Success without study.
Sort:
Sep 22, 2007
0
#2
Studying doesn't make or break a player, it allows faser learning and a more solid knowledge of game mechanics, but most of the work is done in actual games. And beating a 1600-1800 player is quite relative, it's possible online or in an amical game, but in a tournament game, it would be quite a different matter. And I think a minimum of opening theory is almost a must, especially if you're talkin about playing faster gams, as when I get beaten up by stronger players usually it's in the opening they take an advantage when they go out of the theory that I know, which I think is an area I'm quite lacking.
I agree. You must know a lot about openings. So many games are lost in the opening. That has been my experience.
Yes, everyone need to study.
You will never know the rules of chess if you don't study, by just playing chess is a part of learning and developed your skills in playing, but NOT all information of chess is in the game itself.
On what age do you learn chess?
Who teached you at that age of playing chess?
This questions are based on your learning in chess and not on natural knowledge.
You study chess it is just you don't know it (I think you are not aware of that).
If you are NOT a serious chess player then you are just playing chess. Serious chess players like to undergo trainings to learn more about chess not just playing it but to able win any games. If you beat FIDE rating 1600 to 1800 it means you play average in chess and the highest rating ever achieve is 2800+. But if this rating is NOT based on FIDE or Strong Clubs, we can say that he/she just like playing chess and don't want to be serious.
And in "Online Rating" is different in FIDE Rating. Even you are first time in Online chess and winning the challenge it is possible to achieve 1800 rating.
Hope this can help you to understand the difference between studying chess and NOT studying.
I think it is a combination of both actual games and study that improves your game. To give a life example, suppose someone has a degree in engineering usually that will help them achieve a position with a company. But I am sure a lot of the "Hands On Application" everyday applying the degree gives them confidence and increases their creditability with their peers. Also I am sure that as they prove their ability they will earn the right to higher level of authority and accountability.
JediMaster wrote:I think it is a combination of both actual games and study that improves your game. To give a life example, suppose someone has a degree in engineering usually that will help them achieve a position with a company. But I am sure a lot of the "Hands On Application" everyday applying the degree gives them confidence and increases their creditability with their peers. Also I am sure that as they prove their ability they will earn the right to higher level of authority and accountability.
Bingo! I was about to respond to the original poster until I saw your excellent analogy. Personally, I don't think one can become any better than a 1200-1300 player (MAYBE 1400, but that's pushing it) without studying.
...which brings to mind a person I regularly play against over the board. It's ridiculous because this person never studies, never plays long games (only blitz), never plays tournaments, and never listens to advice given by stronger players; yet this same person always asks why they keep losing game after game for 8 years.
Can someone lend this person some money to go buy a clue?
Well from my experience it seems to be more knowledge then experience as i have played people who have been playing chess for longer then i have been alive and i have beaten them alot and i have played players who have only been playing chess for a couple of years and got beaten by them..How else do u explain y computers are so good its not because of experience or just because they calculate so quicky its because they have a wealth of knowledge in which to use while calculating, and thats y a 14yrs old kid can become a GM and even beat a well seasoned GM.. But having said that we really need both if we are to become truly good players as knowlege with out applicating is useless alone for us humans as we need to practice what we learn in order for our brains to make use of what it has learned, like when u learned to drive a car, u learned the rules and fundementals and then practiced them so you could fully understand it. I have met 2 IM's and both knew their openings and over all game better then i did so they had that to use against me. I think u can become a 1600 player without a great deal of knowledge, but just through trial and error and by studying your mistakes but anything more then that would require a good foundation of knowledge especualy if u want to be a Master or Grandmaster but thats my view anyway..
I think whether one studies chess or not depends greatly on what goals we set ourselves in chess. A recreational player who only plays for fun and doesnt care much whether they win or lose certainly doesnt need to study. A player who wants to be a master will certainly have to study I believe. If you want to beat 1800 players with any consistency I think you will have to study some. Ofcourse, much depends on the natural "talent" of the player involved as well. Chess history shows great players who studied a lot and played little as well as those who played a lot and studied little. This is an interesting topic and I am sure we all have different opinions and even experiences.
Chess is like anything else, you will have a natural ability for it, anything else will be effort. Can you get better without doing any formal study, yes, just like you can learn to shoot a basketball by just doing it. The reason for study is to improve technique and to shorten the time and effort to get better. If you study, then you don't have to 'rediscover' chess. An example is a simple rook and king endgame. You could set up the pieces on the board, and work it out on your own until you might come across the answer, OR you could pick up a book or talk to a seasoned player, and have that information immediately available to you. So the real question is whether you want to get good fast, or if you want to explore the game by yourself, it's really up to you.
What is the general thought about someone who dosen't study the game, dosent know the corresponding opening variations i use with the correct terms, and who only plays online.
How good could one get?
To truly succeed at chess (in my humble opinion for me that would be beating a player 1600-1800 rating) do u have to study? Or is natural knowldge and gradual learning enough.