studied versus hands-on

Maybe this should be a blog, but here it goes anyway...I have been playing chess my whole life - or at least 25 years of it, and I have now entered a couple tournaments on chess.com. I really am happy that this site exists, because it allows you to get a game going at any moment - total instant gratification!!! But, now as I play these tournaments I am beginning to wonder the ratio of people that have just played chess for fun and learned to look ahead as they play versus those that have studied beginning, middle and endgame strategies, probably giving them an advantage. It reminds me of growing up with the Rubics Cube, I was quite good at it - due to an extensive amount of trial and error - then one day, I read a book on the cube - including tips and secrets to speed up your success rate. I began timing myself and could finish the cube in 1 minute, 14 seconds... but the accomplishment, the feeling of cracking the puzzle, only left me with a lack of appreciation for it and my abilities. Then, obviously i just stopped playing with it all together... I feel that if I had studied or read-up on chess, the lack of surprises from the game would have left me with no desire to play anymore - too predictable, I guess! Minimizing your errors is a great achievement in chess, and will probably win you the game - but maybe not against someone that knows every possible strategy ever written down. BORING! BORING! BORING! I don't want to be a computer, I just want to play chess as a human, which includes errors! PEACE, Kevin

The more i learn. The more i find out that i'm ignorant. i was better at chess when i sucked (more than i do now).

hoping to hear peoples opinions on this topic of studied versus hands -on

Chess isn't like Rubik's cube, you can't get the solution from a pamphlet. I think studying chess is more analgous to learning that the faces of the cube can turn, rather than getting the solution.

Chess is a beautiful dance. Every player you come across has a different style and it interacts differetly with your style- just as they say every kiss is unique. Just sit down and make love, after all mating is the ultimate goal.

You need not worry about "knowing" chess like Rubic's cube. That's not going to happen--no matter how much you study each day for no matter how many years. And, to me, THAT's where the challenge and the fun lies. All you can do is improve. You might improve faster through study than by just playing all the time, but it's just a question of degree. If you like studying, like I do, so much the better.

Chess was fun for me just playing, and it was still fun when we got into some basic tactics and I got to utilize what I learned in tournaments.

But then, the studying got a little tougher.  We got homework, intense lessons with a GM, and I ended up playing at Nationals.  Having a girlfriend, a job, and a few other clubs made it difficult for me to find the time to relax and enjoy Chess as a game, and not as a tactical puzzle.

I guess hands-on is the best, with a little touch of studying.  Loses the stress, and adds to the fun.

Indeed, chess is always fun...thoroughly enjoying the comments everyone. It is true, we all know not as much as we think we do... haha   THANKS, Kevin

Indeed, chess is always fun. Itsafidolife, I can also solve a rubik's cube (a minute 18) and I've become very bored with it, I haven't solved one in months. Once you've done it you've done it. It's already been said here, but chess is completely different. I've been studying for a while now (not 25 years) and instead of getting bored with it I just get more and more excited about it. You can always go more in depth with chess. With a cube... well... more in depth might mean flipping it into that pretty checkered pattern. Hmm.

Correspondence (turn-based) chess where you can look up the opening in a book (or in the explorer Erik) makes that phase of the game a bit of "work" -- but granted that is one reason why I am here, to learn better the openings. It's just a reminder that learning is oftentimes tedious.

I can only agree to the replies here. What I want to say is that chess is played like it is for 500 years - nothing in eternity, an eternity in human life - and studied for even a longer time. Nothing prevents you from blunders, but studying makes you more attentif I experienced.

Itsafidolife wrote:

 Minimizing your errors is a great achievement in chess, and will probably win you the game - but maybe not against someone that knows every possible strategy ever written down. BORING! BORING! BORING! I don't want to be a computer, I just want to play chess as a human, which includes errors! PEACE, Kevin

---

 You always will make errors, don't worry. Gary Kasparov makes several errors in every game - and most of us mortals will never be as good as he is.

Minimizing your major tactical blunders will probably win you most games against beginners.

Chess is far more complex than a Rubik's cube. Nobody could possibly ever know everything there is to know about chess (and many people believe that it's physically impossible to build a computer which can do that).

Spending a little bit of time studying openings, endgames, strategy, and tactics will give you basic knowlege about how the good players
play the game. It will make you a not-quite-so-terrible player (no offence, I'm referring to my own experience here). And it will help you realize that the game is far deeper and far more complex than you ever imagined. If anything, that should increase your enjoyment shouldn't it?

NM tonydal> Irina Krush (at 2400) said "I'm terrible."

That's great! As my skill increases, the 'good players' seem to have higher and higher ratings. I think the original poster need not worry about mastering chess, the game is just too rich and complicated for studying a few books to make such a difference. And the surprise factor never goes away if you play worthy opponents.

again...thank you for your comments! All of it thought provoking. This has actually made me want to play in a tournament based around the study of an opening method... i don't think that i will know unless I try, so here I go! i still wish that I could get a ratio of chess.com players - that would be interesting!!! Cheers, Kevin

...i having read your spin on chess.....i'll give you mine....most people know the history of chess......that chess is a simulated war stragey "game"....for each series of moves is a ideal response...which in theory should neutralize the threat.....the game requires a good memory and ....the challenge is to find a threat that has no response or a new variation of a threat so that a reponse has to be developed.....someone could then become imortal.........and that's my spin...for me it's a game i play from time to time....some times i in the zone and sometimes not 

I think of myself as a pool player primarily and a recreational chess player.  Their are many that play both games and they translate well to each other.  Billiards involves a huge amount of pattern recognition and strategy as does chess obviously. 

