During the COVID lockdown I took my old Chess Life magazines, ran off copies of the tactics exercise diagrams, glued them to 3x5 cards and placed the solutions on the back of each. These + The Woodpecker Method book = about 2000 tactics problems. The point of all this was to be able to study without using a computer. The process looks a lot like the example below (though I'm not as attractive as Alexandra Samaganova!) It's necessary to fire up the computer when it's time for some OTB competition of course, but study time is more effective for me with a physical board and pieces.
So, what do you prefer for your chess study format, the screen or the board?
@mchill saidI find that the digital screen isn't really acceptable for serious chess work of any kind. It's very hard on the eyes to apply the intense and concentrated gaze that is the norm for chess study or analysis, and the ephemeral nature of digital images seems to make them more shallow, equally as fleeting in the mind as they are on screen.
So, what do you prefer for your chess study format, the screen or the board?
If I am studying games, I like to have the book at hand and a good board and set on the table in front of me so I can play the moves and see them in real life. That's also true if I have any active rated correspondence games, I always prefer to have them set on my "analog" board when I work on my moves.
When I'm doing tactical exercises, I actually prefer to do them without a board, but directly off the page of an actual book, so they are still a real physical presence right there in my hand. That seems to enforce a bit of discipline too, since if I am unable to solve a position and pass it by, it doesn't disappear as with a mouse click --- oh no, it's still right there in the side of my vision, both tempting me and taunting me.
I think they should both be used as they each have their own advantages.
But if I have to pick one, definitely screen. There's just so much more you can do with computer analysis and trying out ideas against an engine. You can also cross-reference chess databases for how certain positions were played.
A screen on a device with internet access just seems much more efficient than holding a book over a chessboard.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@vivify saidTrue, a computer will calculate the difference between +.24 and +.23 much more efficiently than a book.
I think they should both be used as they each have their own advantages.
But if I have to pick one, definitely screen. There's just so much more you can do with computer analysis and trying out ideas against an engine. You can also cross-reference chess databases for how certain positions were played.
A screen on a device with internet access just seems much more efficient than holding a book over a chessboard.
But only getting behind the board and working through the moves will make you understand why.
Puzzles from games I use diagrams from magazine, books and screen.
(the screen ones I find can take me longer.)
If the puzzle is a 'toughie' I use to set up a board and never leave it till I was
100% sure I got it. These days I only do that if the position has 'caught me.'
Problems and studies I always set up on the board. I prefer studies these days
and can happily spend a couple of hours a day admiring them.
(Admiring is the correct term for solving studies, some are wonderful works of creation.)