Studying Chess

Do you study chess (openings, previous games, etc.)?  I'm still relatively new to chess and have never done anything but play and I don't think I would ever want to do anything more than that.  It seems like studying chess would take the fun out of the game.

What do you think?

If you don't study, you're not really playing chess to me - just moving pieces about (probably waiting until your oponent makes some obvious mistake like hangs a piece etc.), if you never study any tactics you are quite likely to miss even most obvious 2-move opportunities (like a Knight fork for example) and make some inferior move instead, is it better fun?

I'm a beginner but I'm getting stronger, and the feeling of improvement is most rewarding here, not unlike in any other field (whether you learn to play guitar or speak some foreign language etc.), it's every time when I look back and tell myself: "wow, I have moved on" that I get this unique satisfaction

World Champion Capablanca was famous for hardly ever studing chess..

> What do you think?

Studying can be fun... it's all about how you approach it.

For example, playing over the games of the old masters can be both entertaining (like watching a pro basketball game) and educational. Solving tactical positions is much more enjoyable for me while lounging outside on a hammock.  :)

Buy the book 1001 Brilliant Chess Sacrifices and Combinations, by Fred Reinfeld.  That will actually put more fun into it.  You will probably have to find it used (and in hardcover).

 "The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction"

W. Blake

"not unlike in any other field (whether you learn to play guitar or speak some foreign language etc" 

I had an interesting experience a few months back while playing chess and learned some opening moves from someone who consistently beat me like a rented mule. After mimicking these moves I was shocked when I started beating players who were @ levels I'd never dreamed of beating. While playing them on chess.com some one jokingly said - "Sing me a song Mr Piano Man" and it was then that I discovered that the opening moves I'd been mimicking were those of actual  chess - PIANO opening. This experienced caused me to go out and start studying chess. I like Blake's quote about the "TYGERS" b/c it is difficult to implement the instruction when you have been playing by ear : )

I tend to play more like a Donkey and hope that if this fool continues with his folly he will one day play like the Tyger - or @ least a house cat. 

You can't learn the piano overnight but you can learn the names of the keys. 

Thanks for listening to my rant - 

Best ,

Acephalic

Vibovit wrote:

If you don't study, you're not really playing chess to me - just moving pieces about (probably waiting until your oponent makes some obvious mistake like hangs a piece etc.), if you never study any tactics you are quite likely to miss even most obvious 2-move opportunities (like a Knight fork for example) and make some inferior move instead, is it better fun?

I'm a beginner but I'm getting stronger, and the feeling of improvement is most rewarding here, not unlike in any other field (whether you learn to play guitar or speak some foreign language etc.), it's every time when I look back and tell myself: "wow, I have moved on" that I get this unique satisfaction

Wait, so you're saying that you can't get better without studying?  I feel I'm improving all the time, and it's because I learn from my mistakes and also the things I do well.  I won't say there's no benefit to studying, but I'm sure there's no better way to get better than by playing.

Thanks for everyone's input though.

I think you are simply wrong.

NO current top player feels he/she would succeed if they didn't study a MASSIVE amount on a near constant basis.

MAybe you can get to a certain point, and playing will always be the core of learning chess, but when you reach a certain level(even club level) studying is absolutely crucial.

When I first came to this site and played players here, I had a hard time even competing against 1300's, and it's been about a month since I joined, and have beaten multiple 1500's, and was pretty close to a 1800+, but miscalculated on one move during the ending that led them to one extra pawn being promoted to queen and winning the game in blitz. All I have done was do the puzzles, several examples of chess mentor and tactics trainer, looking at some of my past games to see what I did wrong (what I could've done differently, faster mate than what I did, etc.), and getting ideas from books/websites. I still have a lot to learn, as earlier one member here saw one of my ending games that would've led to a checkmate, but my opponent didn't see that allowed me to win.

xoise wrote:

Do you study chess (openings, previous games, etc.)?  I'm still relatively new to chess and have never done anything but play and I don't think I would ever want to do anything more than that.  It seems like studying chess would take the fun out of the game.

What do you think?

It's your chess game, do with it what you want.

If you don't want to study chess games and strategies and know the differences between the 3-4 sicilian openings (or how ever many there are), then don't.

There are those who are very serious about their game and strive to be the best the possibly can be at it - and it suits them. Others simply enjoy the game as is, and their's nothing wrong with it.

I don't study nor do i plan on being a great chess player. I do tactics puzzles now and then or look up the lines on an opening, but that's because i want to.

Don't let anyone tell you how you should or shouldn't play the game. I mean, if you want to improve your game without studying, that would be one thing, but if you are enjoying the game as is, don't worry about it.

That is an individual's choice to make.  I hope it's yours to take time

to study, so as to improve your game, and ultimately increase the fun

you have in playing.

xoise wrote:

I feel I'm improving all the time, and it's because I learn from my mistakes and also the things I do well.  I won't say there's no benefit to studying, but I'm sure there's no better way to get better than by playing.

Surely, you need to play to improve your skils! Only studying, without playins, is the same as "study" swiming out of watter!

However, to study chess (as like as other thing!) means also to learn from mistakes of other people!

