Answers.Body: <p>Reading helps, unless you're Capablanca and can work it all out for yourself, which most can't, even the GM's. I would suggest do both, but you don't need to overdo it with either. Just concentrate on your weaknesses and read/figure out whatever is necessary for you to improve. Best of luck :)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-11-22T18:43:36.027Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-11-22T20:13:35.210Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-11-22T20:13:35.210Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: tbrook
Answers.Body: <p>GM Jonathan Rowson recently <a href="https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Rowson/status/1325936590800220160" rel="nofollow noreferrer">answered the question</a> &quot;how does anyone get good at chess?&quot; on Twitter in fewer than 280 characters as follows:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Start young (5), fall in love with chess, get lucky with the characters in your particular chess world.<br />
  Keep going, be willing to lose a lot, admire someone, study, play, repeat. Befriend computers.<br />
  Lose some more. Scream in frustration.<br />
  Keep going. Win.<br />
  Takes at least a decade</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>The bad news is that &quot;study&quot; comes about halfway through his list. The good news is that he seems to prioritise other things above study in his list but the first three are things you don't have much control over. They do, though, apply to most if not all of the top players today. Starting early, falling in love with chess and having good mentors / role models in your early development are all key.</p>
  <p>I'd just echo the Biblical quote which, although in another context, also applies here:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>The point being that when you really love something then studying doesn't feel like studying. It is just more fun doing what you love.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-11-10T11:50:14.830Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-11-10T11:50:14.830Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>One can have a natural talent for the skills inherent in chess, such as spatial relations and pattern recognition, but without knowing some of the basic principles of chess, most easily obtained through study, it's difficult to see how one could become truly great.  Capablanca was supposedly such a natural talent, particularly in endings, but even he found it necessary to study openings when he reached the higher echelons of chess in order to continue to compete successfully. Other natural talents such as Reshevsky found the same to be true.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-07-16T14:43:58.123Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-07-16T14:43:58.123Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: CConero
Answers.Body: <p>Some people seem to think there's a quick, certain road to success without doing the work. Millennia of experience refute this, with the possible exception of the unfair advantages of inheritances, nepotism and old boys' clubs contacts.</p>
  <p>It's estimated that the average grandmaster recognizes ~100,000 patterns, i.e. configurations of pieces and sequences of moves that recur often enough to be worth memorizing. Sometimes, they're simple and obvious, like a knight fork or back rank mate, but more often they involve subtle things like forcing weaknesses in pawn structures, standard sacrifices in openings (e.g. the Cochrane Gambit in the Petrov Defense), tricky lines in openings (such as the Two Knights' Defense), choosing to transition into an endgame with the better pieces depending on the deployment of the pawns, stalemate positions and the moves required to force them, obscure mating patterns, etc.</p>
  <p>Without study, especially in the endgames (and some openings), the uninitiated player is bound to stumble into problems they could have easily avoided, and lose. They'll also miss tactical resources for a win or a successful defense, if only because there just isn't enough time to figure them out from scratch at the board.</p>
  <p>Playing a lot of fast games will build up experience the fastest, but the quality of play is likely to be poor, and many of the available attacking / defensive ideas won't occur to untrained players in the time available. So, they're not an effective substitute for training (self-directed or otherwise).</p>
  <p>Ultimately, chess is an activity that requires discipline, and training is part of that discipline. If you're content to play mediocre chess, that's fine, but to be good, you must be prepared to be disciplined, and to apply that discipline in preparation. Because that's what your opposition is doing.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-11-15T19:09:39.307Z
Answers.Text: Of course, if you could persuade a master to play hundreds of rapid training games with you, you'd get exposed to their knowledge of sophisticated play (and some of the patterns I mentioned), but the results would be spotty, as would your assimilation of the knowledge. And how do you make it interesting for the master? You can't. It's not a sustainable model for knowledge transfer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: jaxter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-11-15T19:03:47.387Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-11-15T19:03:47.387Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jaxter
Answers.Body: <p>In those days, people do not have to reckon with tactics and preparation at the level of silicon beings, they just need to play better than the other guy. If Capablanca were still alive today, he would be crushed by most elite players because general principles do not stand up to tactical refutations, especially if they came from the computer.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-04-12T21:48:16.143Z
Answers.Text: General principals, or in other words strategy, gives rise to tactical opportunities. Those same principals are hard to quantify in computer terms and are a computers greatest weakness. Capablanca's grasp of those principals, coupled with his tactical capability would have made him a strong player even today, and as strong as almost anyone against the computers as well.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Edward Goodson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-25T08:55:53.597Z
Answers.Text: @women Before you comment on a player of the level of Capablance, that "he would be crushed by most elite players" have you ever seen even one game of his, if you would have, you would perhaps never have commented in this fashion.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RajSanpui
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-05T14:31:49.577Z
Answers.Text: I agree that Capablanca's natural talent would look like amateur's play against any GM after 1950.  Although Capablanca was rumored to study chess openings giving Corzo-Capablanca match 1902.  Corzo played the King's Gambit, and Capablanca researched the refutation for the next time Corzo would play the same mistake.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Fred Knight
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-05T14:32:56.860Z
Answers.Text: @Edward Goodson General principals are considered to be positional if anything.  Strategy is the plan you try to follow.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Fred Knight
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-11-23T13:27:15.293Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-11-23T13:27:15.293Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: women
Answers.Body: <p>Capablanca didn't like to "study chess or openings" means that he didn't like to study <em>formal</em> chess (as it was understood in his time).</p>
  
