Some players are talented enough, or gifted enough in the right ways for chess, to do so. Capablanca, Reshevsky, Morphy...but you are missing the point anyway.
Will playing tons of games improve your chess?
Sort:
Oct 14, 2009
0
#43
If you want to improve your game it is important to play study and do exercises. I believe The Polkar family use that method.
I think the more games you play especially against stronger players is the best way to improve your game. I also think you should record most of your games and study them.
Books and multimedia are great study and learning tools you should play all you can OTB.
goldendog wrote:
JG27Pyth wrote:
Why though, why? -- I could hop to work on one foot, too... but I prefer using both legs, it's quicker. Why would someone ever want to try to improve in chess without studying at all. Anyone talented enough to get to 2200 without study -- could get to 2500 in the same amount of time with tenacious study -- and that's a conservative estimate. Getting to 2200 without study would make someone a prodigy... a real talent... there'd have to be some kind of story around why they hadn't gotten any coaching (and why they didn't care to read or learn about this game they had a special talent for -- so they're getting to 2200 but they don't like chess enough to study it? I'm growing more dubious by the minute...)
"Why" doesn't even figure into the ficticious proposal.
The question being probed is Can a player get to 2200 without books, software, and lessons?
"Should" also is irrelevant.
Goldendog: That's not the original question either, not at all... the original question is:
I heard that Capablanca rarely studied and just playing hundreds of games. Do you think this could really help an "average" player get better?
Your responses are as irrelevant the OPs question as mine.
*edit: strike that -- you do zero in on the OPs question eventually, ok... but you also weasel in a whole lot of study thru the back door by having your guy STUDY his own games! Our OP never suggested anything like that!*
Unless you think the average player can get to 2200 without any study beyond playing. Of course you've already said you don't think so. (You seem to think that it's merely a minor gift to get to 2200 just playing lots of games.) Let's stick to the OPs question and discuss the average player.
The average player in the USCF does not get close to 2200.The average USCF member never makes it to 1800, and the average player studies! If memory serves an 1800+ USCF used to put a player in top 2% of all USCF tournament players. And the average USCF member is already a much higher than average player if we include casual non-affiliated players in our definition of average. (Is there a way to find the average peak rating of USCF members? I'd be interested to know what that number is.)
So, how good does the average player get who only plays LOTS of games. Maybe 1500. Maybe. (Frankly I think that's a generous over-estimation of our average player.)
But that doesn't actually address the original question either -- which is simply "Does playing lots of games help the average player get better?" The answer is: sure of course it does, it helps lots more than NOT playing or studying chess at all (no one gets better that way). As long as that average player is content with very slowly getting to his/her peak of 1350-1650 all they need to do is play lots of games... IMO (and please define average if you disagree) if they want to go further they'll need to study quite a bit.
here are two players:
This player has played 6960 games since may 08 -- Here's his rating profile:
I'm guessing that he doesn't study a lot because he's too busy playing -- I could be wrong...
Player #2 has played 48 games played since March 08. Player #2 studies chess very diligently.
Obviously there's no proof to be drawn from a sample group of two individuals -- but I present these charts because I do believe this is what just-playing-games vs studying hard looks like.
And anyway, my original question is relevant to the topic of improvement, in general: Why the hell would someone NOT study chess but play lots of games if they had any real interest in improving?
JG27Pyth wrote:
Goldenrod: That's not the original question either, not at all... the original question is:
I heard that Capablanca rarely studied and just playing hundreds of games. Do you think this could really help an "average" player get better?
Your responses are as irrelevant the OPs question as mine.
You're not reading all of what I've written in this thread. Admittedly I could have been much more lucid in expressing my thoughts from the beginning, but I have distilled in a later post what would have been a clearer response to the OP too.
*edit: strike that -- you do zero in on the OPs question eventually, ok... but you also weasel in a whole lot of study thru the back door by having your guy STUDY his own games! Our OP never suggested anything like that!*
You'd have to ask the OP what he meant by studying. I assumed he meant hitting books and the like, and was not excluding looking over one's own games. My take on Capa's unbooked mastery has always been that he didn't learn from any treatise but that he looked at the games of others, so I took the OP's meaning as the same.
So, no. I didn't weasel anything in, as you said I did.
Unless you think the average player can get to 2200 without any study beyond playing. Of course you've already said you don't think so. (You seem to think that it's merely a minor gift to get to 2200 just playing lots of games.) Let's stick to the OPs question and discuss the average player.
