The books that helped me most were My System, after studying this book alone I went from 1500 to 1800 USCF in about 1 year ... after that the two book set on the middlegame by M Euwe and Art Of Attack by Vukovic also helped me tremendously as well as the book by Bronstein : Zurich 1953. Before 1500 level other books helped me , like Fines : Understanding the Chess Openings. I never studied endings much at all until above 2000 , only basic ending stuff like the book Keres wrote : Practical Chess Endings. I concentrated more on middlegames and attacking chess/games and tried to learn about strategy and how to play certain positions and from certain pawn structures... I always loved to play sharp positions , positions that books often assess as " unclear ". As most Americans I did spend too much time on openings and probably some would say I still do. I find opening study very practical because of the clock and ever faster time controls ! It helps when you reach move 15 and already have a 30 minute advantage on the clock because your opponent doesnt spend much time on openings and has to find the moves at the board...... 
Read or Play towards Chess mastery?
I have to agree with Reb, you can achieve a respectable rating on your own without a coach. I live in central WV and i know what it is like to not have a lot of strong players near. We currently have a few experts at the top, and some of us in the A class. I made it to 1840 without any help now i know that is not a real high rating but i feel it is at least respectable. The main problem living here is we all play each other in the same Tourn. so the Experts and A class players are constantly beating each other up makes it kind of hard to raise your rating .But yes you can reach A class or higher without any coach you just have to work a little harder.
Philosophize towards Chess Mastery.
It is nice to know, that for whatever reason, trainers and books etc do not appear to be vital in growing your development as a player. But it does appear that many agree, you may not reach your true potential without some focused help, outside of just playing.
It is nice to know, that for whatever reason, trainers and books etc do not appear to be vital in growing your development as a player. But it does appear that many agree, you may not reach your true potential without some focused help, outside of just playing.
Elona, what you just said is too radical. You need help, either a coach or books, both better. And currently we can add to the list a laptop and chessbase with some databases. You can not get better just playing, neither only studying. It's like the languages, you know the grammar and the vocabulary, but if you don't speak with others, you'll never master the foreign tongue.
To contrinute to the list of books: Of course, Silman, everything is almost there; besides, the grandmaster series, from Kotov (there is more, but this 5 books is good to intensive study it for six months, you can comeback later for more ;) ). But like I always said, thats the granmar, you need the practice later. Good luck.
I guess that all makes sence. I do and will continue to sudy through books and players of a higher skill than mine. But in relation to your understandings, I will probably not reach my potential.
The problem is, I can not sacrifice time with trainers due to a crazy schedule.
personally i've played my way to the level i am now, the only studying i have ever done is watch video's on this site. helped me a lot, been playing for a little over a year now so hopefully that brick wall everyone's talking about won't come for a while yet. fingers crossed
You seem to be very eager for improvement and I think you are on the ball about your study routine. Stay versatile with your routine even if people you know as good chess players only incorporate certain study methods.
Do you know anyone who started playing late in life and achieved Master? I'm not saying that I must ever achieve that to be happy and love playing, but I'm mainly just curious. I think being an A player would be great and that might be the only level I'd want.
I'm not that old but am over 40. I have a life and can't study much, but I have been reading How to Reassess your Chess. Also I have been doing things on this site, like the mentor, videos, and tactics.
I'm just wondering if there is a tremendous advantage to learning and rising up the levels when you are young vs when you are older and have kids, a job, and a lot of responsibilities.
Do you know anyone who started playing late in life and achieved Master? I'm not saying that I must ever achieve that to be happy and love playing, but I'm mainly just curious. I think being an A player would be great and that might be the only level I'd want.
I'm not that old but am over 40. I have a life and can't study much, but I have been reading How to Reassess your Chess. Also I have been doing things on this site, like the mentor, videos, and tactics.
I'm just wondering if there is a tremendous advantage to learning and rising up the levels when you are young vs when you are older and have kids, a job, and a lot of responsibilities.
Interesting point.
I know that since my last post here, I have had literally no time for chess online. It has even been the result of a bunch of games having to timeout, vastly effecting my online rating.
I have sertailny noticed a disadvantage in my ability to develop my chess skills since becoming devoted to a job I love. Of, course, I am only comparing this to my own experience from when I was younger and would spend 7ish hours a week practicing with my grandfather.
Oh to have time again...
Seldom read chess books or chess literature these days. My routine is to play over the games of Alexander Alekhine, Efim Geller and Vladimir Bagirov. Basically am copying their chess styles, not memorizing opening variations. These three GMs have (roughly) similar styles, as Alekhine was copied by Russian players just as Enrico Caruso was copied by opera singers.
So I play Alekhine's Defense, the King's Indian Defence and the Nimzo - Larsen Attack without caring what the best moves are. I can move the same center pawn twice or open the f-file like Alekhine, play a5 and Nd7 like Geller or a double fianchetto like Bagirov. I want a flow to the game, not memorization.
Playing chess while immitating a favorite GM's style of play is preferred.
Geller played the Opocensky Variation against the Najdorf 30 times without a loss. Alekhine played the Nimzo-Indian 40 times, and lost twice against Bogolubov. Bagirov had a high percentage of wins and draws with the Nimzo-Larsen Attack. Emil Diemer was a dominant player with the Blackmar - Diemer Gambit (and Ryder Gambit). Another favorite GM. He also played the Elephant Gambit. I try to find consistancy in a GMs style of play. It is not easy to explain except to say I can understand what some GMs are trying to achieve in games.
I recommend looking at any game in which Alekhine was playing White.
The only way to learn chess is to Play & then study. Studing chess & then playing isn't effective compared to the former strategy.
Have three chess coaches - Alekhine, Geller and Bagirov.
These GMs am able to understand from their games alone.
Vladimir Bagirov died in 2000. He was chess coach to both Gary Kasparov and Mikhail Tal. I can see the influence of Alexander Alekhine in his games.
Mr. Reb, would you say that the limited chess environment also drove you to study even more, considering that your books were, in a sense, your only playing companions? Also, which would you advise--a majority of study with occasional games to put ideas into practice, or a majority of practice with occasional study to adjust and improve play? I happen to be in a position were lessons simply aren't viable, so books are my go-to; I'm curious as to what combination of books and play can help me achieve my potential the quickest.
What books did you think were the most helpful?