Chess lazyness

Well, if you don't want to get better at chess, that is perfectly alright. You can play this game only to have fun! Even if that means always being on the same level! I want to improve also because I think I will have more fun that way.

That said, if you really want to improve, will only playing be enough? I think only to a point. You might get more experience, which will manifest, I think, especially in making less simple mistakes (important), but even this is not a guarantee- some people played AND studied for years and are still making many simple blunders.

But imagine you only played against GMs, and never took time to study, let's say, in the form of analyzing your games after playing them. I think that you would get startegically outplayed in many games, and you wouldn't really know why. So you wouldn't ever learn the lessons from these games.

Maybe you should keep on doing what you have been doing- for a time- and then decide if you want to study or not! Peace!

watch videos or live on twitch whenever you want it helps

also books are not only about opening theory data (i find it confusing that it is called theory). Does this opening sequence, in theory leads to such outcome (W,D,L). Is that why it is called like that? Because, it could be data or knowledge, or consensus, or experts opinions, or according to some master's tournament database book digest (computer book not human book). If referring to such a database to book "projection", I would call that data, not theory.

Anyway back to question of lazyness. Why use such word (perhaps to avoid it wasting post space in the replies)? You might just want to call naive chess. And definitely, it would be interesting to know how far you can go without resorting to established terminology (from active reading, I mean, because any interaction outside the board, might still influence you from second hand reading).

Back to my main point. There may be different motivations to reading. maybe your own naive chess experience has triggered naive question of a "theoretical" nature, some patterns you are half-aware of, you might want to investigate if they have received or been blessed with some protected terminology, or better yet, been discussed by persipacious individuals before you.

The original poster got far without any book, that is fine.
I am not against chess books, but rather advice to limit their number and select them carefully.
Some natural players like Capablanca, Reshevsky, Spassky got a long way without substantial study of chess books.
Carlsen said he progressed most from playing games against himself, like AlphaZero.

Everyone should have their own way. I called myself Amish chess players because I want to play out of any style in written books, chess engine and I have terrible memory in anything I read. What did I write again?