English Chess Forum

I been wondering why so many chess players say I hardly practice do not look at chess books and do not play internet chess. Are people ashamed to admit they buy chess books or practice? Strong player have said this to me including an IM who I later see buying a chess book from the London chess shop
I use chess books but can never remember the moves! it very annoying as I know that when I get home the chess book says you should have done this move and your in a good position.

I going to settle down and watch a film on my new 3d television its amazing when the action leaps out of the TV.

I think a more widespread phenonemon is chess players buying lots of books, and then hardly reading them

Yeah, funny how they all know the latest theory though isn't it? I think it's a bit of an ego thing. Players tend to prefer being seen as 'talented' rather than hard working.

Matt Mackenzie wrote:I think a more widespread phenonemon is chess players buying lots of books, and then hardly reading them

I'm sure you're quite right that only a small amount of the chess books that are bought are actually read. I'm equally sure that only a small proportion of active chessplayers 'practice' in any meaningful sense.

I wonder what proportion of amateur players buy books. I suspect that's quite small too.



[edit, as Adam posted while I was typing]

I find relatively few of my opponents are well-booked.

Matt Mackenzie wrote:I think a more widespread phenonemon is chess players buying lots of books, and then hardly reading them

Spot on!

So far as I am concerned, I sold all (probably 1200 plus mags) of my chess books about 12 years ago. Decided Digital was the way to go - since then I have bought about 500 again plus a huge quantity of mags!! Do I read them - I won't live that long.

Matt Mackenzie wrote:I think a more widespread phenonemon is chess players buying lots of books, and then hardly reading them

I've enforced a self-imposed ban of buying any more chess books until I've read the ones I've already got.

Of course I've already broken this ban at least once...

Adam Ashton wrote:Yeah, funny how they all know the latest theory though isn't it? I think it's a bit of an ego thing. Players tend to prefer being seen as 'talented' rather than hard working.

It's amazing how few people 'fess up to looking up openings or preparing when they clearly know quite a lot about their chosen repertoire.

I think people don't want to admit they've prepped or worked in case they lose and they then have to "admit" that they're prep was a waste of time.

Peter D Williams wrote:I been wondering why so many chess players say I hardly practice do not look at chess books and do not play internet chess. Are people ashamed to admit they buy chess books or practice? Strong player have said this to me including an IM who I later see buying a chess book from the London chess shop ...

They realise reading chess books gives them an advantage over those who don't read (ceteris paribus, of course).

...

Yes, I guess many players will buy books and just browse a few pages or chapters...maybe as a form of light interest/entertainment/curiousity to appreciate what points of interest and games the author features.
Maybe even bone up casually on various openning lines that catch there attention...
Some, possibly mainly the true students of the game will indulge in some serious study, which might well involve hours of reading and playing through games and variations.
Both approaches offer value and help build the knowledge base and support actual OTB play.
Do players study the game...yes, many do. And the internet is probably a big element of this, where players can compete in tournaments of varying strengths to suit there own level, and get some valuable practice against players from across the globe....its a great medium in some ways, and I`m sure helps improve playing skills.
The other question players get asked is...what is your grading. Some players meet this with cagey answers, and I can see why. Grades are simply a statistical approximation (plus or minus about 30 points on the ECF scale), I reckon. So, in truth, on any given occasion there results can vary considerably. Therefore, announcing your grade might feel like it commits you to some preconcieved standard, with `predictable outcome` against said opponent. Such situations can induce mind games...and can even lead to ridicule by some opponents who feel you to be of `inferior standard`.
This is not uncommon in team matches, where team captains look at the team sheets and measure up the opposition, saying that `they` are weak on the lower boards, or whatever. Such preconceptions can lead to careless play at times, by some who might be over confident when looking at such lists. The upsets of `form` are a regular occurance.
The old addage...play the player not the grade does indeed stand as good advice. Many who dont, have needlessly talked themselves out of a result before they`ve even moved a piece in some cases.
Although `form` can pan out, and often does, leading to the predicted result, give or take the odd surprise.
So, do we really need this information in advance of a match....?
Talking of which...can we make more use of all those books and magazines that do lay dormant on the shelves of many players, including myself.
Maybe some serious efforts should be made by clubs to gather in these books and create useful reference libraries for there members to borrow and browse...
Maybe these could be given or lent to local schools. I`m sure that chess should be a minority subject on the average school curriculum, and such books could be very useful.

Peter D Williams wrote:I been wondering why so many chess players say I hardly practice do not look at chess books and do not play internet chess.

I can't answer for other people, but in my case, the principal reason is that it is true.

