For the vast majority, learning anything is hard.
Why chess is so hard to study
Sort:
@TheGreatOogieBoogie - Steinitz didn't do away with emotion-based chess. Fischer and Kasparov were both emotional and imaginative players. The logical, scientific approach can make for a solid foundation, but too much of it can just as easily close the door to further improvement.
Take a look at Steinitz, Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, and Reti, and what do they have in common? Not one of them was a match for Lasker! Revealing one's logic is a weakness unto itself, when faced with a truly crafty opponent, as they will always find a valid counterpoint.
Emotion in chess is alive and well, it's just not resorted to nearly enough. In the 2018 Candidates, Kramnik's brilliant round 3 win over Aronian with the black pieces is a great recent example.
better means better than other people ,they do the same thing too
no
Dec 28, 2023
0
#26
I do a comparison (maybe not so relevant but whatever) with chess and English language (it doesn't matter what language is, I just take English because here it rather speaks English). In the United States normaly there is a very cultured intellectual population but to make it more meaningful I focus on the most stup*d and ignorant population because they can also speak English.
a : The English language can also be studied through grammar etc. and it can be so hard to study but Jean-Devos (my fictional carricature of the most stup*d and ignorant american elite) doesn't know grammar etc. and this doesn't prevent him from knowing how to speak English.
b : In Chess we have Deep Blue i.e a no brain that normaly has some minimum data and this bot is stronger than many humans studying chess. We also have players who doesn't really study chess and who manages to produce better performance than some players studying chess.
c : IMO the difficulty is that it works rather thanks to intensive practice then (like many other games) practicing against players who are too weak or too strong doesn't really allow us to progress.
Languages are not perfect communication tools and I can say chess doesn't have a study learning based on empirical science which means that if we are too perfectionist or rigid, it can create difficulty in succeeding.
Dec 28, 2023
0
#27
Chess was hard to study 11years ago. Now each and every information is at your finger tips with the help of the internet. Most of them are even free.
Milos-Paunovic wrote:
Well i look at chess as a life long dedication,i started playing a year ago and i'm aleready the best player in my school,play tournaments with my chess club,and keep climbing up the ladder.my rating here suck's because i barely play here and when i do im tired or not focused.Anyway in my opinion you should try finding someone older and more expirienced to teach you some things.that's how i got a lot better in a small window of time.the other thing you need is expirience,more games to play,there are people i played with that don't know basic theory or anything but still keep beating me.Good luck to you.
p.s as for the "things yo unever studied for" That's the beauty of chess.it's diversity.The limitless number of variations.
I disagree, playing more does not make you better hardly at all that's not how you get good from what I've seen. Even myself personally dropped from 1400 to 1200 and I've been playing a lot more than I usually do. I am actually getting worse and I am also studying chess. Maybe I am just stupid or perhaps playing more just isn't the answer.
That's your problem Meshneiarin. Willhelm Steinitz did away with emotion based Chess where one saught after a big move finish for its own sake, even if the position didn't call for it. Even Morphy wasn't immune sometimes. Starting with Steinitz Chess had a logical, scientific approach. The torch was then carried by Tarrasch, Reti, Nimzowitsch, Lipnitsky, Botvinnik, and currently Watson (advances since Nimzowitsch), Dvoretsky, and Aagard are carrying the torch improving upon prior theoreticians.
True, and that has always remained my modus operandi in theory, as well. But science itself is not an emotionless field, despite the claims (think the discovery of Radium, or the Higgs-Boson). The fact that even the Grandmasters who advocated that scientific approach occasionally blundered supports that chess has an inherent emotional component to it. Case in point: after Vishy Anand lost the World Chess Championship against Carlsen last year, he taked about Carlsen "getting under his skin," and that a good player will force you to react to his style of play. I think about his game 9 blunder and commiserate: to me, that couldn't have been solely scientific miscalculation. :)