Normal Topic Less is more? (Read 2113 times)
Uhohspaghettio
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 515
Joined: 02/23/11
Re: Less is more?
Reply #3 - 03/02/11 at 19:39:27
Post Tools
Just make sure you understand everything properly and that you really do return to it multiple times later to make sure you're not just going to forget it again. 

Otherwise it would be a bit like blitz play: seeing ideas without really understanding them, mostly just in one ear and out the other.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 766
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Less is more?
Reply #2 - 03/01/11 at 20:52:33
Post Tools
Blunderer wrote on 03/01/11 at 18:39:25:
On issue that continues to raise its head is the trade off between, at one end of the spectrum trying to cover a lot of ground in a book at pace vs at the other end of the spectrum a deep analysis of positions from the book before investigating the comments, thereby reducing the quantity but improving the quality.


I think the key is to do one or the other, and not get caught in the middle.

It has some value to read through a book relatively quickly, trying to pick up patterns and ideas, maybe delving down into some complicated analysis and variations if something jumps out at you as really interesting.

It is also valuable (probably more so) to drill deep into a few positions/concepts and really study them deeply.

What I think is the worst of both worlds is to combine the two, trying to plow through a long dense book variation by variation. When I try to do this I just get really fatigued and don't get the benefit of either approach at the ends of the spectrum. Maybe other people are more able to do this than I am, but I feel like my studying has improved since I stopped trying.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fromper
Senior Member
****
Offline


GrandPatzer

Posts: 381
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Joined: 03/12/10
Gender: Male
Re: Less is more?
Reply #1 - 03/01/11 at 20:45:27
Post Tools
I used to spend way too much time trying to remember every intricate detail of every chess book I read. I've since realized that even if I don't remember and absorb every detail, just being exposed to lots of positions will leave a vague memory in my mind that might come in handy later. Reading redundant books and/or re-reading the same one will cause me to finally remember things after being exposed to them several times.

Thus, I've realized that I'm better off going through lots of material quickly, then going through the same stuff again later if I really feel I need to remember all the details. That doesn't mean that I'm just flying through the material with no comprehension, though. If I have a question while reading it the first time, I'll stop and make sure I understand. But I really don't feel the need to try and get every detail perfect the first time. Repetition is key to remembering, but you need to put some time between repetitions, rather than just spending an hour repeating the same stuff over and over.

  

GrandPatzer!!!

1777 peak USCF rating - currently 1620 from coming back rusty
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Blunderer
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 66
Joined: 06/10/08
Less is more?
03/01/11 at 18:39:25
Post Tools
Recently I've been spending some time (trying) to build up my endgame and middlegame knowledge/ skill - mainly from books

On issue that continues to raise its head is the trade off between, at one end of the spectrum trying to cover a lot of ground in a book at pace vs at the other end of the spectrum a deep analysis of positions from the book before investigating the comments, thereby reducing the quantity but improving the quality.

Would be interested to hear how others juggle this balance

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo