Game One: Game 1905304
Game Two: Game 4113597
The Transition of my game play from game 1 to game 2 should be enough to prove that simply playing the game, with zero outside help, is enough to improve dramatically. I read no books, solved no tactical puzzles, got no help/tutoring from a friend over this period of time. After Game Two, I started getting help from ih8sens, and that's only been helping more. By "help" I don't mean we've been studying lines of openings together, rather, we discuss the game as we play it. Practice makes perfect, and though I am far from perfect, I am far from where I was.
Originally posted by davidgraysonthat's just lazy quitter talk and a self-fullfilling prophecy. if fisher, kasparov or any of the greats had thought like that, they would've never become more than average club players. it takes about 10 hard working years to master any field, and you can't keep up doing the hours necessary if you believe it's all for nothing. some start at 5 and become GMs at 15, that's ten years. others start later and it still takes roughly the same time.
I agree with what you are saying. I just claim that you will not
get too far beyond your natural ability, no matter how much you
study.
people just underestimate the time, effort and hours every good player has put into chess. I've put huge amount of work into chess these two years I've been playing, but every time I read how much effort the top players put into it, I feel like a lazy punk with no backbone for real heavy duty work.
'natural genius' is just a cop-out for people who are not willing to sacrifice what it takes.
there might be a place where 'natural genius' makes the difference, but it's what separates regular GMs from superGMs or something like that.
Originally posted by wormwoodchess doesn't pay the bills... that's why people don't try to master it like they used to...
that's just lazy quitter talk and a self-fullfilling prophecy. if fisher, kasparov or any of the greats had thought like that, they would've never become more than average club players. it takes about 10 hard working years to master any field, and you can't keep up doing the hours necessary if you believe it's all for nothing. some start at 5 and become GMs ...[text shortened]... ifference, but it's what separates regular GMs from superGMs or something like that.
ten years of living with an one-room apartment with nothing but a refrigerator (which you might as well not have, as there is seldom anything in it) a bed, a computer, and a table with a chessboard on it. TEN YEARS of study, hard work, and more study... that's too long, and even if you DO become a GM, you won't start rolling in the high dollars until you're a superGM
I'm sorry, in the 1970's, it might have been worth it, but now, I'll stick to becoming a math major.
Originally posted by wormwoodI agree.
people just underestimate the time, effort and hours every good player has put into chess
"Chess is an ocean in which a gnat may drink or an elephant bathe."
(Popular Indian Proverb)
Many of us like to think we're the "elephant" immersing ourselves in chess, but yet our study habits are more like the "gnat".
Originally posted by kmac27That will be me. I have never read an endgames book. I own one but have never read it. One day if I get really really bored I may do.
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 s ...[text shortened]... back will beat them in the endgame or draw a game that should have been one by the other player.
I think it really depends on who you are whether you get something out of books. Some do, some don't. I certainly never got much out of studying so I stopped and played instead. It worked for me in the 1970s but I have no doubt others would find that books are very helpful. I did ask a GM once which books I should read. He shamelessly plugged his books but then said that in general GMs write books but don't read them!
1 edit
Originally posted by rubberjaw30when money is the issue, chess is not the answer. and you're not the only one who's chosen career over chess. nakamura comes to mind for one. he stopped serious chess when he started serious studying, because he obviously knew one or the other must go. and it's not a bad choice, but it is a conscious choice.
chess doesn't pay the bills... that's why people don't try to master it like they used to...
ten years of living with an one-room apartment with nothing but a refrigerator (which you might as well not have, as there is seldom anything in it) a bed, a computer, and a table with a chessboard on it. TEN YEARS of study, hard work, and more study... that's t the 1970's, it might have been worth it, but now, I'll stick to becoming a math major.
Originally posted by wormwoodWhat books did you study, and how did your rating change over time?
that's just lazy quitter talk and a self-fullfilling prophecy. if fisher, kasparov or any of the greats had thought like that, they would've never become more than average club players. it takes about 10 hard working years to master any field, and you can't keep up doing the hours necessary if you believe it's all for nothing. some start at 5 and become GMs ...[text shortened]... ifference, but it's what separates regular GMs from superGMs or something like that.
Originally posted by davidgraysonI have been playing here at RHP for about 60 days and have completed less than 40 games. Before that I had not touched a chess board for at least 20 years. My rating has gone from p1200 to 1500+.
Did these books increase your rating much?
My rating increase is not because of the 40 games I've played (tho I did learn lessons from them), but because of the reading I've done currently and during the time when I wasn't even playing. I took lessons from the books on tactics, pawn structure, and a dozen other topics and applied them as best I could to my games.
Book knowledge vs game experience is not an either/or question. From book knowledge you get the tools you need from the basic (how to castle) to the more complicated (how to push a minority attack). Then your game experiences sharpens and refines those tools. But you have to have the tools (knowledge) to start with. Why are there people with 100's of games played yet still rated 1000? I think it is lack of knowledge or lack of application of the knowledge they have and not lack of games played.
1 edit
Originally posted by davidgraysonduring the first year I dabbled with some books. art of attack, which was way over my head at the time. I also tried to study dvoretsky's endgame brick, but it bored me to death and I soon stopped. babarin's winning pawn structures changed my view of d4-openings being passive, but little else. logical chess move by move is probably the only one that had any real impact with me, but still, it wasn't the moves it taught me, but the realisation that master level chess really is very simple, concrete and practical. I can't really claim with a straight face that any of the books I read or studied had any concrete impact on my rating.
What books did you study, and how did your rating change over time?
then I bought the karsten müller endgame dvds, which made much more sense than any books ever. I even learned some things, until I eventually going over them as well, and forgot most of what I learned. I'd assess my theoretical engame knowledge to be 1500-level tops. but I have never encountered a theoretical endgame scenario in a serious game yet, so it's a moot point really.
the first time I saw a concrete increase in my rating was when I started systematic blunder checking. 100 points overnight, just like that.
I credit 90% of my current chess skill to the 96 000 tactical problems I started doing 3 months after starting chess. I've been doing them pretty much daily, and I still do. the last 10% I credit to the experience I've gained mulling over my games here. I've also deliberately played against stronger opponents all the time, and it does make a difference. my ratings has been increasing steadily along my tactical strength (measured by CTS), and there's no sign of plateauing.
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Which game did you play better?
Game One: Game 1905304
Game Two: Game 4113597
The Transition of my game play from game 1 to game 2 should be enough to prove that simply playing the game, with zero outside help, is enough to improve dramatically. I read no books, solved no tactical puzzles, got no help/tutoring from a friend over this period of time. After Game Two, I st ...[text shortened]... ay it. Practice makes perfect, and though I am far from perfect, I am far from where I was.
Originally posted by davidgraysonThe essence of chess is in ideas. The worst thing is to play chess without ideas. So somehow one has to expose oneself to ideas.
Books are one tool to gain chess understanding, but in my opinion, nothing beats the analysis of games.
Knowing what to consider in analyzing a position is critical - that is gained through experience, so, by playing games and opening oneself up to ideas.
I think the obvious answer is yes, reading improves your rating. It could be books, or other's games or training programs but they all help. When I started my first game a year and a half ago against Chessmaster X, I played H4, making room to get the rook out and take a piece. For the next couple of days I got a little better but then I tried some of the lessons and tutorials in the program. It definitely helped. Books and tutorials (if the right ones are used) may not get you past your maximum ability, but will help you get there much faster without learning all of the moves etc the hard way.
