- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Why Chess Books Don't Work

#2

I was really glad to read this article which largely reflects my own perspective regarding chess books. As someone who has never made it through a chess book (beyond a few chapters) my focus has been on other forms of learning. Your basketball analogy is a good one. However, I think before we had digital methods of learning the old school way was always to get a book. Today it is way more efficient to pick up chess information online and through visual media. Naroditsky, King and Banzea do a particularly good job.

I was really glad to read this article which largely reflects my own perspective regarding chess books. As someone who has never made it through a chess book (beyond a few chapters) my focus has been on other forms of learning. Your basketball analogy is a good one. However, I think before we had digital methods of learning the old school way was always to get a book. Today it is way more efficient to pick up chess information online and through visual media. Naroditsky, King and Banzea do a particularly good job.
#3

I am reading the blog. Good questions. I do relate to the bullet points about theory of learning, implicit and rarely explicit.

I think that some efforts are made in offering better TOCs, and some meta prose lables within the text, they tend to make more explicit the intent of the author, which can help the reader keep own subjectivity.

I think the basic problem with books is not so much the author, but the imposed 1 dimensional flow that thing that could be in parallell in the subject matter presentation, are physically forced to be arbitrarily ordered or weakly ordered.

Chess has lots of things that can happen in parallel on the board, and even with depth the parallelism persist.

I find that chess books should be clear about the part of their ordering that is just the physical book author chain-ball, and what really might need some ordering from a communication and learning perspective.

I develop more on that in my musings...

I am reading the blog. Good questions. I do relate to the bullet points about theory of learning, implicit and rarely explicit. I think that some efforts are made in offering better TOCs, and some meta prose lables within the text, they tend to make more explicit the intent of the author, which can help the reader keep own subjectivity. I think the basic problem with books is not so much the author, but the imposed 1 dimensional flow that thing that could be in parallell in the subject matter presentation, are physically forced to be arbitrarily ordered or weakly ordered. Chess has lots of things that can happen in parallel on the board, and even with depth the parallelism persist. I find that chess books should be clear about the part of their ordering that is just the physical book author chain-ball, and what really might need some ordering from a communication and learning perspective. I develop more on that in my musings...
#4

I believe anything you do too superficially "just to get it over with" will give you little to no results.
I for one have no huge ambition to become much higher rated because why would I? I do want to keep improving but I honestly don't care at what pace... I do know that for me what makes me better is playing 15+10, 30+20, or slower time controls... Mostly I can't bring myself to do that and play 10+0 or shorter... Books are just a way to understand Master Games a bit better and connect to this slow, measured, deep place that most pro or very experienced chess players probably take for granted...
For those who play mainly online since the pandemic I believe books, and anything that connects you to the beauty of the game can be effective... for players who have OTB experience of some years I believe what is written in the article is more relevant because they have -anyways- been playing slow games and reading books... so it's quite speculative at the end of the day... but good article anyways

I believe anything you do too superficially "just to get it over with" will give you little to no results. I for one have no huge ambition to become much higher rated because why would I? I do want to keep improving but I honestly don't care at what pace... I do know that for me what makes me better is playing 15+10, 30+20, or slower time controls... Mostly I can't bring myself to do that and play 10+0 or shorter... Books are just a way to understand Master Games a bit better and connect to this slow, measured, deep place that most pro or very experienced chess players probably take for granted... For those who play mainly online since the pandemic I believe books, and anything that connects you to the beauty of the game can be effective... for players who have OTB experience of some years I believe what is written in the article is more relevant because they have -anyways- been playing slow games and reading books... so it's quite speculative at the end of the day... but good article anyways
#5

I've had the thought while reading a chess book, "That was interesting, but how the $&@# am I supposed to remember all this?", which is a less-articulate version of that theory of learning stuff.

I've had the thought while reading a chess book, "That was interesting, but how the $&@# am I supposed to remember all this?", which is a less-articulate version of that theory of learning stuff.
#6

If only Bobby Fisher hadn't wasted so much time reading chess books!

He could have hocked technology instead...

"Click on the board to make your move, and prove you are human."

If only Bobby Fisher hadn't wasted so much time reading chess books! He could have hocked technology instead... "Click on the board to make your move, and prove you are human."
#7

I personally did improve a lot with books, but yes, their usefulnes is limited. Videos have another big advantage: You can listen to the explanation while seeing bord and pieces. With a book you're always changing between looking at the board and reading the explanation.

I like combining both sources: Videos are usually good if the topic is new for you to get a fast overview of the topic. Books offer often a better in depth understanding, more and deeper sidelines etc.

I personally did improve a lot with books, but yes, their usefulnes is limited. Videos have another big advantage: You can listen to the explanation while seeing bord and pieces. With a book you're always changing between looking at the board and reading the explanation. I like combining both sources: Videos are usually good if the topic is new for you to get a fast overview of the topic. Books offer often a better in depth understanding, more and deeper sidelines etc.
#8

@Der-Wir-Ing said in #7:

I personally did improve a lot with books, but yes, their usefulnes is limited. Videos have another big advantage: You can listen to the explanation while seeing bord and pieces. With a book you're always changing between looking at the board and reading the explanation.

