Whats the highest realistic rating someone can acheive on here without ever having studied the game, using only databases - never reading a chess book or having lessons, just picking stuff up from playing?
Im thinking, 2000ish? i know capablanca never studied the game but he learnt from the best by studying in some sort of way.
Originally posted by mazziewagDepends how talented you are.
Whats the highest realistic rating someone can acheive on here without ever having studied the game, using only databases - never reading a chess book or having lessons, just picking stuff up from playing?
Im thinking, 2000ish? i know capablanca never studied the game but he learnt from the best by studying in some sort of way.
Originally posted by mazziewagI have a feeling about 2000 would sound about right. I've never studied chess in my life aside from databases and I'm about a 1600 player (and improving fairly fast). If I get to 1800 without a book I'd be in my glorly 🙂. For a more talented player, 2000 is probably achievable without study.
Whats the highest realistic rating someone can acheive on here without ever having studied the game, using only databases - never reading a chess book or having lessons, just picking stuff up from playing?
Im thinking, 2000ish? i know capablanca never studied the game but he learnt from the best by studying in some sort of way.
Originally posted by mazziewagOld masters didn't have a wealth of material to study and the theory on middle and end games was very limited yet they would be able to stretch many a modern IM.
Whats the highest realistic rating someone can acheive on here without ever having studied the game, using only databases - never reading a chess book or having lessons, just picking stuff up from playing?
Im thinking, 2000ish? i know capablanca never studied the game but he learnt from the best by studying in some sort of way.
They learnt by playing and analysing their games and would probably be able to achieve IM standard today but I doubt they could beat a modern GM so with that type of study about 2400 should be achievable.
Of course it does depend on what you mean by studying. I doubt 2000 is possible if you do not study your play to determine where and why you went wrong, look at occasional tactical problems and explore the correct opening lines. Most 1600 + players here are successfully playing book lines and couldn't be doing that without using some reference material and I equate that to studying.
Analysing your games with a better player is, of course, also studying.
As with musicians who've "never had a lesson" I think there can be some kind of reverse snobbery about not studying. It's as if there is some greater purity and intellectual prowess belonging to the player who has achieved greatness alone without the help of others.
To the player who has "never studied a book" I would say - then you might find them of interest and if you don't - no biggie. If you enjoy the game without doing any study that's fine.
Personally I enjoy good chess books and they are part of the pleasure of chess.
I don't think there is any real limit, within the context of a players own ability, as to how far someone can go without books because you learn from your opponents and from your own games. How much time someone spent playing would have a greater effect - but books can speed up the learning process.
well im 1800 and only play the game and pick up from that, rare analysis, some tips given here and there etc. I plan maybe to read books (especially endgame) soon, but was just wondering when i might be at the top of my game without study being used- im not bothered about getting a really high rating, i just want to have fun and i wont be having fun unless im improving, i just wondered when i might not improve anymore of my own accord and have to start studying for real. improving a hundred a year will be good enough, im 18 now so cant wait till im 30..
Originally posted by mazziewagWhen you're talking about Capablanca, you're talking about a genius. And that's not true that he never studied the game. While a boy in Cuba, he studied the endgame. While away at college at Columbia University, he spent two years studying nothing but Rook endings. Later, he recommended Troitsky's book of 500 Endgame studies, so he must have at least perused that book. What he didn't study was the opening or spend time studying the games of his contemporaries.
Whats the highest realistic rating someone can acheive on here without ever having studied the game, using only databases - never reading a chess book or having lessons, just picking stuff up from playing?
Im thinking, 2000ish? i know capablanca never studied the game but he learnt from the best by studying in some sort of way.
Originally posted by Dragon FireYou've got to remember, the old masters you are talking about were professionals. They earned their living by winning tournaments, playing at odds, writing chess books and columns and giving talks or playing simultaneous exhibitions. Chess was their job. How many here at RHP can say chess is their vocation?
Old masters didn't have a wealth of material to study and the theory on middle and end games was very limited yet they would be able to stretch many a modern IM.
They learnt by playing and analysing their games and would probably be able to achieve IM standard today but I doubt they could beat a modern GM so with that type of study about 2400 should b ...[text shortened]... e that to studying.
Analysing your games with a better player is, of course, also studying.
Originally posted by mazziewagUnless you have the intellectual gifts for chess that Capablanca had, you will plateau. Eventually, every chess player has to learn what came before him.
well im 1800 and only play the game and pick up from that, rare analysis, some tips given here and there etc. I plan maybe to read books (especially endgame) soon, but was just wondering when i might be at the top of my game without study being used- im not bothered about getting a really high rating, i just want to have fun and i wont be having fun unless ...[text shortened]... ng for real. improving a hundred a year will be good enough, im 18 now so cant wait till im 30..
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterof course, im not a 'talented' player in any way, i just wondered where the norm would be, or high end would be, for that plateau. Im still improving fast enough without the need for books to enjoy the game, and thats what its all about for me at least.
Unless you have the intellectual gifts for chess that Capablanca had, you will plateau. Eventually, every chess player has to learn what came before him.