Originally posted by MoneyMaker7Do you work in publishing or something?
That is the most noobish post I've ever seen.
No one is saying that you can't improve by reading a chess book, but they are not the only way to learn and for that matter be quite good at the game. If you're aiming at Grandmasterdom then you might need extra help, but many players get quite good at the game just from playing it. It's possible to intuit ideas like space and realize that a square which cannot be attacked by an opponent's pawn is a good place to put one of your pieces. I really don't think you need a book to tell you that an open file is a good place for your rooks. People who play at a club will get advice about things like moving the same piece multiple times in the opening and so on. The exception to all this is the endgame where there are a number of technical positions that aren't obvious, but I've played 1,200 odd games on this site and only seen the Lucena position once. I don't think that someone's necessarily missing out if they've never heard of it.
The single thing that is most important to playing strength is calculation, the reason that Grandmasters are so strong is that they calculate lines accurately and more deeply, I really don't think that calculation can be learnt from a book.
You can reach a high level or performance without books, but you cant any higher from there, personally, I have a strong CFC rating of 2000, but i have never read a book, but then again, i have studied online a lot, played thousands of games, sat down with many masters and discusses openings, and not to mention ive read several magazines, downloaded games online, and printed them off in order to play out the games strongly over the board. Its all how you want to learn, but I can tell you, and just like for myself, i have a peak on the level i can play until i finally do get the time ability to go out and get a strong chess book to study. So, are books needed, no, if you dont want to go above your peak level, and yes, if your want to push to a master level. I know of some strong CFC players that were 1900 until they started studying books, and now are almost 2300.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSome people never learn. Bob, an old man at the Dallas Chess Club, is very proud of having never read a chess book in his life. He's very disdainful of them and thinks there's nothing to be learned from them. Anyway, Bob plays every game in the same anti-positional style with the same predictable bad Knight sacrifice on g4 or g5 to open the Rook file. When I was a neophyte and before I had ever read any chess books, he used to give me fits. Someone told me there were books about chess out there and they opened up another world to me. After digesting the theories of Steinitz, gleaned from Euwe's "The Development of Chess Style," I was able to stave off Bob's clumsy attacks. Then, after I plowed through Nimzovich's "My System," and "Chess Praxis," I learned the power of the "outpost" and why it's important to saddle your opponent with "weak squares." I was getting tougher and winning my share of the games. After reading Tarrasch's "300 Games," I became familiar with the idea of "applying pressure and crushing him like a python." Then our games would usually end up with Bob having the bad Bishop behind a phalanx of his own pawns or his Knights driven to the side of the board with him wondering how he got into such a bad position. It was too easy, and now I don't play Bob anymore because there's no challenge. But whenever I visit the club, I see Bob playing the youngsters and he still gets that special gleam in his eye whenever he plops his Knight incorrectly on g4 or g5.
Do you work in publishing or something?
No one is saying that you can't improve by reading a chess book, but they are not the only way to learn and for that matter be quite good at the game. If you're aiming at Grandmasterdom then you might need extra help, but many players get quite good at the game just from playing it. It's possible to intuit ide ...[text shortened]... ely and more deeply, I really don't think that calculation can be learnt from a book.
Well, what I've gleaned from evryone's advice is this: some people get very good at chess, but usually only after playing thousands of games, some people play and plataue out at a certian level, and some people never get good at chess. I think if I want to see reel improvement, I need to read a few of the above mentioned books, and start playing people rated higher than me.
thanks everyone😀
Originally posted by duecerWhile it is definitely possible to become a strong chess player without reading a chess book, chess books can definitely teach, organize, explain, and reinforce ideas in chess quickly and efficiently.
Is there antone out there who has become a decent player without reading a book?
In my opinion, it all depends on what concepts are covered in the given book. Opening books with dozens of lines and variations without the concepts and strategies behind those moves are near worthless, while books teaching tactics (or even books simply containing tactics puzzles) are defintely worthwhile.
- Joined
- 19 Jun 07
- Moves
- 4825
well, if it's worth anything to anyone, i think the dilemma of books or no books is too black and white(ha). most books i've read are drudgery... and ya know what?
chess is a game. so have some fun. there are books out there that explain in terms of concepts rather than focusing on studying games. learning the reasons behind the moves will take you further anyway.
some great books have been mentioned in this thread. i'd just like to mention 'how to play the chess openings' by znosko-borovsky which is the book on opening theory i always wanted from the time i started playing but it took me a decade to come across it.
as far as getting to the point where you're memorizing lines because there's not enough time to calculate... i believe that's true. how sad.
One problem with chess books is you buy a few with the intention to really get serious, then find out it's a pain and let them collect dust. Books that combine theory and chess culture/history/trivia are a good way to go.
The Oxford Companion To Chess is a good book to amuse you and has a wealth of information.
- Joined
- 19 Jun 07
- Moves
- 4825
actually, that reminds me... i dunno if it's in print anymore, but 'play better chess' by leonard barden is just like that. it's got a little bit of everything including some history and it's very readable, too.
to be perfectly honest i loved that book so much, when i couldn't find it anywhere else i stole it from the library.
chess is a gateway-
Originally posted by duecerI can't join the argument about the effectiveness of chess books because ive never read one! Simply playing chess got me up to 1696 on this site.
After reading numerous blogs and threads, I see some people are convinced that the only way to become a good p[layer is by reading books, and memorizing the opening moves of grand masters.
Is there antone out there who has become a decent player without reading a book? I've never read one, and I flirt with round with a 1300 rating (not decent).
Im improving just fine by playing better players on this site but im sure books are also a good way of learning.
The only common denominator i can see for the development of a mediocre chessplayer into a really good one is the ability to play thousands and thousands of games with a variety of strong opponents, adjusting your play as you go. Some players don't play enough, some don't adjust, but the really good ones do both. Oh, one more thing, the really good ones hate, hate, hate to lose. They smile, congratulate their opponent, but in the back of their minds they are asking the question, why? why?