thanks every one for posting!!
Zatara

baeron wrote on 08/02/10 at 12:13:01:


To recognise the problems, one must notice and understand the key features of the position. Both are closely related.

Quote:


True. However, I find that when I play over a game, I play over it quickly and visualise the variations in my head so that I can cover a large number of games in a short period of time. I recall a quote by Szabo (I think) where he stated that he focuses more at the board than during analysis and therefore he is sometimes able to improve on his own analyses over the board because he is more alert and 'in the zone'. 

Quote:


Yes, unless your annotations of the game are published. 

T Quote:


I find that getting in flow tends to occur autonomously and not by a particular procedure. However, being physically fit, feeling a strong passion for the game and having a good attitude over the board makes it much easier to get into flow. I've read Chess for Zebras a number of times but haven't looked closely at it in about two years. 

Quote:


Agreed. When you are in flow, you only think about the position on the board and nothing else enters your mind. 

Quote:


Yes, but not frequently. Setting up tournament conditions with a clock and a sparring/analysis partner can assist in achieving this 'fighting' state in training, although the majority of players do not have such a luxury available, at least not face-to-face.

Quote:


Depends on the training. For tactics, calculation and playing through games, I would argue that more is better because you develop your pattern recognition and train your calculation more, but for positional play and endgames I would agree that less is indeed more. One clear, instructive example of a positional concept/theme or key endgame position is more useful than ten randomly selected examples that will never occur in your games. 

Quote:


Indeed, but they are professional players. I played over the KK games at about 3.5 minutes per game on average. For me at least, my intuition is developed far more by playing through a game quickly rather than spending twenty minutes on one game. 

Quote:


You hit the nail on the head. 

Zatara wrote on 08/01/10 at 02:23:44:


Definitely playing. Especially OTB tournament games. 

The reason chess can't be mastered from studying books alone is that it's not enough to passively learn and receive information. You have to first be able to recognise key themes and motifs in a given position (called imbalances by Silman), and then you have to be able to apply your knowledge using accurate calculation and position evaluation. This is best developed with practice. 

That said, at the higher levels it is preferable to play less tournaments so that there is sufficient time to prepare for each tournament, analyse one's games and to select only the most suitable tournaments to play in.

Quote:


Exactly. Yermolinsky makes a similar point very well in his book 'The Road to Chess Improvement'. To be precise, he was actually speaking about learning a new language, but the point stands.

Fromper wrote on 08/01/10 at 05:57:18:


More or less agree with you here. As a beginner you need to learn to play without making blatant mistakes. Then as you stop making obvious mistakes you need to learn how to think about things and look for goals in a position other than one move threats. To do this you really need to learn the ideas and then practice implementing them and thinking this way in games. Then you need to see weaknesses and opportunities when your opponent makes tactical mistakes that aren't exactly obvious to the naked eye. To recognize these situations requires a lot of pattern recognition and can be best gained by pouring over hundreds of tactical puzzles. Of course you then have to view your own games like you do the puzzles and constantly look for solutions or ways to win material, so it does require some playing experience before you can be really effective. 

So beginners need more games, intermediate players less so, and stronger players really need to get into books.

Agreed with Bibs. You need both. 

All of you stronger players out there, feel free to disagree with me on this one, but I'd say the ratio of theory to practice varies with playing strength. I think beginners need to play a lot, and just have some basic reading here and there to guide them. So maybe 80-20 ratio of playing to study time. As you get into intermediate levels, it's probably closer to 50-50. And by the time you reach master or higher, you probably need a lot more book study than actual playing time to improve, though I'm not there yet, so I could be wrong.

As for why chess can't be mastered from a book, that's an easy one. Books teach you what to think, and they can even make recommendations for how to think, but actually thinking that way requires practice. Just because you know you should look for tactics on every move, and you know what those tactics are from lots of puzzles, that doesn't mean that it's instinctive for you to actually stop and look for them. That comes from playing.

What do people think is more important?  And why can't chess be mastered with just book study??
Thanks,
Zatara