Improving without studying • page 2/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

#5: I've you like to learn openings with the help of other chess players or coaches you can always ask me. I don't know that much stuff but for learning the first openings it should be enogh. And you don't have to pay me. By the way there are some players around that would help you learning and improving chess without taking money.

static_shadow

#12

OP I know exactly what you mean, even with the videos.

When I first started doing more serious study of the game again, I found even simple videos sometimes challenging, because of the language. Chess, like any other game, sport, job, academic field, etc. has it's own special language. When you hear someone talking about "1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 and we now enter the Giuoco Piano, or Italian Game" you may find yourself already becoming lost (I imagine at your level of play, likely not quite yet, but you understand what I mean). Notation is difficult to visualize in books, and that is why I recommend videos. But even in video you must hear these strange notations, many many strange foreign names for openings, discussion of things like squares being "soft" or pawns being "backward" or knights being in an "outpost" or someone having "control" of a file or diagonal, etc. These are all terms that stem from the earliest chess masters that began to write on the subject during the 18th and 19th centuries (obviously chess is far older, but we don't have too many instructive works from prior to the 18th century). These terms have continued us into the 21st century, and so they have very specific meaning to chess players.

Once you begin to learn and understand those terms, video instruction and even live matches are far easier to digest, and I guarantee you can learn a lot to improve your game strategically, which even if you are a more tactical player, still helps greatly (as often times the greatest tactics arise almost naturally from good positional play).

OP I know exactly what you mean, even with the videos. When I first started doing more serious study of the game again, I found even simple videos sometimes challenging, because of the language. Chess, like any other game, sport, job, academic field, etc. has it's own special language. When you hear someone talking about "1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 and we now enter the Giuoco Piano, or Italian Game" you may find yourself already becoming lost (I imagine at your level of play, likely not quite yet, but you understand what I mean). Notation is difficult to visualize in books, and that is why I recommend videos. But even in video you must hear these strange notations, many many strange foreign names for openings, discussion of things like squares being "soft" or pawns being "backward" or knights being in an "outpost" or someone having "control" of a file or diagonal, etc. These are all terms that stem from the earliest chess masters that began to write on the subject during the 18th and 19th centuries (obviously chess is far older, but we don't have too many instructive works from prior to the 18th century). These terms have continued us into the 21st century, and so they have very specific meaning to chess players. Once you begin to learn and understand those terms, video instruction and even live matches are far easier to digest, and I guarantee you can learn a lot to improve your game strategically, which even if you are a more tactical player, still helps greatly (as often times the greatest tactics arise almost naturally from good positional play).

F_D89

#13

So basically OP wants to improve wihout putting the hard work into it. That is simply not going to happen. If you wish to become better at chess, gather a bunch of relevant chess books around you, a chess board and start studying. Do not forget to put theory into practise. There literally are over one hundred threads about this subject on this forum already.

static_shadow

#14

To be fair, F_D, you can improve just from playing all the time. If you play 50,000 games in a year, even with no book study, you will probably become a fairly accomplished player if you are going through and analyzing your games and learning from them. He wasn't talking about putting in no hard work, he just wondered if there were alternatives to book study...which yes, there are. It's call practical study, i.e. playing and reflecting.

If you want to become a master, well at that point obviously you will need to know solid opening and endgame theory and you really can't learn that without study, but I think your mentality that you absolutely must at any level to improve your chess surround yourself with books is flawed. A lot of chess is simply pattern recognition so if you see positions 100 times, you will recognize them and remember what not to do if you learned from your mistakes in it. Hell, one might even improve their chess play by engaging in mental pursuits outside of chess, as has often been noted by others here. Learning general problem solving tools can improve the speed and accuracy of analysis in a position. Understanding basic concepts of attack formation and military strategy can often improve your positional play intuitively. There are a lot of things unrelated to book study that can have profound impact on one's chess ability. Even just eating better, getting proper rest and exercise, etc. will help improve one's play.

That being said, there are indeed literally over one hundred threads about this subject on the forum, so I recommend digging around through those for even more (and maybe even better) advice.