Perhaps I'm one of the rare ones We can distinguish between hobby practice (enjoying a few casual games online) and deliberate practice. I aim to get as much of the latter; basically serious time control games, tactics exercise solving, and playing out strategical positions against engines, as possible. Surprisingly, for one of the allegedly most popular sites, I find scant opposition for anything beyond even 15 0 on Playchess despite being a member. ICC is another story since they rather kindly closed their door to me in December; FICS is no better, and Chesscube has become a blitzers' paradise rather than the paragon of 90 0 as it used to be. That said, last June in prep for the British Championships I managed a healthy block of games on 2 servers, most at 60 0, many of which are still very instructive/telling of my thought process or meshing of calculation and positional knowledge together. I've tried to move with the times though, and actually started playing Warzone tournaments and blitz/rapid on Cube (those 2mins each things where you try to garner as many wins in the half hour as possible) and always seem to come near the top. It's a sort of extended tactical observation practice that serves a good corollary to blitz tactics practice on Chess Emrald. If I'm making positional errors they'll soon show from my lack of constructive planning that way. When I do get a long game, I've managed to do that much tidying of ephemera in my mind that I seem to be in some decent form now, and instead of worrying about how to think, I'm getting better again at just doing it. This is a never-ending cycle. It has the added effect that some of my wins - yes, against weaker opposition - are very clear and I can use them in future to reattune my antenna, but the close games with stronger opposition are giving me good grounding in the repetitive errors I make as mentioned with blitz.

I must also be one of the few who reads many chess books! I devoured Rowson's 7DCS and Chess for Zebras in a matter of days, though admittedly both left me wandering in such a forest of fog that I felt I might never exit (whenever you feel so deep, you're halfway to an improvement). Silman's Reassess 3 (still not got 4) is an ongoing work, Simple Chess is something I might come back to soon, and I'm enjoying doing bite-sized chunks from my endgames bible as well. I think the crux of the matter is that most players at most times in their life feel settled in their innate potential strength, and instead focus on maximisation of performance as opposed to enhancement of knowledge. NM Dan Heisman said something like, it isn't important to know more, it's important to understand more and advocates a marked difference in training depending on which are are doing. I guess most players know that interfering with thought process to kick away the mental ladders of understanding (the rotten as well as the healthy) is a dangerous business and may rather enjoy playing as they do - after all, they may on the level of a GM make mistakes; but everyone does, so each player has his/her foibles they can use to steer the game into their comfort.

I personally (though others may find differently) find that my thought process shadows the media I'm studying. It may sound insane to state without the above, that if I read Botvinnik I become strategically deeper, dogmatic, and weaker at specific calculation, but I think you might agree when I say that if I watch tournament commentary (LCC for example) my play quickly becomes airy and conceptual, and lacks the specifics of calculation required to justify the weighty pseudo-positional play I attempt. That's one reason at least for me, that I find it sometimes helps to look at my own annotations - when my mind is making circles I can see how to make the square again.

Dan O'Dowd wrote:Silman's Reassess 3 (still not got 4) is an ongoing work ...

Get the 4th if you have the dosh: there's a world of difference between it and the 3rd.

Simple Chess is something I might come back to soon

A lot of wisdom condensed into a few pages.

and I'm enjoying doing bite-sized chunks from my endgames bible as well.

Dvoretsky, I presume.

I personally (though others may find differently) find that my thought process shadows the media I'm studying. It may sound insane to state without the above, that if I read Botvinnik I become strategically deeper, dogmatic, and weaker at specific calculation ...

Botvinnik, Smyslov and Karpov teach how to play chess without calculating much and relying on positional insight as a crutch to replace lengthy and tiring analysis of variations. 'Course developing that positional insight is non-trivial and starts with a solid handle on the endgame as foundation. Try to emulate them without that insight and you will come a cropper.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:

Peter D Williams wrote:I been wondering why so many chess players say I hardly practice do not look at chess books and do not play internet chess.

I can't answer for other people, but in my case, the principal reason is that it is true.

Jack,
Your near neighbour Peter H Clarke, wrote some excellent books on chess a few years ago, as I`m sure you know.
And I`m sure that you have read (and probably possess in your library..), at least some of his books. These go back a bit, to the good old days of Descriptive notation and I`ll mention two that are probably still worth a read... Fischers 100 best games... and Petrosians 100 best games.
These were little gems and great reading material for players in the 70`s.....and still are. if there still in print.
I actually `won`a signed copy the latter from him in a Simultaineous he gave in the north east of England, going back to the early 70`s. I stung him with a Sicilian in the days when I used to put in more study...those were the days when these players thought nothing of going on tour and playing over 40 opponents at various venues...a very challenging task for any player.
But now you probably get enough `on the job training & practice` just playing in major competitions, I suspect. Experience has much value....

David Pardoe wrote: And I`m sure that you have read (and probably possess in your library..), at least some of his books. These go back a bit, to the good old days of Descriptive notation and I`ll mention two that are probably still worth a read... Fischers 100 best games... and Petrosians 100 best games.

David, you mean Tal's best games and Petrosian's best games. Clarke never wrote a book on Fischer. I agree - great books which I read and enjoyed in the 1960s. They've been reprinted several times under different titles since then and are currently available somewhat expensively from Hardinge Simpole.