Will playing tons of games improve your chess?

I heard that Capablanca rarely studied and just playing hundreds of games. Do you think this could really help an "average" player get better?

Yes, but you should go over your games after you're done playing them and see where you messed up, better lines, positions etc.

I wish I had enough time to do this.

I don't think a player has to study from books/software to get to Master Level.

Lots of play vs. stronger competition certainly works.

In my opinion no. As an average player it is better to play a few games and study them afterwards. What is the point if you keep playing so many games and making the same mistakes over and over again ? Ofcourse you will improve a little by more experience, but it is better to understand/study the mistakes you made after every game.  Quality before quantity :D

A combination between studies and experience ought to be the best for the average player, imo. It would require a massive amount of games to compensate for the lack of studies, but if you play a lot then it would probably work.

I think that iluvburpees is right about Capablanca rarely studies and plays thousands of games. i would think his average would get better from being incredible.

I think you would need at least some form of instruction. Even national (or did you mean FIDE?) masters need to know a lot of opening variations, often quite a few moves deep. And you're probably not going to develop all of the openings yourself through trial and error, however extensive it may be.

When I say that a player doesn't have to study books/software to make master level (2200 USCF), I have in mind a talented player, not an average guy like me.

He can make master by just playing decent opposition as he climbs the ratings ladder, observing the post-mortems closely, studying his own and others' games closely, and just working hard.

I think you are overestimating the necessity of opening works to play a good opening. While they offer a radical shortcut to "proper" moves, my hard-working player has been sharpening his repertoire over the course of years. He has a good feel for his openings and probably can get a decent middlegame off a less than optimal opening, if he has made some innaccuracy.

While I'm not allowing for personal lessons, my guy can ask questions of his opponents and other good players hovering around the post-mortem. He can tweak his opening knowledge this way apart from any home brew efforts.

Unencountered endgame types may be a weakness.

So, no books and no software, no lessons, but study of his games and the bare scores of others, and the advice of good players along the way, master level is attainable for a talented player. I'm not talking about a genius but just someone with real good aptitude.

That's my opinion. I wonder how our local NMs, tonydal and Reb and Ozzie, would see this.  .

C.J.S. Purdy disagrees.

He claims that *every* top-level player, no matter whether or not he studied endgames, openings or strategy, has played through large numbers of Master games. Even Morphy did this.

You, as a player must decide how much or how little pleasure you want out of the game.  Having too many games will not guarantee a player much pleasure in the way of improvement in the game.  It is all subjective, in my opinion.  Every player is a pawn to the game.    Have fun playing and learning from your games! 

Re the need for deep opening training for masters: GM Julio Granda Zuniga was taking part in a tournament in the mid 1990s and as white he encountered 1.d4 d5; 2.c4 Nc6...and he went into a long think. Afterwards he said he had never seen this before. Even at the GM level a talented player was getting away with that kind of inattention to the openings.

So a NM? I have to say certainly, especially if he's a little gifted for the game.

 I'm not saying  my player isn't exposed to master games, just not books or software.

I see chess much like jazz improvisation, something I've devoted most of my life to.  There are perhaps as many patterns in jazz improvisation to memorize as there are patterns in chess in order to perform at a master level. I don't see how such a vast quantity of chess patterns can be memorized in some random way, like playing tons of games. It would take far too long. My guess is that a systematic approach is required to make the best use of time. With that said, I too feel like I should have played more gigs than practiced at home. Playing is the fuel which pushes one to a higher level. 

What percent of a master level chess game would you say comes from a players past experience, and what percent would you say is improvised? Well over half of what a jazz musician does is use existing patterns in his/her repertoire and re-orders them in real time.This re-ordering (move order in chess talk) creates what seems like infinite possibilities.

Isn't this what happens in chess, taking existing patterns from memory and with some improvisation/creativity, changing the move order as needed to win a piece, or the game? Computers do not think, nor do they improvise, as far as I understand computer science. A computer only performs flawless calculations, however, the calculation may not always be the best move. Am I correct in my understanding, or has something like Rybka evolved to the point of providing the perfect move, the perfect solution?

play a lot helps because we will learn to manage stress in an actual game.  There is that adrenalin rush- when we are about to win a game esp. against a better opponent ; there is also that cold sweat when on the verge of losing. Adopting fischer's approach to every game where he always strive for excellence whoever is the opponent.  Not just play but play with study, keeping track of the intended opening repertoire.

Playing really good players (at least several hundred points above you) helps a lot, but you need to know a few basics in order to understand and learn from the whuppings you get.

Of course, if you get the right opponent, they will tell you where you messed up and how to fix it next time.

BTW, thank you to all the wonderful people here who have helped those of us with lesser intelligence.

playing a lot of games is to make you study from your failures, is'nt it?

I played my first rated event in spring of 1973, losing every game. Living in rural Ga there was little opportunity to play rated chess for me so for at least the next 10 years I studied a LOT more than I played. I made NM in 1984 so I certainly am not a talented chess player ! I personally dont know a single titled player who got there through playing alone, some may exist but I think they are certainly the exceptions.

Who cares if some theoretical person can get to some theoretical level by only playing? Can't that person go further, faster, with some study? Is there any person who doesn't benefit from study? Is there any reason to not study? Except sheer laziness...

Study is one of the things you do when you want to get good at something, isn't it?

 Just playing a ton of games will make you a better chess player, the same as just reading a ton of medical books will make you a brain surgeon.

I play a lot of games and I don't get any better. I move too fast and I blunder a lot. I"m too tired of chess to go over my games and study a lot. I accept this because I just play for fun and like the action. If it's not my move in any games I will search the open seeks, so I keep adding more games. I am 54 and I don't think I would improve that much whatever I do. I wish I had had a quality teacher when I was a child, but there's nothing I can do about that. I have fun and I love chess.com for the opportunity to play lots of games against various rated opponents.