My friend and I were having a fairly animated discussion about this the other day. I thought some of you might be interested in sharing your 2 cents.
Is the vast avaliability of chess theory books, and websites, good for the game or not?
I have read my share of theory books over the years and find them to be very helpful. Indeed, they made me a much stronger player in just a matter of weeks. However, I see something far more pure (maybe even more sporting) when two opponents go head to head with only the knowledge of how the pieces move, rather than knowledge of how masters (former and present) think they move best.
I would certainly not go so far as to say that studying is cheating, but it may be bad for the game. Let's face it, you are not going to win many games on RHP without having done at least some study, or sepnt the last 10 years losing and learning. The benefits of study are obvious: 1. The level of play both personally and wordwide is elevated. 2. You can become competitive much more quickly (skip years upon years of losing). 3. Since people can become better faster it gives them more time to conjure up new strategies and techniques, which they can write down to the benefit of us all.
The negatives are much more subtle, but compelling (to me) none the less. 1. Loss of purity. When I was a young man my grandfather and I played chess endlessly, he taught me the game. Neither one of us had ever so much as leafed through a chess theory book, and we played really bad chess!🙄 However, that really bad chess was ALL ours. When I sat down across the board from him I knew I did not have to beat an opening Kasparov thought of...I only had to beat the opening Grandpa though of. It was a TRUE battle of wits. 2. Loss of beginners. I have no data to back this up whatsoever. However, it stands to reason that when you finally get a beginner to understand how the pieces move...handing them half a dozen theory books (at minimum) and telling them Read these or you will never be any good is a bit discouraging.
Standing on the backs of brilliant people when pursuing science or philosophy etc. is a good thing, indeed we would never get anywhere if we refused to. Is it really necessary or even wise to do so in our entertainment? Are we better off learning this game from start to finish or taking shortcuts? What is better for the game itself?
I hope this is interesting to someone other than me! 😲
TheSkipper
Let me put it simply: It depends on your purpose of playing chess. If it's just for fun, then go ahead - do anything that makes you happy - whether to read the books or not. But if your purpose is reach master level, then you don't need to reinvent the wheel so you would need to review the books in order to build up on your theory (normally the progression is tactics, strategy, theory). Otherwise, if you're just going to thread it without any organization (i.e., just playing) then your progress would be very slow (or even stop before reaching your goal).
I think you're oversetimating the vaklue of book leranin' for the average player. I've said it before, I'll say it again.. Chess is hard. Have you ever played _really_ good players? I've played a couple of GMs, and lots of masters.... they ripped me apart, pretty much. I've had as much access to books as they do- must be something else going on.
Now computers... that's a different issue.
I've had a similair discussion with a friend of mine. My position is that there is nothing wrong as such with reading up and studying, but I prefer the purity you refer to. I don't play good chess and I could certainly improve by reading and studying others games. But the way I see it, that would be me playing their games, not my own. Kind of like being good at art by tracing the Mona Lisa
Originally posted by mitiegeFor average players (<1800), it's tactics, tactics, tactics. The original question was about theory books and the like. It's a bit worthless for an average player to study theories if he/she can't see pins, forks, and the like (and I'm not just talking about those puzzles that are 1-move).
I think you're oversetimating the vaklue of book leranin' for the average player. I've said it before, I'll say it again.. Chess is hard. Have you ever played _really_ good players? I've played a couple of GMs, and lots of masters.... they ripped me apart, pretty much. I've had as much access to books as they do- must be something else going on.
Now computers... that's a different issue.
I think you bring up an interesting point. There is a guy in our club that does not look at books and he can be very frustrating to play because he doesn't make the expected "book move" or apply "book strategy". What he does have is HIS PLAN and you can end up in a bad position or lose against him if you are not careful. I'm convinced this will make him a good player becasue he reasons everything out to make sense to HIM. On the other hand I am a book nut and my real enjoyment comes from getting better. It is like an athlete that trains hard and then has a good performance. By reading and studying you are just working out in a sense. Some may find this work but to me the theory and strategies are what makes chess so fascinating to me. I love to see how the masters think so I can change how I "see" the board better. I have a long way to go. I am also very competitive and if books will help me to win then I'm looking at books. I do understand where you are coming from though and I think it is an intersting idea. I think chess would quit being fun when you had to constantly prepare grandmaster level openings for different opponents and research what people play and look for minute advantages and keeping up with what so and so played at the last tournament. I don't think I will ever have to worry about that though. My goal is just to constantly improve and learn from my mistakes.
Originally posted by eomerThats cutting it a little harsh in my opinion, I'm a puny 1350 at the moment, never really read much on the subject (I own 1 rather basic chess book) but I like to think I'm not all "tactics tactics tactics". I make moves based on long term startergy, moves that are based on long term positional play rather than imediate results. I have an understanding of the basic whole game theories and apply these to my games.
For average players (<1800), it's tactics, tactics, tactics.
I feel I can gain alot from a more formal study of the game (which I'm begining to do vaguely), I think most players over 1200 on this site will have some grasp of more than just "tactics tactics tactics"
Originally posted by SimonmSorry if I was not clear but I meant is that most beginners need to improve on tactics. I've seen games lost due to poor calculation (i.e., the strategy was there but was not able to follow through with the plan). This can be seen in the games in RHP where most games I've seen do not even reach the 'endgame'.
Thats cutting it a little harsh in my opinion, I'm a puny 1350 at the moment, never really read much on the subject (I own 1 rather basic chess book) but I like to think I'm not all "tactics tactics tactics". I make moves based on long term startergy, moves that are based on long term positional play rather than imediate results. I have an understanding ...[text shortened]... layers over 1200 on this site will have some grasp of more than just "tactics tactics tactics"