Changing My Approach To Chess - An Art To Study, Not A Game To Play


you sort-of made my point. you said you had to "come back" to you were losing. you said he had to drop a piece...which isn't what i'm talking about. I'm talking about playing really great chess the first 10 moves, so you don't need your opponent to drop a piece. In a classical game, you need to rely on hope after move 10? i'm not saying quit after move 10, either.

didn't fischer say to quit chess since it's all just memorizing stuff anyhow...i feel bad for the guy that he had a mental illness and ran out of money after making so much, but this doesn't exactly tell him to buy his books.

if you are talking about blitz, then of course play out the game....but i'm talking about 30 minute games. you need to have chess fit your style, to an extent, or you will stop playing. if some guy who is rated 2200 only plays d4 but you really love e4, well, maybe he's not the best guy in the beginning.

we can disagree....but i've known enough authors to tell me they only write for cash and it's all BS. of course you can read a book and be happy....but maybe you are only memorizing a few moves.

when you have lots of experience, it's easy to know which books might, just might, add any value at all. but it's your experience that tells you what's valuable. not the books. you didn't become an expert by reading. or there would be like 3 or 4 chess books. there are zillions...i wonder why.


I think your comment is a little out of context.

Play and play, practice, etc .. These are all aspirations of a sportsman.

The post is about people who are not interested in playing chess and winning games.

Understanding chess not always allow win games because sport characteristics are involved such as competitive spirit, self-control, speed, etc.

However, I agree with you. If the player has sports aspirations he will have better performance with a coach. The importance of coaching is probably related to psychological factors.

People, in general, are lazy. Moreover, we are social beings, the information conveyed by the presential speech 'can be' better absorbed than the same information in a book.


"you said he had to drop a piece"
I didn't say that all. It was a very long process of me grinding to gain small advantage after small advantage (positional gains, winning a pawn here and there, favorable exchanges) until I finally reached an equal endgame that I outplayed him in. I don't recall an outright blunder by him.

"I'm talking about playing really great chess the first 10 moves, "
How many sub 1500s do that? Most sub 2000s know the main lines fairly well but as long as you force them to think for themselves they won't play "great chess".

"didn't fischer say to quit chess"
I don't recall that. His reasons for quitting had to do with politics. Both chess politics and geopolitics.

"...the guy that he had a mental illness "
I don't think he was mentally ill. His early success stunted his emotional growth (which isn't uncommon in athletes or performers (michael jackson) . His stunted emotional growth combined with his ridiculous IQ and insatiable desire to win created his personality. I could write a book on the subject but its a moot point. He was very good at chess. That's indisputable and that's the only thing I care about.

"you need to have chess fit your style, to an extent"
Which is exactly why you should learn from multiple sources. The more you limit yourself the less likely you are to find something that fits your style.

I agree to an extent. There are a lot of really bad books out there. I know of one book by Eric Schiller where he recommends a line that loses material without compensation to a fairly simple tactic. But that doesn't mean all books are bad. After decades of analysis including with modern computers Fischer's, Morphy's and Capa's books and games still hold up.

"when you have lots of experience, it's easy to know which books might,"
When I started I didn't know anything. I first asked myself who are the best players (Fischer and Kasparov). I asked how they learned and what they read and who they looked up to. I then expanded my search based on that and continue to expand to this day. I bought lots of random books but always tried to filter the truth through logic (ie does this idea work? Can I prove it does or doesn't work through logic and reasoning). I asked myself who is getting results and who isn't? Eventually I put together a decent library. I continue to improve to this day.

A lot of it is my personality. There are very few people whose opinion I'll take at face value. I'll listen to an Einstein or Fischer (because they've proven themselves) but Joe Schmo rated 2200 needs to prove what he's saying. Fischer was exactly the same way and it worked for him.

Like I've said, I agree to an extent. You can always learn something from stronger players and there are really bad books out there. You're making blanket statements though. ALL teachers are good (regardless of skill or qualifications) and ALL books are bad (again, regardless of skill or qualifications) That's where I disagree.


from personal experience. i had a friend who was WELL PAST HIS PRIME but had a good name. got 100,000 USD to write three books, and all three books were mainly written by friends and he did a brief edit. it was ALL about the money. he wasn't the same person, player, whatever.....he didn't care. his friends wrote good reviews. he went on to other things a few years later. i even think he told me, "not one student ever got really good." in fact, i'm sure he said that.

he liked to say, "always keep the best stuff for yourself."

i'm pretty sure he's not the exception to the rule. Magnus isn't writing a book now, and there's a reason for that.

what i'm saying is we don't really know which books are good or bad, so it's not the best use of our time. we read, lose, and then someone goes to the Engine and says, "see, do that." We are NOT in the book age anymore.....use engines.

I listened to Magnus for hours, and he repeated some advice maybe 10 times. so i remembered it, as it really might be important. in a book, i'm sure it would simply be a chapter and I wouldn't know how important it is to him.....

i'm having fun with this rant because people love to ask great players, "Can you recommend a book?" Like asking Jordan about a book on basketball.....we try to convince ourselves chess can be learned, but only to a certain level (maybe 2200 or something). Imagine if someone wrote a book and it started by saying, "you will always be bad, but let's look at some of my games." lol


"Not all artists are Chess players, but all Chess players are artists."
Marcel Duchamp

I like this related quote:

"Chess is one of the only human arts that aesthetics also drives performance" - Unknown

If not, let's see:

A nice combination allows checkmate. The prettier an attack, the faster and more efficient it will be. In chess the deviation of art in its aesthetic aspect decreases performance! In others arts (here art is in sense of 'human work', any work, mainlly one related to sports) for the sake of performance, the aesthetics are usually sacrificed!

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.