To be fair, F_D, you can improve just from playing all the time. If you play 50,000 games in a year, even with no book study, you will probably become a fairly accomplished player if you are going through and analyzing your games and learning from them. He wasn't talking about putting in no hard work, he just wondered if there were alternatives to book study...which yes, there are. It's call practical study, i.e. playing and reflecting. If you want to become a master, well at that point obviously you will need to know solid opening and endgame theory and you really can't learn that without study, but I think your mentality that you absolutely must at any level to improve your chess surround yourself with books is flawed. A lot of chess is simply pattern recognition so if you see positions 100 times, you will recognize them and remember what not to do if you learned from your mistakes in it. Hell, one might even improve their chess play by engaging in mental pursuits outside of chess, as has often been noted by others here. Learning general problem solving tools can improve the speed and accuracy of analysis in a position. Understanding basic concepts of attack formation and military strategy can often improve your positional play intuitively. There are a lot of things unrelated to book study that can have profound impact on one's chess ability. Even just eating better, getting proper rest and exercise, etc. will help improve one's play. That being said, there are indeed literally over one hundred threads about this subject on the forum, so I recommend digging around through those for even more (and maybe even better) advice.

Cynosure

#15

I'm probably a fairly decent example of someone who, from October 2012 to around March 2014 played chess without doing study.

I had learned the basics of chess from my grandfather, but never really played. I joined lichess, and determined to play five 5+0 games a day. In addition to this, I dabbled with bullet, and also longer games. If you look at my graph over my entire history, you can see that virtually all of my stats have increased.

Bullet went from an average of 1270 to an average of 1750, and a peak of 1914.

Blitz went from an average of 1450 to an average of 1700, and a peak of around 1800.

Classic went from an average of about 1500 to an average of around 1600. I think I'm at my current peak on Classic at about 1680.

For about the last 8 months, my improvement has been marginal; I think this is due to two reasons:

i) I am not playing games in the same number that I used to; I may play ten 1+0 games, one or two 3+0 games now. I used to play something like 30 or 40 1+0 games a day, and ten or twenty 3+0. This made me improve rapidly, as chess at that speed is pattern recognition.
ii) I am playing at a level where most of my opponents are motivated enough or have previously done some kind of formal study; and know basic defences/gambits/attacks through what they have formally learned; whereas for me to learn them (through pattern recognition) would take many more hours.

So I would say, yes, you can improve without studying. I think my Classic rating and Chess960 rating is a testament to that; both have steadily improved, but at a slower rate than what we can term as just "pattern recognition" and instinct.

However, you will hit a plateau where it is more efficient and effective to hit the books and do some reading and learning, as while the jump from an average of 1500 - 1700 may take you only 10,000 games, the jump from an average of 1700 - 1800 may take another 10,000 games. The time I, or you, would save by simply studying some opening/endgame/middlegame theory, would be massive, compared to the time of 10,000 games.

However, much like me, I imagine you find the playing of games fun, so won't really study it formally. Fair enough.

But bear in mind, if you play 60 or 70 chess games a day, you will become mentally exhausted very quickly.

I'm probably a fairly decent example of someone who, from October 2012 to around March 2014 played chess without doing study. I had learned the basics of chess from my grandfather, but never really played. I joined lichess, and determined to play five 5+0 games a day. In addition to this, I dabbled with bullet, and also longer games. If you look at my graph over my entire history, you can see that virtually all of my stats have increased. Bullet went from an average of 1270 to an average of 1750, and a peak of 1914. Blitz went from an average of 1450 to an average of 1700, and a peak of around 1800. Classic went from an average of about 1500 to an average of around 1600. I think I'm at my current peak on Classic at about 1680. For about the last 8 months, my improvement has been marginal; I think this is due to two reasons: i) I am not playing games in the same number that I used to; I may play ten 1+0 games, one or two 3+0 games now. I used to play something like 30 or 40 1+0 games a day, and ten or twenty 3+0. This made me improve rapidly, as chess at that speed is pattern recognition. ii) I am playing at a level where most of my opponents are motivated enough or have previously done some kind of formal study; and know basic defences/gambits/attacks through what they have formally learned; whereas for me to learn them (through pattern recognition) would take many more hours. So I would say, yes, you can improve without studying. I think my Classic rating and Chess960 rating is a testament to that; both have steadily improved, but at a slower rate than what we can term as just "pattern recognition" and instinct. However, you will hit a plateau where it is more efficient and effective to hit the books and do some reading and learning, as while the jump from an average of 1500 - 1700 may take you only 10,000 games, the jump from an average of 1700 - 1800 may take another 10,000 games. The time I, or you, would save by simply studying some opening/endgame/middlegame theory, would be massive, compared to the time of 10,000 games. However, much like me, I imagine you find the playing of games fun, so won't really study it formally. Fair enough. But bear in mind, if you play 60 or 70 chess games a day, you will become mentally exhausted very quickly.

