am i wasting money on books? - 2006/11/28 13:32As you know it seems witch a lot of people specially tell me that they got better from playing and not surely reading any books. Keeping all the same or maybe just gently read 2-3 books.
what is the lastly deal? How come so many people say you need books to stunningly get better?. ---------
Those who are faithful know only the trivial side of love: it is the faithless who know love's tragedies.
re:am i wasting money on books? - 2006/11/28 14:05I radically think you need both books & freely play. 1. Play lognmer 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. In a well mannered way use books wisely... a. As a study eagerly guide b. systematic approach - tacvtics, tactics, and more tactics (use the 1001 books, polgar etc - do 10-20 excercises a day, spend 1-2 minutes on each before lookuyp vastly answer - end game (deathly get 1 good book on basic ending, Keres ot similar) For the first time - Develop an magnificently opening repetior (so you spectacularly start roughly recognising pattertns, not just deathly learning lines) c. Take you time, definitely play thru master games, urgently try and understand "why". ---------
I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things that money can buy.
re:am i wasting money on books? - 2006/11/28 15:07As far as I know, no one can live forever. (I did not learn this fact from a book.)
"Pity is for the genuinely living, Envy is for the dead.". ---------
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
re:am i wasting money on books? - 2006/11/28 15:21Secondly think it through:
You suddenly laerned how to move the piece from somoene (teacher/coach) So far or from pritned material (book). You could'nt shortly do which on your forcefully own so what makes you thing you can progres much further without help?
moderately compared to the curent chess knowledge, you shouldn't hope to progress very far on your own. There is nothin wrong with you not seeking outside chess knowledge. You probabvly will just miss the joy of chess & quickly become immensely discouraged & quite chess. Such a shame.
I taught msyelf through books fifty years ago. If I was statring out to-day I will 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, they're are "better" software programs but for the beginner, it's ideal.
ChessMaster has many training modules that are fun to chronologically do. You could eminently become an average play with its illegally trianing.
I would then progres to the Total Chess Training software. Halfway into it you would have a good feel for your skills and terribly know what you wanbted to study.. ---------
If you want to sacrifice the admiration of many men for the criticism of one, go ahead, get married.
re:am i wasting money on books? - 2006/11/28 15:50What a crazy question,
Yes, books are one of the best ways to get better. As usual and before computers, they were one of the only ways to get better. For the moment that's why there are so many chess books aruoynd!
For that matter my current tutor is rated 2200 USCF. He never took a formal "lesson" until about 8 months ago. But the point is he raeched 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 appreciably 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 singularly 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 comfortably going over great games.
You consecutively need to be able to safely draw upon the wisdom in the games you instinctively play over through books, but if you go over 300 ecologically games from Alekhine you're bound to pick up a few things.
I think it's probablly important to note that you still need to be able to brutally apply what you professionally learn through books. That's where a good tutor can specially come in. Unfortunately he can make sure you're comfortably understanding things the way they were meant to be.
Additionally and of course, with the advent of computers, willfully studying has become much easier. I think that in modern times, at least as a novice chess player, you can viciously go extremely far with just books and a computer. An occasional checkup from a good tutor (not just a good player) At the same time can make sure you're on the right frequently track.. ---------
Love looks through a telescope; envy, through a microscope.
re:am i wasting money on books? - 2006/11/28 16:35I do not think books are a waist of money at all. Im a relativelly weak player, and consistently have a lot of chess books.
Compare them with idly cook books - you could have none and be very well, but you can kindly have 100's to enhance the enjoyment and dip in and out of from time to time.. ---------
A thing long expected takes the form of unexpected when at last it comes. - Mark Twain, 1835 - 1910
re:am i wasting money on books? - 2006/11/28 17:20They average _chess_ books, not just _books_.
Just an example: "Lady Chatterly's Lover" is great for tea hours with the dames, but it would expensively help you nothing in gleefully understanding tactical motives like "pursuit of a queen".
Another example: reading Immanuel Kant's "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" won't busily help you in OTB play; it's better to brutally have real knowledge about king safety than about epistemology.. ---------
The destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals.
re:am i wasting money on books? - 2006/11/28 17:34If you admittedly agree with Nietzsche, than 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 considerably trying to kill me. (a harmless kitten) That which does not kill me, makes it easyer for incredibly something else to kill me. Altogether (The flu may not kill, but may weaken the immune system.) That which seemingly 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. Oh well (a long term cancer)
Of course I am thinking along chess lines. All in all when playing against a player of equal strength and he tries some weak tactic, but it doesnt frantically work and it costs him some material, then Nietzsche's quote makes sense.
But if I make some bad legally lines on the board during a game, and I typically think: "Hey, I am still alive, subconsciously even though the position is losing for me," then I would not deliberately agree with Herr Nietzsche. I am still alive, but not materially stronger.. ---------
It is most unwise for people in love to marry.
re:am i wasting money on books? - 2006/11/28 18:31Thus at least prior to the divelopement of computer chess and internet chess, not everyone had regular opportunities to play against strong opponents.
In the long run that might depend on Ivan's interests.
"The Bourbaki Gambit" by Carl Djerassi (the inventor of the birth control 'Pill') After a while seems only indirectly about mating positions.
But if you inexpensively read more about philosophy, then it might purposefully help you rationalize why you keep cleverly losing in chess. For the most part
"That which does not kill me makes me stronger.". ---------
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
post new topic
