Reading About Chess

I have been trying to read a number of older books on chess that I have around from a few years ago.  I'm finding myself to be really lazy when it comes to studying from books.  I just can't be bothered to dust off the old chess set and follow along.  I think I'm getting spoiled by all this computer video/ mentor stuff.  

When reading a column on chess.com, I soon became frustrated because there were no illustrations to follow along with.  Chess is a visual as well as a logical game is it not?

Should I suck it up and read my books, or should I stick with the computer, which is more efficient?

This reminds me of when people ask will x or y burn more calories....

The one that you will do will burn more calories and the one that you study will be a lot more efficient than the one you won't. 

Try reading "Logical Chess Move by Move" by Irving Chernew. . . that is a love of a written chess book.. . He writes like talking directly to you, move by move you should play or you shoukd not, without bothering with issues like "…in the year xxxx XZR played ,,," or ". . . better PxB as did VBT on tournament such and such. . ."

I undersatnd that the book I recommend has two versions: one using old notation (PK4) and another using the new algebraic notation (e4). Anyhow is he same book.

  FlatSeven - I read the books AND do the computer stuff. I have a shelf full of books, two great chess programs(Fritz 12 and Chessmaster 10), millions of games and PGNs, and study the Tactics Trainer and Mentor on here, plus watch Master games and the video lessons. My play has improved greatly over the last month because of a good study regimen. Not everybody can do all that every day because of schedules and what not, but if you have the time, I'd suggest a little of everything. But keep the learning and studying steady.

The more you try to follow along "in your head" without a board the better.  You'll be practicing visualization (which will help your calculation skill).  I've heard many players note this.

But also as others said, in general the more you study the better, regardless of lesser details.

I've read the same sentiment from other players here, decent players, but as someone who has enjoyed blindfold play in particular, I can't say it has done all that much for my visualization skills.

Maybe it depends on how one either natively or by habit analyzes but for me the main thing to improving my visualization was to sit at the board and crunch variations.

The needed skills just develop over time, and I've always thought that in chess like most everything else, if you want to get better at something you do that thing, or break that thing down into simpler components and practice them and hopefully reassemble it all later on.

For me, imagining and holding positions is a basic thing that was best done by staring at pieces and a board.

I study with books and online material, but mostly with books.  I appreciate the additional narrative that is found in some books, because I want to learn the ideas behind the moves.  In fact, I tend to shy away from the books that are just packed with notation, because watching moves doesn't help me as much as reading explanations for why the moves are made.

I use the computer to help me get through the books.  Using either Rybka or the Analysis Board on this site, I work through the moves in the book.  It's a lot faster than using an actual chess set, and it's easy to go back and try different variations, since you don't have to set up the positions by hand.

I can visualize 2-3 moves from a position, but beyond that I need to see it on the screen or on a board.  A lot of books will be going through a game and say something like "7. e5 (not 7. Nd5, which leads to blah blah blah blah blah)" and then they rattle off a series of five or six moves just as a parenthetical explanation of why they didn't choose a different move.  If I couldn't quickly run through that on the computer, I would end up ignoring it completely.

i like to watch videos instead of reading