Most often I just "read" chess books just like you'd read any other book, a novel say.  Oh, sure, sometimes I pause to study a diagram, trying to work it out, or even stop and stare off into space pondering the situation.  Thus, a book jam-packed with variations and little text rates very low, especially in bed, on an airplane, a bus, the smallest room in my apartment.

But I'm kidding myself if I really think I'm learning anything about chess this way.  I'm old fashioned.  To really look at a game I have to set up the board and move the pieces.  Even the computer lets me down here if I really want to "see."  If I really want to get it, I copy the moves down or do a print out or something and move to the actual board and pieces.

For this reason, I prefer books to computer programs.  You know, write in the margins, underline, dog-ear or paperclip the pages, hold it in your hands.  Saving variations on a computer would, for me, be about as useful as putting them in cold storage on Pluto.  Remote and useless.  Give me books.  I really wish I could use the computer.  I can understand the advantages.  They just don't work for me.

I read the Kasparov books almost as if they were regular prose.  I read prose books at a rate of 100-150 pages an hour, so I finished the Kasparov books in a couple of days.   

Then I went back and started analysing the games.  I've been jumping around quite a bit but it takes me the better part of my allotted reading time (1-2 hours) just to go through one well-annotated game.   

I read opening books the way I read an encyclopedia; I go straight for the information I need and ignore all the extraneous stuff.   


If I study hard, I'm in my study with the computer on, several opening books around me and a chess set or two just in case.  I rarely study though.  I'd rather go back to my sofa and lie back to watch a good movie or read a great trashy novel.

Not that i have anything against computers but i think that going over the books with a board in front of you is the most appealing. The computer allows you to do more in a horter amount of time but do you really absorb as much. One advantage to those with out the photgraphic memory is the computer because you can go over subvariations and then just jump back to main line.

for TalJechin .....

Hi. I seldom go to my home page since I've transferred everything to a different locale, so I had missed some messages on the forum. While I'm supposed to be notified each time someone posts something, it's a hit or miss thing. But I wanted to let you know that I had connected with Ms. MacDonnell, the "bronze endgame sculpture" lady, and I had found a game from one of the Bourdonnais-MacDonnell matches that not just  incorporated the rook ending she desired, but also was one that her ancestor, Alexander MacDonnell, had won.

Thanks for the earlier der Lasa link, even though I didn't learn anything I didn't already know.  I still like to pursue every hint or clue. 

-SBC


I apologize to the rest for the off-topic content.

I didn't answer, it's too complicated!

Definitely not "first I play."  I pride myself on being well booked.  And never "on the bus."  Chess demands too much concentration for that, and even at my age, I am interested by the women on the bus.  Also not "at bedtime," when I'd rather read or converse with my wife. 

First I survey in the comfy chair, not with coffee as alumbrado does, but usually with a nice glass of Cotes du Rhone.  The wines of France excel all others.  I scope out the book and try to see the main things that the author is saying.  If I know well some of the lines addressed, I check to see if the author treats them correctly or perhaps has something new to say.

Then I move to the table and board which, in my youthful days, was where I did my deep analysis, keeping notes.  But now I just review lines there.  This produces questions.

Finally, I move to the computer and the chess engine.  Seldom or never any more (when not at the board!) do I attempt serious analysis not backed up by a chess engine.  How to use a chess engine and not be decieved by one, that's for another thread.  And of course, these days I keep my notes in magnetic form.

I guess my answer would be "most of the above" depending on time and energy.  In general, I'm finding myself in agreement with Panda in theory and the opposite in practice.   

I find that I don't retain nearly as much as I used to by reading through a book without sitting at a board, so I've been making a concerted effort to work through books over the board.  Of course, there are invariably times when the board doesn't come out.  While I don't use a computer in my preparation, I find that Chesspublishing and this forum are excellent sources for cross-referencing ideas from books.

For those who do work at the computer or at the table with pieces--as distinct from reading when the chance arises--how often or how much time a week do you devote to books and book work?

When looking at an opening book I prefer to be sitting with a real board in front of me.  If I have a computer running I never get much done.  Moving real pieces the old fashioned way helps me remember the variations (partly because I'm often resetting the pieces from square one).

I usually read in small chunks of time (waiting for the train, waiting for people etc.) so a book is always with me. 

But if it's about preparing an opening just before a tournament, I usually read and analyse with the computer's engine. The computer is also able to answer any stupid questions.

The problem with reading books and using the computer like this is unless I go to the club regularly (which I don't), I am not so used to real-life 3-D board and pieces. 

In fact it has come to a stage where it's more effective for me to calculate variations by closing my eyes (and not looking at the real board) and imagining Fritz's 2D board in my head.  Looking at the 3-D pieces just interfere with my calculation!