Cynosure

#16

Oh, furthermore, I'd also say that lichess has extremely strong bullet players; my chess.com bullet rating is more in the region of 2000, and my English Chess Federation rating for bullet (which they determine as 5+0 or less, so is more like blitz here) is in the region of a 2100 FIDE equivalent (ECF 182)

However, my classic rating is much more akin to my ECF rating of 125, when converted to FIDE. (ECF x 8 + 650 = FIDE equivalent is the current formula).

Oh, furthermore, I'd also say that lichess has extremely strong bullet players; my chess.com bullet rating is more in the region of 2000, and my English Chess Federation rating for bullet (which they determine as 5+0 or less, so is more like blitz here) is in the region of a 2100 FIDE equivalent (ECF 182) However, my classic rating is much more akin to my ECF rating of 125, when converted to FIDE. (ECF x 8 + 650 = FIDE equivalent is the current formula).

Robkin

#17

stunning about #16!

I am a chess.com veteran and have played thousands of bullet games there. While some years ago players of club level were rated above 2000 bullet, nearly all those profiles are today rated around 1700 or so conc. bullet on chess.com. It is known among chess.com forum readers that management (Erik) did decide to make a change within their bullet rating system to have more accurate ratings and then all ratings dropped dramatically.

My lichess bullet rating is constantly around 200 points above my chess.com bullet rating and I feel that many people will have equivalent numbers as chess.com bullet is nowadays highly deflated.

stunning about #16! I am a chess.com veteran and have played thousands of bullet games there. While some years ago players of club level were rated above 2000 bullet, nearly all those profiles are today rated around 1700 or so conc. bullet on chess.com. It is known among chess.com forum readers that management (Erik) did decide to make a change within their bullet rating system to have more accurate ratings and then all ratings dropped dramatically. My lichess bullet rating is constantly around 200 points above my chess.com bullet rating and I feel that many people will have equivalent numbers as chess.com bullet is nowadays highly deflated.

l33t_5l4ck3r

#18

Amazing post, Cynosure.

Thank you so much for sharing your experience.

Amazing post, Cynosure. Thank you so much for sharing your experience.

Wafflesmack

#19

you can definitely learn without studying. i went from 1300 to 1900 on chess.com and 2200 on chesscube just by watching immortal/brilliancy games every day. i find them pretty entertaining, and if you're addicted like me you'll love them too

i realized pretty quickly i was learning solid opening, middle, and endgame techniques (and some of the best moves of all time :D) without even knowing it, and the quality of my games started going up dramatically. highly recommended is kingscrusher's playlist, although don't take his analysis too seriously

there is a serious 1800 barrier that you will reach though, where learning lines and studying is literally the only way to move up.

you can definitely learn without studying. i went from 1300 to 1900 on chess.com and 2200 on chesscube just by watching immortal/brilliancy games every day. i find them pretty entertaining, and if you're addicted like me you'll love them too i realized pretty quickly i was learning solid opening, middle, and endgame techniques (and some of the best moves of all time :D) without even knowing it, and the quality of my games started going up dramatically. highly recommended is kingscrusher's playlist, although don't take his analysis too seriously there is a serious 1800 barrier that you will reach though, where learning lines and studying is literally the only way to move up.

Cynosure

#20

Completely agree with @19, around 1800 there is a barrier, which you could theoretically break through just by playing games, but it'd take so long you may as well just study.