No, I don't think it is a minor gift to get to 2200 and neither is it a feat of magic. Some talent and hard work over time can do it. I've been asking our NMs to step in on this and I think they'd agree with my sentiment above. If they don't agree I'll humbly defer to them.
The average player in the USCF does not get close to 2200.The average USCF member never makes it to 1800, and the average player studies! If memory serves an 1800+ USCF used to put a player in top 2% of all USCF tournament players. And the average USCF member is already a much higher than average player if we include casual non-affiliated players in our definition of average. (Is there a way to find the average peak rating of USCF members? I'd be interested to know what that number is.)
When I spoke of the average player I meant the average serious player, a tournament player, and I was thinking of an adult. In the 1970s the number issued as a mathematical average was about 1550. Nowadays there are so many scholastic players that the average rating is much lower than that, about 1000 from a recent post in these forums that cited a source.
So, how good does the average player get who only plays LOTS of games. Maybe 1500. Maybe. (Frankly I think that's a generous over-estimation of our average player.)
But that doesn't actually address the original question either -- which is simply "Does playing lots of games help the average player get better?" The answer is: sure of course it does, it helps lots more than NOT playing or studying chess at all (no one gets better that way). As long as that average player is content with very slowly getting to his/her peak of 1350-1650 all they need to do is play lots of games... IMO (and please define average if you disagree) if they want to go further they'll need to study quite a bit.
Okay I agree. Our average player will improve with lots of serious play. My word here: Serious. Long games, timed, with competitive opponents. Years and years of bullet and nothing else--I'm not sure what that would be doing, but that's not what I mean by "playing lots of games," just to be clear.
That study plus play is a superior way to improve, I never denied, but that's not the point. It's whether play minus study can improve. I said yes. If we really handicap the player by saying he can never review his own games he still will improve some, but not as much and more slowly, i.e. to a lower peak where he stalls.
here are two players:
This player has played 6960 games since may 08 -- Here's his rating profile:
I'm guessing that he doesn't study a lot because he's too busy playing -- I could be wrong...
Player #2 has played 48 games played since March 08. Player #2 studies chess very diligently.
Obviously there's no proof to be drawn from a sample group of two individuals -- but I present these charts because I do believe this is what just-playing-games vs studying hard looks like.
You said it best that drawing this sample proves nothing. I could pluck a player that learned the game at age 10 who never got to 1400 and then pick another who learned at 21 who got to 2200 and declare that learning the game late is better than early, but nothing has been proved.
And anyway, my original question is relevant to the topic of improvement, in general: Why the hell would someone NOT study chess but play lots of games if they had any real interest in improving?
Your question is fair enough but it had nothing to do with my ficticious case which I presumed you were addressing. As for who would play but not study yet be interested in improving? It would take an off-beat psychology I suppose. Some street hustlers are that way, if that makes a difference to the argument.
I'll have to come back with an edit if I've left anything important out.
DEFINETLY YES,ESP IF U PLAY WIT STRONG PPLE
goldendog wrote:
JG27Pyth wrote:
Why though, why? -- I could hop to work on one foot, too... but I prefer using both legs, it's quicker. Why would someone ever want to try to improve in chess without studying at all. Anyone talented enough to get to 2200 without study -- could get to 2500 in the same amount of time with tenacious study -- and that's a conservative estimate. Getting to 2200 without study would make someone a prodigy... a real talent... there'd have to be some kind of story around why they hadn't gotten any coaching (and why they didn't care to read or learn about this game they had a special talent for -- so they're getting to 2200 but they don't like chess enough to study it? I'm growing more dubious by the minute...)
"Why" doesn't even figure into the ficticious proposal.
The question being probed is Can a player get to 2200 without books, software, and lessons?
"Should" also is irrelevant.
I suppose, if your're a prodigy, but it's not recomended! You could become a GM if you were that good.
JG27Pyth wrote:
goldendog wrote:
JG27Pyth wrote:
Why though, why? -- I could hop to work on one foot, too... but I prefer using both legs, it's quicker. Why would someone ever want to try to improve in chess without studying at all. Anyone talented enough to get to 2200 without study -- could get to 2500 in the same amount of time with tenacious study -- and that's a conservative estimate. Getting to 2200 without study would make someone a prodigy... a real talent... there'd have to be some kind of story around why they hadn't gotten any coaching (and why they didn't care to read or learn about this game they had a special talent for -- so they're getting to 2200 but they don't like chess enough to study it? I'm growing more dubious by the minute...)