In billiards if your concentration lapses for just one instant you have likely lost the game(especially in nine ball) and the same can be said of chess(although probably to a lesser extent).  But, the biggest thing I have got out of these 2 great games are that if you REALLY  want to get better then you need to put in the time.  But, you can't just put in time without any thought as to what you are doing(just sort of playing the game), this reinforces your already bad habits. 

You need a focal point at all times.  Some days when I go in to practice at the pool table all I am focusing on is the pressure of my grip on the cue.    What happens when I grip it a little firmer or lighter etc.  Some days I will focus strictly on pocketing balls, or safety play or position or a combination of those.  But, I have a purpose for that day.  You can apply the same to chess to a certain extent except for the fact that it isn't a physical game means that the way to play the game is (slightly) less flexible and so it would be harder to learn to apply things through strictly playing(even with a focus on a specific thing). 

So what does this mean- you can play games with a focus on sacs or positional play from opening all the way to the endgame.  But, there are certain rules(which you may learn without study.   But, I am certain it would be VERY hard to recognize)in the endgame, and  all phases for that matter really, which give you the key to the position.  philidors drawn endgame is a classic example.  If you don't know it it will be hard to find.  You may find it.  But, what about earlier in the game when you were transitioning to the endgame.  Would you have even tried to trade down? 

 As in everything really, it boils down to how good do you really want to be?  Do you want to lose 40 pounds this year?  You have to eat well 90 percent of the time and exercise consistently.  You want to look a little better and feel better you can get away with eating great a little less(for our example sake say 70 percent of the time)

 

If you want to get really good at chess you need to study opening, middle and endgames and look over master games and review your games.  If you don't like studying and still want to get really good reality is you probably won't. 

If you like the game of chess then the studying should actually be fun(there will obviously be the MANY frustating times as well.  But, that is what makes the lightbulb so much more rewarding).  I remember seeing this botvinik sack where there were something like 2 rooks hanging and a queen hanging and yet all of the moves were forced.  If you can't look over that and get excited I just don't think you like the game that much.   

holy crap I wrote a book lol. 

Here are some points:

1.  COMPLEXITY: Rubik's Cube is played by one player, while Chess is more complex as it's played by two players.

2.  UNPREDICTABLE: However much one knows about an Opening, different lines are explored by players through time; thus making the game more interesting.

For me, the magnetism of the game is the researching, learning and exploring:

1. Of even just 1 Opening for White; and,

2. Even of just 1 Defence for Black, each against the usually played e4, d4, c4.

It's the experiencing, thru wins-losses-draws, of "ONE'S CHOSEN REPERTOIRE" that makes Chess a very gratifying game. 

Just... :)

Rubik's Cube would be too easy for a computer. As pointed out by others chess is played by two players. In chess, there is defense. In Rubik's Cube there is unopposed skill. Also pointed out, chess is a dance. Players have to have a sense of balance and harmony. A move that is out of place looks clumsy. Study is required for human activities other than games. A science teacher told me he doesn't believe in studying chess because he wants each game to be new. I didn't bother asking him if he felt that way about science. Today's scientists know more than geniuses of the past, but they explain that they know more because they are standing on the shoulders of giants. If one seeks adventure and novelty, try driving across a continent without studying a map.

Itsafidolife wrote:

Maybe this should be a blog, but here it goes anyway...I have been playing chess my whole life - or at least 25 years of it, and I have now entered a couple tournaments on chess.com. I really am happy that this site exists, because it allows you to get a game going at any moment - total instant gratification!!! But, now as I play these tournaments I am beginning to wonder the ratio of people that have just played chess for fun and learned to look ahead as they play versus those that have studied beginning, middle and endgame strategies, probably giving them an advantage. It reminds me of growing up with the Rubics Cube, I was quite good at it - due to an extensive amount of trial and error - then one day, I read a book on the cube - including tips and secrets to speed up your success rate. I began timing myself and could finish the cube in 1 minute, 14 seconds... but the accomplishment, the feeling of cracking the puzzle, only left me with a lack of appreciation for it and my abilities. Then, obviously i just stopped playing with it all together... I feel that if I had studied or read-up on chess, the lack of surprises from the game would have left me with no desire to play anymore - too predictable, I guess! Minimizing your errors is a great achievement in chess, and will probably win you the game - but maybe not against someone that knows every possible strategy ever written down. BORING! BORING! BORING! I don't want to be a computer, I just want to play chess as a human, which includes errors! PEACE, Kevin

---

I understand your appreciation for the challenges of chess, but as a person that has played chess for alot more than 25 years as a hands on player i realize the value of training. as a former soldier I have found that training does not make war boring (and that is what chess is) but it provides the building blocks(or the basics) for you to use your creativity to go to another level. basically speaking it prevents you from reinventing the wheel. So in a word train hard and be creative.