A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

am i wasting money on books?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 16th 03, 07:12 PM
Ivan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default am i wasting money on books?

It seems that a lot of people tell me that they got better from
playing and not reading any books. Or maybe just read 2-3 books.

what is the deal? How come so many people say you need books to get
better?
  #2  
Old August 16th 03, 11:06 PM
Jim Roe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default am i wasting money on books?

Think it through:

You learned how to move the piece from someone (teacher/coach) or from
printed material (book). You could not do that on your own so what makes you
thing you can progress much further without help?

Compared to the current chess knowledge, you cannot hope to progress very
far on your own. There is nothing wrong with you not seeking outside chess
knowledge. You probably will just miss the joy of chess and quickly become
discouraged and quite chess. Such a shame.

I taught myself through books fifty years ago. If I was starting out to-day
I would
start with a good software program. My first program would be ChessMaster
7,8, or 9000
7000 is in most software stores at a cheap price. Yes, there are "better"
software programs but for the beginner, it is ideal.

ChessMaster has many training modules that are fun to do. You could become
an average play with its training.

I would then progress to the Total Chess Training software. Halfway into it
you would
have a good feel for your skills and know what you wanted to study.

Jim

"Ivan" wrote in message
m...
It seems that a lot of people tell me that they got better from
playing and not reading any books. Or maybe just read 2-3 books.

what is the deal? How come so many people say you need books to get
better?



  #3  
Old August 16th 03, 11:43 PM
jabba2000ad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default am i wasting money on books?

I don't think books are a waste of money at all. I am a relatively
weak player, and have a lot of chess books.

Compare them with cook books - you could have none and be very good,
but you can have 100's to enhance the enjoyment and dip in and out of
from time to time.

Jabba

(Ivan) wrote in message om...
It seems that a lot of people tell me that they got better from
playing and not reading any books. Or maybe just read 2-3 books.

what is the deal? How come so many people say you need books to get
better?

  #4  
Old August 17th 03, 03:51 AM
Loki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default am i wasting money on books?

What a crazy question,

Yes, books are one of the best ways to get better. And before computers,
they were one of the only ways to get better. That's why there are so many
chess books around!

My current tutor is rated 2200 USCF. He never took a formal "lesson" until
about 8 months ago. But the point is he reached 2200 on his own. How did
he get better? Firstly, play lots of tournaments. Lots of games with
people better than you. Secondly, read books. Most notably, go over the
games of the greats. He said he would go over games for more than three
hours a day for many years. He said that, aside from playing and analyzing
his own games, going over the games of the greats was all he ever did. 95%
of his training to get to 2200+ was going over great games.

You need to be able to draw upon the wisdom in the games you play over
through books, but if you go over 300 games from Alekhine you're bound to
pick up a few things.

I think it's probably important to note that you still need to be able to
apply what you learn through books. That's where a good tutor can come in.
He can make sure you're understanding things the way they were meant to be.

And of course, with the advent of computers, studying has become much
easier. I think that in modern times, at least as a novice chess player,
you can go extremely far with just books and a computer. An occasional
checkup from a good tutor (not just a good player) can make sure you're on
the right track.
"Ivan" wrote in message
m...
It seems that a lot of people tell me that they got better from
playing and not reading any books. Or maybe just read 2-3 books.

what is the deal? How come so many people say you need books to get
better?



  #5  
Old August 17th 03, 07:43 AM
Kym
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default am i wasting money on books?

I think you need both books and play.
1. Play longer games, avoid too much blitz coz it does not develop good thinking
2. Play OTB - join a local club if you can
3. Play Correspondence (email)
4. Use books wisely...
a. As a study guide
b. systematic approach
- tactics, tactics, and more tactics (use the 1001 books, polgar etc - do 10-20 excercises a day, spend 1-2 minutes on
each before lookup answer
- end game (get 1 good book on basic ending, Keres ot similar)
- Develop an opening repetoir (so you start recognising patterns, not just learning lines)
c. Take you time, play thru master games, try and understand "why"

"Ivan" wrote in message m...
It seems that a lot of people tell me that they got better from
playing and not reading any books. Or maybe just read 2-3 books.

what is the deal? How come so many people say you need books to get
better?



  #8  
Old August 21st 03, 05:58 PM
I.M. Provement
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default am i wasting money on books?

"That which does not kill me makes me stronger."
--Friedrich Nietzsche


If you agree with Nietzsche, then would you also agree with: That
which does not checkmate me, makes my position stronger...?
Sometimes, it is more accurate to say:
That which does not kill me is not trying to kill me. (a harmless
kitten)
That which does not kill me, makes it easier for something else to
kill me.
(The flu may not kill, but may weaken the immune system.)
That which does not kill me, is still going to keep trying to kill me.
(pesky sabertooth lions in the time of prehistoric man)
That which does not kill me, makes me weaker. (a long term cancer)

Of course I am thinking along chess lines. When playing against a
player of equal strength and he tries some weak tactic, but it doesnt
work and it costs him some material, then Nietzsche's quote makes
sense.

But if I make some bad lines on the board during a game, and I think:
"Hey, I am still alive, even though the position is losing for me,"
then I would not agree with Herr Nietzsche. I am still alive, but not
materially stronger.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.