"Why" doesn't even figure into the ficticious proposal.
The question being probed is Can a player get to 2200 without books, software, and lessons?
"Should" also is irrelevant.
Goldendog: That's not the original question either, not at all... the original question is:
I heard that Capablanca rarely studied and just playing hundreds of games. Do you think this could really help an "average" player get better?
Your responses are as irrelevant the OPs question as mine.
*edit: strike that -- you do zero in on the OPs question eventually, ok... but you also weasel in a whole lot of study thru the back door by having your guy STUDY his own games! Our OP never suggested anything like that!*
Unless you think the average player can get to 2200 without any study beyond playing. Of course you've already said you don't think so. (You seem to think that it's merely a minor gift to get to 2200 just playing lots of games.) Let's stick to the OPs question and discuss the average player.
The average player in the USCF does not get close to 2200.The average USCF member never makes it to 1800, and the average player studies! If memory serves an 1800+ USCF used to put a player in top 2% of all USCF tournament players. And the average USCF member is already a much higher than average player if we include casual non-affiliated players in our definition of average. (Is there a way to find the average peak rating of USCF members? I'd be interested to know what that number is.)
So, how good does the average player get who only plays LOTS of games. Maybe 1500. Maybe. (Frankly I think that's a generous over-estimation of our average player.)
But that doesn't actually address the original question either -- which is simply "Does playing lots of games help the average player get better?" The answer is: sure of course it does, it helps lots more than NOT playing or studying chess at all (no one gets better that way). As long as that average player is content with very slowly getting to his/her peak of 1350-1650 all they need to do is play lots of games... IMO (and please define average if you disagree) if they want to go further they'll need to study quite a bit.
here are two players:
This player has played 6960 games since may 08 -- Here's his rating profile:
I'm guessing that he doesn't study a lot because he's too busy playing -- I could be wrong...
Player #2 has played 48 games played since March 08. Player #2 studies chess very diligently.
Obviously there's no proof to be drawn from a sample group of two individuals -- but I present these charts because I do believe this is what just-playing-games vs studying hard looks like.
And anyway, my original question is relevant to the topic of improvement, in general: Why the hell would someone NOT study chess but play lots of games if they had any real interest in improving?
I'm going to have to agree with JG27Pyth. Why not do both? And I've seen many other people on chess.com who have thousands of games but still have a low rating and are not really improving, because the quality of the games is low probably and they're not learning either anything from their games, or new concepts that are very useful you get from books.
Elubas wrote:
J
And anyway, my original question is relevant to the topic of improvement, in general: Why the hell would someone NOT study chess but play lots of games if they had any real interest in improving?
I'm going to have to agree with JG27Pyth. Why not do both? And I've seen many other people on chess.com who have thousands of games but still have a low rating and are not really improving, because the quality of the games is low probably and they're not learning either anything from their games, or new concepts that are very useful you get from books.
I think everyone in the thread agrees here?
goldendog wrote:
Elubas wrote:
J
And anyway, my original question is relevant to the topic of improvement, in general: Why the hell would someone NOT study chess but play lots of games if they had any real interest in improving?
I'm going to have to agree with JG27Pyth. Why not do both? And I've seen many other people on chess.com who have thousands of games but still have a low rating and are not really improving, because the quality of the games is low probably and they're not learning either anything from their games, or new concepts that are very useful you get from books.
I think everyone in the thread agrees here?
Yes.
Ahem... Goldendog isn't saying that it's better, or preferable to play a lot of games without any study from books (he's allotting his player study in a sense, since post mortem analysis etc are a form of study). He's just saying that it's possible for a more talented than average chess player to become a 2200 USCF player simply by playing lots and lots of games against master level of stronger players.
Elubas wrote:
JG27Pyth wrote:
goldendog wrote:
JG27Pyth wrote:
Why though, why? -- I could hop to work on one foot, too... but I prefer using both legs, it's quicker. Why would someone ever want to try to improve in chess without studying at all. Anyone talented enough to get to 2200 without study -- could get to 2500 in the same amount of time with tenacious study -- and that's a conservative estimate. Getting to 2200 without study would make someone a prodigy... a real talent... there'd have to be some kind of story around why they hadn't gotten any coaching (and why they didn't care to read or learn about this game they had a special talent for -- so they're getting to 2200 but they don't like chess enough to study it? I'm growing more dubious by the minute...)
