Do I really need chess books?

Wrong they don't HATE HATE HATE to lose. If you really hated losing the you wouldn't play chess.

What you meant I think was while they are playing they give it their all to win or draw, much more than we try at the chessboard.

Originally posted by MoneyMaker7
Wrong they don't HATE HATE HATE to lose. If you really hated losing the you wouldn't play chess.

Hating to lose doesn't prevent people from competing in anything - including chess.

Losing the occasional game is part of any sport or competition. Many people with a fierce competitive drive will hate to lose even in chess.

mm7:
oh c'mon. the first ones who come to mind are steinitz and fischer. many of the greats were insane about winning... some were just insane.

I have little understanding for those that claim you must read chess books to be good (2000ish). Especially when there are living proofs of the opposite.

With that being said, many of us need them.

I don't think you absolutely need chess books.
On the internet you can pretty much find any information on chess for free.
Also,I know a player who got to 2100 FIDE without any books.What he did was go over mastergames in his newspaper and learn from the better players in his chessclub.

Back when I played USCF regularly, I was rated 1400 and the only book I read was "Bobby Fischer teaches chess". Of course, I was scholastic and played for one of the more successful HS teams in the country with a 1900 rated coach.

If you play a lot, solve puzzles, and are coached, books are not important. If you have taken time off and are not coached, books can be invaluable, as I am discovering now.

Well sure if you're willing to pay 20 dollars (if you're lucky), likely 50+ dollars an hour for a coach that will take at least 5 lessons to teach you the contents of one 15 dollar book!

Say, Reassess Your Chess. You can read it in a week or hire a coach to teach you ALL about imbalances, minor pieces, all that in 10 weeks for a lotta money.

SO unless we're all moneymakers, go buy books 😛

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
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.

That's why I have a large variety of chess books. When I get bored with one, I just go on to another that's completely different in style and focus. The local library (and inter-library loan) are also good when your own collection runs out. And it's free, too. 🙂

Originally posted by ouwe belg
I don't think you absolutely need chess books. On the internet you can pretty much find any information on chess for free.

Well, you can certainly find some information on the internet for free... but, from my experience, the quality of much of that information tends to be relatively poor compared to the great chess books. Of course, there are gems here and there.

Also,I know a player who got to 2100 FIDE without any books.What he did was go over mastergames in his newspaper and learn from the better players in his chessclub.

I don't think anyone is disputing that it's possible to get good at chess without books. But is that path for everyone? Is it the most efficient path? Could some of those people who never read a chess book in their life have gotten better faster if they cracked open a good book from time to time? I don't think I'd be going out on a limb by guessing that they would have.

Here's a nice little example of what a book could get you. I ran across this the other day when I finally got around to glancing through "101 Attacking Ideas in Chess", by Joe Gallagher. The following is an exerpt from Idea 3:

As a young player I was most impressed by the finish to the 10th game of the 1966 Petrosian-Spassky World Championship match.

Instead of the obvious 30 Nxf7, when White still has some work to do, Petrosian forced resignation by 30 Qh8+! because after 30...Kxh8 31 Nxf7+ and 32 Nxg5 he emerges with an extra piece.

When in Gallagher-Curran, Lyons 1993 I reached the position in the following diagram...

FEN: r1b1nr2/5pk1/p1pq2pp/3pN3/3P4/2N5/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 21 (for some reason I'm only able to post one diagram in this reply, so please see the next reply for this diagram)

my thought-processes had already been reduced to making the Petrosian trick work. Play continued 21 Qd2 Nf6 22 Rf4! (disguising the planned combination by blocking the queen's path to h6) 22...Nd7? (thank you God) 23 Rxf7+! Rxf7 24 Qxh6+! Kg8 25 Qh8+! and Black resigned as 25..Kxh8 26 Nxf7+ Kg7 27 Nxd6 leaves White two pawns to the good. Note that after 21 Qd2 White was not actually threatening the combination as at this stage Black's queen is still defended.

So, could someone find an idea like this (basically, enticing or forcing the opponent in to losing material through a fork) without reading a book? Certainly. It's a pretty basic idea, and someone could think it up on their own or come across it in one of the thousands of games they might play or study on their way to becoming a competent player. But, might they have saved themselves some time and effort by reading a book which has picked out gems like this out of the millions of games that have been played throughout the centuries? Most probably yes.

Of course, reading, like playing chess, isn't for everyone. But I know it's helped me immeasurably. I wouldn't go so far as to read exclusively and never play. But I also wouldn't want to play exclusively and never read. For me the two are part of a balanced improvement regiment. Just like I study not only openings, but also middlegames and endings, tactics as well as strategy... I read as well as play, and wouldn't hestitate to recommend the same to most anyone who actually does know how to read.

The second diagram from the above reply (which, for some reason, refused to be displayed in that reply, so I'm posting it here):

Originally posted by duecer
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).

Do birds need feathers to fly?

If you want to get anywhere, then yes.'

Edit: Why would people buy them is they weren't useless

Yes you need chess books. Case closed.

Originally posted by synesis
Well, you can certainly find [b]some information on the internet for free... but, from my experience, the quality of much of that information tends to be relatively poor compared to the great chess books. Of course, there are gems here and there.

[quote]
Also,I know a player who got to 2100 FIDE without any books.What he did was go over mastergam ...[text shortened]... stitate to recommend the same to most anyone who actually does know how to read.

I do not dispute the benefit of books.In fact,I own over 50 chessbooks myself.The question asked here is wether you really need them to get better.In other words are they essential?And to that I say no,they are not.
Of course,this is provided you have other means to get the needed information.If you have to figure it all out on your own I'm afraid you won't get very far and you better buy some books.

That's pretty much what I figured. I seem to have peaked, or close to it. I would like to see if I can make it to 1400 without the aid of books( or by playing a slew of 1100's)

Originally posted by duecer
That's pretty much what I figured. I seem to have peaked, or close to it. I would like to see if I can make it to 1400 without the aid of books( or by playing a slew of 1100's)

Painful as it is, it's playing stronger opponents, not weaker ones, which helps me improve. When I play weaker opponents, I fear my game actually gets worse, though it does help me with my confidence and puts a smile on my face. 🙂 Cheap thrills. But beating stronger opponents is where the real satisfaction comes from, and it's a good sign that I've learned something.