  <p>On the other hand, he studied more, and had a better grasp of chess principles, particularly as they related to the middle and end game. His best exposition of this was "Chess Fundamentals."</p>
  
  <p>Because he focused on principles, rather than "book" moves, he was the hardest person in the world to surprise with a new line. He beat back the Marshall Attack that Marshall had reserved especially for him.</p>
  
  <p>Nowadays, there is more and better book knowledge, so it's helpful to learn some of it. And the other reason is that not many players have the instinctive grasp of the game that Capablanca had.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-11T21:37:32.723Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-06-12T01:44:53.943Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-06-12T01:44:53.943Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Body: <p>I heard that Capablanca never liked to bother with openings, would never study chess or read books. Despite all this, he became world champion. Is this an exception to the rule?  Have times changed today were players are too strong and study is mandatory?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-07-16T15:21:11.097Z
Comments.Text: cheat with a smartphone.
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-11-10T13:05:18.377Z
Comments.Text: Capablanca wouldn't exactly be the first expert who massively downplays the countless hours he spent studying his field of expertise (consciously to brag or unconsciously because they felt like fun and not "study").
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-11-10T14:42:52.323Z
Comments.Text: How can one become a very good pianist without ever learning to play the piano?
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-11-10T23:52:16.080Z
Comments.Text: @Annatar nailed it.  Apparently Capablanca lost his scholarship to an engineering school because he was so engrossed by chess.
Comments.UserDisplayName: pokep
Tags: <theory><learning>
Title: How can one become a very good chess player without studying chess or openings?
ThreadText: # How can one become a very good chess player without studying chess or openings?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-11)
  
  I heard that Capablanca never liked to bother with openings, would never study chess or read books. Despite all this, he became world champion. Is this an exception to the rule? Have times changed today were players are too strong and study is mandatory?
  
  **Tags:** theory, learning
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: cheat with a smartphone.  
  > **username_2**: Capablanca wouldn't exactly be the first expert who massively downplays the countless hours he spent studying his field of expertise (consciously to brag or unconsciously because they felt like fun and not "study").  
  > **username_3**: How can one become a very good pianist without ever learning to play the piano?  
  > **username_4**: @username_2 nailed it.  Apparently Capablanca lost his scholarship to an engineering school because he was so engrossed by chess.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 6 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_13 on 2012-05-11. Score: 20 | Accepted answer
  
  Capablanca didn't like to "study chess or openings" means that he didn't like to study *formal* chess (as it was understood in his time).
  
  On the other hand, he studied more, and had a better grasp of chess principles, particularly as they related to the middle and end game. His best exposition of this was "Chess Fundamentals."
  
  Because he focused on principles, rather than "book" moves, he was the hardest person in the world to surprise with a new line. He beat back the Marshall Attack that Marshall had reserved especially for him.
  