"Why" doesn't even figure into the ficticious proposal.
The question being probed is Can a player get to 2200 without books, software, and lessons?
"Should" also is irrelevant.
Goldendog: That's not the original question either, not at all... the original question is:
I heard that Capablanca rarely studied and just playing hundreds of games. Do you think this could really help an "average" player get better?
Your responses are as irrelevant the OPs question as mine.
*edit: strike that -- you do zero in on the OPs question eventually, ok... but you also weasel in a whole lot of study thru the back door by having your guy STUDY his own games! Our OP never suggested anything like that!*
Unless you think the average player can get to 2200 without any study beyond playing. Of course you've already said you don't think so. (You seem to think that it's merely a minor gift to get to 2200 just playing lots of games.) Let's stick to the OPs question and discuss the average player.
The average player in the USCF does not get close to 2200.The average USCF member never makes it to 1800, and the average player studies! If memory serves an 1800+ USCF used to put a player in top 2% of all USCF tournament players. And the average USCF member is already a much higher than average player if we include casual non-affiliated players in our definition of average. (Is there a way to find the average peak rating of USCF members? I'd be interested to know what that number is.)
So, how good does the average player get who only plays LOTS of games. Maybe 1500. Maybe. (Frankly I think that's a generous over-estimation of our average player.)
But that doesn't actually address the original question either -- which is simply "Does playing lots of games help the average player get better?" The answer is: sure of course it does, it helps lots more than NOT playing or studying chess at all (no one gets better that way). As long as that average player is content with very slowly getting to his/her peak of 1350-1650 all they need to do is play lots of games... IMO (and please define average if you disagree) if they want to go further they'll need to study quite a bit.
here are two players:
This player has played 6960 games since may 08 -- Here's his rating profile:
I'm guessing that he doesn't study a lot because he's too busy playing -- I could be wrong...
Player #2 has played 48 games played since March 08. Player #2 studies chess very diligently.
Obviously there's no proof to be drawn from a sample group of two individuals -- but I present these charts because I do believe this is what just-playing-games vs studying hard looks like.
And anyway, my original question is relevant to the topic of improvement, in general: Why the hell would someone NOT study chess but play lots of games if they had any real interest in improving?
I'm going to have to agree with JG27Pyth. Why not do both? And I've seen many other people on chess.com who have thousands of games but still have a low rating and are not really improving, because the quality of the games is low probably and they're not learning either anything from their games, or new concepts that are very useful you get from books.
Elubas you must be talking about quick games, or blitz games. I have yet to see a long player (and I'm talking live chess or OTB. CC is just too ridiculous to mention) who had completed over 1000 games without a rating of at least 1600. Also you should note that most of these games (if they were played on live chess) were likely not very serious or meaningful. 1000 rated OTB games would probably carry a lot more weight.
I'm sure some exist, but it's far from the norm.
Anyway I'm tired and babbling and you should see all the red squiggly lines on my page, so if I'm saying something stupid or inane I'll correct it tomorrow.
AnthonyCG wrote:
Not to mention that long games are usually a maximum of 15 minutes.
True enough. Rated OTB tournament games are rarely going to be as quick as 15 minutes.
Perhaps it was blitz games and cc games I was seeing. But playing 1000 long games is not that easy to do compared to playing 1000 blitz games. I have played about half that (about 50 in real tournaments, 450 in live) and I'm nearing more around 1700. And I get my wins from study, not from tactical attacks usually; it was more like my understanding of chess that I learned where I DIDN'T make a serious tactical error or actually played as I read. I had a phase where I thought master chess was easy after reading some silman books but when I actually played I didn't put it to good use. I think I've used play experience to convert what I know from studying to how I actually play to some extent.
But it was all based on study. It would be difficult to learn everything you need to know about positional chess by yourself, I mean it took the greatest players years to understand classical chess strategy and now there's modern strategy. You do develop instinct and experience though. But Kupov, how do you know people who played 1000 games didn't do any studying?
In my opinion study>playing if you want to improve. You should have the knowledge first before you test it. But you do need both, well ok, you really should have both. Or maybe people just get away with only knowing tactics, I dunno. We all improve differently.
