Thanks for the post KingsEye. The items from the question seem to be at 1A and 1b for you, sounds good.
As I mentioned on the previous page I've got the Chessmaster CD downloaded into my PC, at last. I've played a number of Games against my PC recently and it gives comments at the end of the Game which is helpful. Mind you I still have to read thru the 52 page booklet that comes with Chessmaster so that I can learn to use all of the features that come with it.
I think it depends a lot on your mood at the time, or at least on MY mood at the time.
Thanks for the post Nimzoroy. That is a very good point as one may not always feel like playing a serious Game of Chess. In my case I often like to work a bit with Crossword Puzzles while I'm having Breakfast ( & not yet wide awake and ready for Chess ).
Recently I obtained a copy of the December issue of " Chess Life " which contained a review of an newly released book. Judit Polgar has written a book entitled " How I Beat Fischer's Record " ( she became a GM at age 15 years & 4 months, about I month ahead of Fischer's age ). This is the first volume of a series to be called " Judit Polgar Teaches Chess " and sounds quite interesting.
I love them both, but I have to give the edge to playing. I just care about the positions a lot more when they are my positions. The intensity and uncertain nature of playing are what add a dramatic touch to what you do when you study chess. I think it's interesting to test what you know as compared to what you can actually execute when the time calls for it.
Ironically, I study more than I play.
Thanks for the post Elubas. I'm testing my Chessmater course to see if it is possible to teach an old dog new tricks ( Hmmm, I should put that line on my " Oldtimers " thread ).
Earlier today I spotted a new thread entitled " How to ( really ) get better at Chess, what they aren't telling you ". This seemed to be an interesting title so I read the posts in that thread and I found some good info on studying Chess etc ( quite a good thread, really ).
Believe it or not...."studying" is more effective. Especially for the beginning part of the game. All the other requirements just come naturally after playing alot of games.
Thanks for the post Orchard_littlejoe. I still like to play the most, mind you I should study more ( no doubts there ).
As anyone can see by checking my rating I mainly like to play ( & as a few People have pointed out to me lol ). However some folks love to study Chess including also the puzzles. But in my case all I can say is: let the Games begin ! ( & the fun also ).
Just a tiny little bump.
Well I feel rather sad for this neglected old thread that is about to fade away so I will leave a comment here: Yes I still like playing more than studying lol.
Honestly, I cant answer the question. I can't enjoy one without the other.If I couldnt study, I would go insane by losing the same ways, and if I only studied, I'd never see the benefits of my study. Honestly I guess I like playing more, but again, only because I was able to study.
---- Thanks for the new posts and for the good points.
As Hikaru once said no need to really study untill you hit 2000.
I like playing best, but if it is a choice between playing a comp or study Ill study all day.
JGambit: Thanks for the post and the info.
Today when I signed onto this site I saw an item that reminded me of this thread. There was an intro to a blog by IM Silman which stated that his 4,000 Chess books were squeezing him out of his home lol. This points out the fact that anyone trying to reach the level of a titled player ( ie: a CM and beyond ) has a steep uphill battle which involves endless hours of study and practice. Often we see threads here asking how long it will take a new player to become a GM. A little hint: a long long long time, assuming that the newbie even has the required talent.
Nothing is more exciting than learning.
I prefer to play. But I know I have to study to get better. It's a love/hate relationship
---Thanks for the new posts.