How many players can really say that studying chess books brought
them from, say, class c to master. It seems to me, that most players
will get close to their maximum ability by merely playing. Books may
increase ratings by perhaps a hundred points or so, but not much more. It seems we all have an innate chess ability which cannot be increased much no matter what we do. What are the opinions out there, backed by actual results. I personally have never met a
player, masters included, that got all that much out of chess books.
I hope I'm wrong, and would like to hear some real success stories.
Originally posted by davidgraysonaren't books more to prokove thought?
How many players can really say that studying chess books brought
them from, say, class c to master. It seems to me, that most players
will get close to their maximum ability by merely playing. Books may
increase ratings by perhaps a hundred points or so, but not much more. It seems we all have an innate chess ability which cannot be increased much ...[text shortened]... much out of chess books.
I hope I'm wrong, and would like to hear some real success stories.
I believe that you get better by playing, as much as possible.
I always wonder the same thing when I see someone pushing silman books. because even though those people usually say they learned a lot, I never see much of a rating improvement for them.
I'm sure the information actually is in those books, I just don't think it can be extracted by reading. I don't think simply playing will do it either though, at least not very fast. but instead that you need to get your hands dirty on a board to get any real improvement. be that games, tactics, endgames, openings or whatever.
Originally posted by rubberjaw30I think your right. I met a master years ago that told me he never
aren't books more to prokove thought?
I believe that you get better by playing, as much as possible.
got much out of chess books. He said that the problem with chess
was that it was so hard to know what is going on! He meant, that
it is making those moves in positions where there are no tactics that
is so difficult.
I disagree, I reached 1600 without help of anyone, but then i dropped down again. I was 1100 and reading books got me to 1500 within a year. I had some help from a friend and he brought me to a solid 1600. I read an endings book by jeremy silman and my rating went to 1700 then 1800 for a while due to the matieral I learned in books!! books can only take you so far yes i believe that but some books are necessary. show me a person who has never read an endgames book and i bet the person who knows the book front to back will beat them in the endgame or draw a game that should have been one by the other player.
What are we really talking about? Do we read chess or do we study chess?
If by reading a book means just to read it through without any thought behind it, then I don't think the method of being better in chess is very good.
But by thinking of every step, every advice, every thing in the book, then I really think that you can be much better in chess and improve a lot. Depending of the book, of course.
So, if you chose a good book, study it intensively, prepeare to use the new insights in real games, then I think books can be a very good method of getting better in chess.
Originally posted by kmac27he also played a butt load of games in a relativelt short amount of time. I said earlier that the primary method for improvement is playing the game. I stand by that. Books help in the way that they provoke your thinking process more. You start to ask more questions to yourself while at the board.
Are you sure? Fischer studied books like a bible, look how far he got.
Originally posted by rubberjaw30One of the big problems with books is applying what you read!
he also played a butt load of games in a relativelt short amount of time. I said earlier that the primary method for improvement is playing the game. I stand by that. Books help in the way that they provoke your thinking process more. You start to ask more questions to yourself while at the board.E
Each position is unique, and one pawn, or tempo can make all the
difference in the outcome. It is so hard to put the knowledge
to practical use.
The books I find most useless are the ultra-detailed microscopic view of a single opening type: "The c4 Variation of the King Kong line of the Mumbo-Jumbo Attack" My eyes glaze over. I'll never be good enough to have any use for that kind.
But I do get a lot out of books with WELL annoted games, especially when the writer takes the game all the way from beginning to end while explaining both the big positional picture and the details of the tactics.
Three suggestions:
"Logical Chess Move by Move" Chernev
"Chess Master vs Chess Amature" Euwe
"Winning Chess Brilliancies" Seirawan