I like combining both sources: Videos are usually good if the topic is new for you to get a fast overview of the topic. Books offer often a better in depth understanding, more and deeper sidelines etc.

Videos are not very interactive.. But yes I agree that being able to keep eyes on the board and not having to decrypt in alternatively some prose and then go back to the board seems like a better reception mode. But the book in another angle is more interactive.

What is even more interactive than a book, is the web. not the streaming web. the old kind. the hypertext one (with added features perhaps audio reading of annotations). I mean lichess studies for example.

Those can be very interactive and hands-on. and the pace is yours.

@Der-Wir-Ing said in #7: > I personally did improve a lot with books, but yes, their usefulnes is limited. Videos have another big advantage: You can listen to the explanation while seeing bord and pieces. With a book you're always changing between looking at the board and reading the explanation. > > I like combining both sources: Videos are usually good if the topic is new for you to get a fast overview of the topic. Books offer often a better in depth understanding, more and deeper sidelines etc. Videos are not very interactive.. But yes I agree that being able to keep eyes on the board and not having to decrypt in alternatively some prose and then go back to the board seems like a better reception mode. But the book in another angle is more interactive. What is even more interactive than a book, is the web. not the streaming web. the old kind. the hypertext one (with added features perhaps audio reading of annotations). I mean lichess studies for example. Those can be very interactive and hands-on. and the pace is yours.
#9

"an explicit theory of learning"...hmmm...

"an explicit theory of learning"...hmmm...
#10

I think the blog post makes some very good points, but one area where the basketball/bread analogies fail is that chess is largely a cerebral activity: you aren't constantly pushing your pieces (outside of bullet or what not) but rather a lot of the "action" is in your head. A good chess book read well (i.e. with intent, active thinking, etc.) should be able to stimulate your brain on the topics covered, in a way at least somewhat similar to how you would be thinking during a game.

As for the books vs video portion: an argument can be made against a videos' strength (pieces move) - during a regular game you cannot move the pieces around before making your final move or when analyzing an opponent's threat. A book describing variations may still require internal visualization, which is a form of practice.

Books alone might not improve your chess much, but that's true of any activity. Reading about how to attack a castled king would be akin to a basketball player learning what a pick and roll is. In either case, you may stumble the first time you try to do it during a real game, but the idea is there for you to draw from. The key is to practice the concept after learning about the existance of said concept, something you could not do if you did not know it was even a thing.

However, I do agree on the importance of active engagement, or even the willingness to be actively engaged. If a video helps you more than a book, then by all means hit like and subscribe and click the little bell icon.

As for the number of books you should be reading at once: I think it's perfectly fine to read more than one book if you are actively engaged AND are still playing chess. You could be studying endgames on some days, reading through annotated master games on others, or working through tactics or strategy problems. In fact, if you decide to just do one book at a time, there may be fewer opportunities to practice what you're learning: if you are studying K+R endgames but never reach K+R endgames when you play, the concepts will become stale.

That said, I am currently reading zero chess books and watching only youtube shorts of chess pros on occasion, so what do I know?

I think the blog post makes some very good points, but one area where the basketball/bread analogies fail is that chess is largely a cerebral activity: you aren't constantly pushing your pieces (outside of bullet or what not) but rather a lot of the "action" is in your head. A good chess book read well (i.e. with intent, active thinking, etc.) should be able to stimulate your brain on the topics covered, in a way at least somewhat similar to how you would be thinking during a game. As for the books vs video portion: an argument can be made against a videos' strength (pieces move) - during a regular game you cannot move the pieces around before making your final move or when analyzing an opponent's threat. A book describing variations may still require internal visualization, which is a form of practice. Books alone might not improve your chess much, but that's true of any activity. Reading about how to attack a castled king would be akin to a basketball player learning what a pick and roll is. In either case, you may stumble the first time you try to do it during a real game, but the idea is there for you to draw from. The key is to practice the concept after learning about the existance of said concept, something you could not do if you did not know it was even a thing. However, I do agree on the importance of active engagement, or even the willingness to be actively engaged. If a video helps you more than a book, then by all means hit like and subscribe and click the little bell icon. As for the number of books you should be reading at once: I think it's perfectly fine to read more than one book if you are actively engaged AND are still playing chess. You could be studying endgames on some days, reading through annotated master games on others, or working through tactics or strategy problems. In fact, if you decide to just do one book at a time, there may be fewer opportunities to practice what you're learning: if you are studying K+R endgames but never reach K+R endgames when you play, the concepts will become stale. That said, I am currently reading zero chess books and watching only youtube shorts of chess pros on occasion, so what do I know?