Which Do Ye Prefer . . .

@savage47

There is a man from my town named Henry Despues who is a professional chess coach and has the CM title who never studied and the most important thing to get better at chess is to 1) play games and 2) talk to your pieces and try to understand how they feel in different positions.

I talked about this at length because I found it odd, that a chess coach said it wasn't important to study, I went into the talk, expecting him to argue instead that study was important, against conventional and popular wisdom. Maybe not only in chess but other things.

He said that he is a coach because it makes a lot of money and there is a demand for it.

I was amazed at his honesty.

He elaborated and reminded me that it isn't the guy with a PHD in functional languages that gets the job, but the kid who hacked out of curiosity, and actually did things on his own. Said that studying is just a round about way of doing the same thing, and you can tell a lot about a person if they think it's actually a good idea. He asked me why the strongest and most valuable men didn't go to school and why it was the whipped guys who made perfect attendance too. I think he made his attitude very clear.

@Savage47
You know that CM is no master? It's the level before reaching the lowest mastership.

@jupp53 you can try to use adhoms as an argument but I don't know if that makes much of a case?

Experts are experts and results speak for themselves (:

@YGNR

Funny! You started with a case and the reasoning of a player who didn't get a master title. I took it not ad hominem. I took it as lack of knowledge about playing strength and how you tried to support an opinion with an argumentum ad autoritatem.

I agree here: Analyzing games. Learning from them is important.
I disagree here: Studying. It is very useful. The knowledge gained by former generations IS a shortcut.

@jupp53 the part you're missing is that players used to be weaker, it's not a shortcut to learn about the old meta. Besides, the new meta is better learned by playing games.

If you gave a monkey a type writer and let it type for an infinite amount of time, it would, at one point, stumble upon the entirety of buzzfeed, word for word.

@YGNR

As you like a little polemics avoiding the main point I give you the classic about monkeys:

" Ein Buch ist ein Spiegel. Wenn ein Affe hineinsieht, so kann kein Apostel herausgucken.

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg " :)

ad rem: How do you get the new meta? Makes this learning the old meta obsolete? Both questions lead to studying text if you are serious.

@jupp53 No, the new meta is a product of people having more time to play the game. That is the only factor.

@YGNR
According to your own post, lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/hi-guys-i-want-to-climb-to-1500-rating-on-this-website-over-the-next-year, you don't know how to learn how to play good chess.

To the players serious about how to study, disregard everything this poster has to say on the subject.

bruh @YGNR I'm 2200 FIDE and I know for sure that literally just playing games is not enough

@YGNR

Pretty sure you're just trolling and making stuff up.

Show me proof Henry Despues actually exists and actually said you don't need to study to be good at chess.

Google says he doesn't exist and you never actually quote him.

By the way, are his methods responsible for your massive 1305 rating?