  Nowadays, there is more and better book knowledge, so it's helpful to learn some of it. And the other reason is that not many players have the instinctive grasp of the game that Capablanca had.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2012-11-22. Score: 8
  
  Reading helps, unless you're Capablanca and can work it all out for yourself, which most can't, even the GM's. I would suggest do both, but you don't need to overdo it with either. Just concentrate on your weaknesses and read/figure out whatever is necessary for you to improve. Best of luck :)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2020-11-10. Score: 3
  
  GM Jonathan Rowson recently [answered the question](https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Rowson/status/1325936590800220160) "how does anyone get good at chess?" on Twitter in fewer than 280 characters as follows:
  
  > Start young (5), fall in love with chess, get lucky with the characters in your particular chess world.  
  > Keep going, be willing to lose a lot, admire someone, study, play, repeat. Befriend computers.  
  > Lose some more. Scream in frustration.  
  > Keep going. Win.  
  > Takes at least a decade
  
  The bad news is that "study" comes about halfway through his list. The good news is that he seems to prioritise other things above study in his list but the first three are things you don't have much control over. They do, though, apply to most if not all of the top players today. Starting early, falling in love with chess and having good mentors / role models in your early development are all key.
  
  I'd just echo the Biblical quote which, although in another context, also applies here:
  
  > faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love
  
  The point being that when you really love something then studying doesn't feel like studying. It is just more fun doing what you love.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2015-07-16. Score: 2
  
  One can have a natural talent for the skills inherent in chess, such as spatial relations and pattern recognition, but without knowing some of the basic principles of chess, most easily obtained through study, it's difficult to see how one could become truly great. Capablanca was supposedly such a natural talent, particularly in endings, but even he found it necessary to study openings when he reached the higher echelons of chess in order to continue to compete successfully. Other natural talents such as Reshevsky found the same to be true.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2024-11-15. Score: 0
  
  Some people seem to think there's a quick, certain road to success without doing the work. Millennia of experience refute this, with the possible exception of the unfair advantages of inheritances, nepotism and old boys' clubs contacts.
  
  It's estimated that the average grandmaster recognizes ~100,000 patterns, i.e. configurations of pieces and sequences of moves that recur often enough to be worth memorizing. Sometimes, they're simple and obvious, like a username_12 fork or back rank mate, but more often they involve subtle things like forcing weaknesses in pawn structures, standard sacrifices in openings (e.g. the Cochrane Gambit in the Petrov Defense), tricky lines in openings (such as the Two Knights' Defense), choosing to transition into an endgame with the better pieces depending on the deployment of the pawns, stalemate positions and the moves required to force them, obscure mating patterns, etc.
  
  Without study, especially in the endgames (and some openings), the uninitiated player is bound to stumble into problems they could have easily avoided, and lose. They'll also miss tactical resources for a win or a successful defense, if only because there just isn't enough time to figure them out from scratch at the board.
  
  Playing a lot of fast games will build up experience the fastest, but the quality of play is likely to be poor, and many of the available attacking / defensive ideas won't occur to untrained players in the time available. So, they're not an effective substitute for training (self-directed or otherwise).
  
  Ultimately, chess is an activity that requires discipline, and training is part of that discipline. If you're content to play mediocre chess, that's fine, but to be good, you must be prepared to be disciplined, and to apply that discipline in preparation. Because that's what your opposition is doing.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: Of course, if you could persuade a master to play hundreds of rapid training games with you, you'd get exposed to their knowledge of sophisticated play (and some of the patterns I mentioned), but the results would be spotty, as would your assimilation of the knowledge. And how do you make it interesting for the master? You can't. It's not a sustainable model for knowledge transfer.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2012-11-23. Score: -4
  
  In those days, people do not have to reckon with tactics and preparation at the level of silicon beings, they just need to play better than the other guy. If Capablanca were still alive today, he would be crushed by most elite players because general principles do not stand up to tactical refutations, especially if they came from the computer.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: General principals, or in other words strategy, gives rise to tactical opportunities. Those same principals are hard to quantify in computer terms and are a computers greatest weakness. Capablanca's grasp of those principals, coupled with his tactical capability would have made him a strong player even today, and as strong as almost anyone against the computers as well.  
  > **username_11**: @username_9 Before you comment on a player of the level of Capablance, that "he would be crushed by most elite players" have you ever seen even one game of his, if you would have, you would perhaps never have commented in this fashion.  
  > **username_12**: I agree that Capablanca's natural talent would look like amateur's play against any GM after 1950.  Although Capablanca was rumored to study chess openings giving Corzo-Capablanca match 1902.  Corzo played the King's Gambit, and Capablanca researched the refutation for the next time Corzo would play the same mistake.  
  > **username_12**: @username_10 General principals are considered to be positional if anything.  Strategy is the plan you try to follow.  
  
  ---
  
  