Oct 15, 2009
0
#57
Do what you enjoy. If you enjoy playing and not studying then do so.
"Study" only if you find something interesting.
This is the only way for happiness in chess. Those who study openings like their life depended on it are not really enjoying chess or life.
With this forumula you will (if you really do like chess) end up playing a lot, analyzing your mistakes, and learn new things in your own time without feeling you are doing "work". Its supposed to be fun not a chore.
zxzyz wrote:
This is the only way for happiness in chess. Those who study openings like their life depended on it are not really enjoying chess or life.
I disagree. Opening study is one of my favorite things to do in chess, for both fun, and analysis training. Of course the studying is not pure memorization.
For example, every line of the KID is so intricate: There can be mutual wing attacks, there can be maneouvering but at the same time both player is trying to get the center clarified in their favor (black to play ...exd4 and white to play d5, giving black kingside counterchances). The french has themes that you may not be able to learn in any other opening because there is so much emphasis on pawn chains and maneouvers, though it can become open.
Elubas wrote:
Perhaps it was blitz games and cc games I was seeing. But playing 1000 long games is not that easy to do compared to playing 1000 blitz games. I have played about half that (about 50 in real tournaments, 450 in live) and I'm nearing more around 1700. And I get my wins from study, not from tactical attacks usually; it was more like my understanding of chess that I learned where I DIDN'T make a serious tactical error or actually played as I read. I had a phase where I thought master chess was easy after reading some silman books but when I actually played I didn't put it to good use. I think I've used play experience to convert what I know from studying to how I actually play to some extent.
But it was all based on study. It would be difficult to learn everything you need to know about positional chess by yourself, I mean it took the greatest players years to understand classical chess strategy and now there's modern strategy. You do develop instinct and experience though. But Kupov, how do you know people who played 1000 games didn't do any studying?
In my opinion study>playing if you want to improve. You should have the knowledge first before you test it. But you do need both, well ok, you really should have both. Or maybe people just get away with only knowing tactics, I dunno. We all improve differently.
We're probably at similar levels of chess ability when it comes to sitting down and playing out a game (though you're very far above me in CC), and I totally agree with you.
My main personal (I agree that it works for other people) problem with study is applying what I learn directly after I learn it. I tend to try and incorporate the strategic ideas that I just read about into a position where they are totally uncalled for. But I do find that,with study, ideas stores up in your subconscious and they are hammered into your brain with experience (which I don't have much of yet). I'm also veeeery lazy and tend not to do things which I don't derive much enjoyment out of, studying chess is (sadly) one of these things.
Also (and this is all theory) I think that study pays dividends later on in your chess career. From what I understand talented players can achieve ratings of 1900-2200 while still playing (strategically that is) quite shoddy chess. This is likely because while playing scores and scores of games they developed their own notions of what works, and how to play (you see this theory in action quite frequently at low levels. Beginners will play for scholars mates and quick queen attacks all the time until it's refuted by stronger players and they adapt to a new system of strategy). Since these players are tactically strong and their strategies do work (they simply don't hold up to the scrutiny of IM or GM analysis) they manage to keep winning games and improving their elo ratings. It's easy to win while playing based on your own set of chess rules (players below 1400 do this almost exclusively) and sometimes these rules can be strong enough to carry a talented player to master level, but likely not any farther. Whereas with a firm foundation of understanding chess concepts derived by much study AND experience, a talented player can ascend to Grand Master level and beyond.
Why though, why? -- I could hop to work on one foot, too... but I prefer using both legs, it's quicker. Why would someone ever want to try to improve in chess without studying at all. Anyone talented enough to get to 2200 without study -- could get to 2500 in the same amount of time with tenacious study -- and that's a conservative estimate. Getting to 2200 without study would make someone a prodigy... a real talent... there'd have to be some kind of story around why they hadn't gotten any coaching (and why they didn't care to read or learn about this game they had a special talent for -- so they're getting to 2200 but they don't like chess enough to study it? I'm growing more dubious by the minute...)
"Why" doesn't even figure into the ficticious proposal.
The question being probed is Can a player get to 2200 without books, software, and lessons?
"Should" also is irrelevant.
I might be wrong but so far I never seen nor heard anyone who is able to do so. If someone were to make such a claim I don't believe them. More likely they are boastful.