maybe 10 over 2200 and only 1 or 2 with FIDE titles. There are states in the US with NO players over 2200 ( uscf ) !  I played 25 years in the southeast USA and in all that time only played 4 or 5 GMs and have played 4 GMs in just one event since moving to Europe ! The difference is unreal. 

I just checked and today GA has 10 players over 2200, with 4 over 2300 and only 1 over 2400. 

That's amazing.  To break 2200 then you must have eventually been forced to trave to some big open tournies right?

I only attended tournies in US Southeastern states. I never went to a big national event like the world open, US Open or National Open..... the trip was too far/expensive from Georgia. 90% of my tournies were in 3 states : Georgia, Alabama and S Carolina but I also played a few events in TN, Fl, La, NC. Since moving to Europe I have played mostly in Portugal and Spain with a few trips to Germany and one to Austria for chess... 

So in Europe are all your tournys FIDE rated I suppose?  Do any of them affect your USCF rating?

All classic tournies here are FIDE rated, yes but in Portugal I play a lot of rapid chess and its not rated by FIDE. Recently USCF seems to have started allowing my fide rated events affect my uscf rating too which I do NOT like and think is stupid. I have not played any rated classic event since realizing this in fact. 

You are talking about GMs and even world champions !  Ofcourse its very unlikely someone reaches THAT level without training/guidance from professional help ! I am talking about reaching 2200 level ( uscf ) and even lower , like A class  and many many players have reached these levels alone !  Only working with books and playing a lot of chess and losing many games. I AM proof that it can be done and there are many others that are proof as well. I have already admitted that it would probably have been easier/faster with a trainer/coach but not everyone can afford such paid help along the way. I also believe it would have been easier / faster for me simply to live in a place like NYC where chess activity was constant and there were many strong players to practice against instead of the southeastern USA. 

Lol, funny the parachuting example...

The point is, Closeau, that people want to know if there is a chance to get better at chess without coach, because is too expensive, specially here in US. We are not saying that coaches are not helpful, even better, we are saying that there is a chance to get some master title with hard work; today, with the right tools, it's possible even faster and living in a galaxy so far away as Reb used to live (not offense intended, Reb,  Im trying to make a point). But of course, with a coach, the right one, is better.

It's a matter of hope, my friend; hope is what moves the world around, not the money as somebody said.