Look at, f.e., the game I won recently: LydiaBlonde vs Attila_the_hen. Black played 8... Ne7?? - the move seems natural, but it is an oversigh of Bishop. This is my 3rd serious game I won in this way; you can find an warn about this move in every opening's manual, hundreds of games were lost this way...

If you don't learn also from other's mistakes, you need few hundreds of years to acumulate enough experience to achieve a master level (or more the 2000 points rating or so).

And it's not true Capablanca didn't study chess! He did -however, not so hard as Lasker or Aljehin and other true profesionals. Aljehin prepared for the match 10 years, and won at the end - Capablanka was disarmemed. However, Capa vas a genius, one in milions - and still, today, somebody so relaxed as him, even a genius, have no chance to be in the top 100 in the world or so.

I enjoy studying as much as playing, maybe more.

I find that I have to be in a certain mindset to study the game, or a certain aspect.  Somedays I might want to dive into tactical problems, or perhaps go over endgames.  I have noticed significant improvement from this studying, especially after taking a 5 year leave from the game.  The first two tournaments I played in following this layoff, I could see just how rusty I was when going over these games.  So it was time to get back into study mode.  My last tournament showed the improvement that I knew I was capable of. 

I would never tell someone "You have to study to be good" or anything like that.  For me, studying the game helps improve my game quite a bit.

xoise> I won't say there's no benefit to studying, but I'm sure there's no better way to get better than by playing.

Check almost any online chess service. You'll find hundreds of players with 10,000+ under their belt whose ratings don't exceed 1300. When I play over master games I often come across ideas that either I would never have discovered or that maybe I would have discovered but only many years later. Playing is of course important, but playing by itself is not the best way to improve. No top player that I know of trains that way.

I would say by virtue of posting on this forum you are already studying--i don't think it would hurt your game at all.  There are lots of ways to learn stuff--why not test yourself?  Come up with things you'd like to learn, and then either pay attention to them as you play, or study them from a mentor, friend, or book?  I would say you learn faster doing the last things on the list. 

I guess you'd have to ask yourself what do you want?  I think it's fun to improve, and one way i know to do that is to study.  If studying is no fun for you, but playing is, than just play!  If you feel your game is missing something, then I would make an effort to learn/study, at least in a fun way :)

cheers,

matt

I don't understand how it could take the fun out of it. To me, becoming more profficient and successful is part of the fun. Similarly, while a flower is beautiful at a glance, learning about its innards just makes me appreciate it at a whole new level.

Plus, chess is a war game and I would be a very irresponsible general if I sent my men into battle without the proper training and a well-prepared strategy. Naturally, I will study past battles and incorporate the lessons from them instead of just boldly throwing myself and my men into the wind.

BTW: While Capablanca has the reputation of a natural, I think he studied chess more seriously than he let on. I've had kids in my AP classes that pretended they never studied and simply knew everything magically but then I saw the same kids in tutoring and studying in the library. It's often an act to make yourself look like some sort of genius. Everyone has to learn and the real difference is how much can be absorbed at a high level.

crowrevell wrote:

xoise wrote:

Do you study chess (openings, previous games, etc.)?  I'm still relatively new to chess and have never done anything but play and I don't think I would ever want to do anything more than that.  It seems like studying chess would take the fun out of the game.

What do you think?

It's your chess game, do with it what you want.

If you don't want to study chess games and strategies and know the differences between the 3-4 sicilian openings (or how ever many there are), then don't.

There are those who are very serious about their game and strive to be the best the possibly can be at it - and it suits them. Others simply enjoy the game as is, and their's nothing wrong with it.

I don't study nor do i plan on being a great chess player. I do tactics puzzles now and then or look up the lines on an opening, but that's because i want to.

Don't let anyone tell you how you should or shouldn't play the game. I mean, if you want to improve your game without studying, that would be one thing, but if you are enjoying the game as is, don't worry about it.

 Yup, I agree with this. 

It all depends what you want out of the game.  Take basketball players (or any sport, craft or art), there are people who just play.  But there are also people (not talking pros here) who absolutely burn inside to improve their game.  You can bet the farm that such people are out there working on their free throws, foot-work, dribbling, perimeter shots, three pointers the works.

If you want to be a real chess player your gonna need to do some study that's all there is to it.

Personally, of the types of study you mentioned, I believe studying ones own games is most important.

AquaMan wrote:

I enjoy studying as much as playing, maybe more.

Can relate to this comment.  After I was taught how to move the pieces (somewhere around 1995) I just played over master games for a long time before I began to play myself.  Still love playing over master games at least as much as playing.

Also, I just wanted to express, that I think I can relate to what you may be trying to say xoise.  After I started playing I had this thought that if i studied, particularly openings, that I would just be mimicking some other guys ideas and not really playing myself.  The game is way to flipping complex for you to worry about that, if indeed it was one.  You study, and believe me anybody else who is working to get good at this game is, and follow a prescribed line....it doesn't take long before your games (especially at the class level) take a turn and you and your opponents are walking your own road.

When you make your first steps to studying you soon realise how little you know. I used to look at other peoples games and see a few things about it, now I see a few more things, this means that everything is slightly more interesting.

Don't force yourself to study, I didn't, it just came to me one day, the desire to learn more in a organised manner, rather than stumbleing around in the dark by just playing games.