Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Why Chess Books Don't Work

The veterans have had to get fluent in the 1D encoding of chess boards, they brain blood flow is now like dyslexic learning to read, they have chunk visual recognition of the stream of strings, zero decoding of the characters syllable sequences..

And they, the fluent SAN initiated, think, that online chess or digital chess is just a temporary crutch. So that everyone should learn the way of the compact notation constraints first.. They even will do prose and mix such notation.. as if it was board vision.

I guess I wish I was there. but with limited life-span left, being experienced that much there versus being experiences that much in chess, I prefer the way of the studies, and all the crutches I need to keep looking at the board all the time, and directly understand chess there.. only I can't commit to linear inexorable narrations of videos.. pausing is not enough. I need rewinding wherever my thoughts will want to go, and associate things, and that is very personal trajectory.. good indexed and with some concern of alternative approaches books can approach that better than a time constrained linear video with limited slide show value, and indexing by concept (not video time length). so interactive software is the ultimate..

The veterans have had to get fluent in the 1D encoding of chess boards, they brain blood flow is now like dyslexic learning to read, they have chunk visual recognition of the stream of strings, zero decoding of the characters syllable sequences.. And they, the fluent SAN initiated, think, that online chess or digital chess is just a temporary crutch. So that everyone should learn the way of the compact notation constraints first.. They even will do prose and mix such notation.. as if it was board vision. I guess I wish I was there. but with limited life-span left, being experienced that much there versus being experiences that much in chess, I prefer the way of the studies, and all the crutches I need to keep looking at the board all the time, and directly understand chess there.. only I can't commit to linear inexorable narrations of videos.. pausing is not enough. I need rewinding wherever my thoughts will want to go, and associate things, and that is very personal trajectory.. good indexed and with some concern of alternative approaches books can approach that better than a time constrained linear video with limited slide show value, and indexing by concept (not video time length). so interactive software is the ultimate..

@thefrickouttaherelol said in #12:

I was able to achieve 2200 in Bullet in just a few years of casual, play, though - and largely enjoy my time doing it.
Love how I'm being downvoted largely by people with lower bullet ratings than me, who have also been playing chess for longer than I have :)

@thefrickouttaherelol said in #12: > I was able to achieve 2200 in Bullet in just a few years of casual, play, though - and largely enjoy my time doing it. Love how I'm being downvoted largely by people with lower bullet ratings than me, who have also been playing chess for longer than I have :)

@thefrickouttaherelol said in #32:

Love how I'm being downvoted largely by people with lower bullet ratings than me, who have also been playing chess for longer than I have :)

I sincerely hope you realize that A) Bullet is highly unprofessional, non-serious chess, B) That bullet is horrible for you attention span in and out of chess, and C) You can't see the ratings of the people who downvote you.

@thefrickouttaherelol said in #32: > Love how I'm being downvoted largely by people with lower bullet ratings than me, who have also been playing chess for longer than I have :) I sincerely hope you realize that A) Bullet is highly unprofessional, non-serious chess, B) That bullet is horrible for you attention span in and out of chess, and C) You can't see the ratings of the people who downvote you.

@SveshnikovisKing said in #33:

I sincerely hope you realize that A) Bullet is highly unprofessional, non-serious chess, B) That bullet is horrible for you attention span in and out of chess, and C) You can't see the ratings of the people who downvote you.

A) I don't care.

B) I don't care.

C) Yes I can. I can see the list of users who gave me a thumbs down and then look at their profiles and see their 1111 ratings.

So why would I, someone who only ever played bullet, never read any chess books or studied chess, and only play casually, still have higher ratings than the people giving me thumbs down? That seems kind of sad for the folks downvoting me.

Someone might think that with the benefits of "serious" chess, reading books, and higher attention spans, you all should have ratings of 2600+. But apparently not lol.

@SveshnikovisKing said in #33: > I sincerely hope you realize that A) Bullet is highly unprofessional, non-serious chess, B) That bullet is horrible for you attention span in and out of chess, and C) You can't see the ratings of the people who downvote you. A) I don't care. B) I don't care. C) Yes I can. I can see the list of users who gave me a thumbs down and then look at their profiles and see their 1111 ratings. So why would I, someone who only ever played bullet, never read any chess books or studied chess, and only play casually, still have higher ratings than the people giving me thumbs down? That seems kind of sad for the folks downvoting me. Someone might think that with the benefits of "serious" chess, reading books, and higher attention spans, you all should have ratings of 2600+. But apparently not lol.

The benefits of serious chess are being good at actual chess. Not bullet. That is a completely different game.

The benefits of serious chess are being good at actual chess. Not bullet. That is a completely different game.

@SveshnikovisKing said in #35:

The benefits of serious chess are being good at actual chess. Not bullet. That is a completely different game.
Oh yeah, I'm sure - I don't care.

I mean I also usually end up beating players when I play longer time controls. When I don't give up due to pure boredom, that is.

I hope you're not trying to claim there's no carry-over between skills acquired in bullet and "real" chess, because that's just not true.

@SveshnikovisKing said in #35: > The benefits of serious chess are being good at actual chess. Not bullet. That is a completely different game. Oh yeah, I'm sure - I don't care. I mean I also usually end up beating players when I play longer time controls. When I don't give up due to pure boredom, that is. I hope you're not trying to claim there's no carry-over between skills acquired in bullet and "real" chess, because that's just not true.

1880 in blitz because your bored? Get out of here, bucko. Also, if you don't care that not taking chess seriously leads to not being good at slow chess, why are you commenting on this blog? The blog was certainly not written for bullet.

1880 in blitz because your bored? Get out of here, bucko. Also, if you don't care that not taking chess seriously leads to not being good at slow chess, why are you commenting on this blog? The blog was certainly not written for bullet.

@SveshnikovisKing said in #37:

1880 in blitz because your bored? Get out of here, bucko. Also, if you don't care that not taking chess seriously leads to not being good at slow chess, why are you commenting on this blog? The blog was certainly not written for bullet.

I've played literally 140 blitz games ever lol, so not sure if you're trying to make a point.

Unlike you, I don't consider bullet and "chess" to be two separate things, which is why I'm here.

I learned and acquired a 2200 rating through play. Never reading books or studying chess. It's not hard. I believe in learning a sport through play, not by reading a book.

@SveshnikovisKing said in #37: > 1880 in blitz because your bored? Get out of here, bucko. Also, if you don't care that not taking chess seriously leads to not being good at slow chess, why are you commenting on this blog? The blog was certainly not written for bullet. I've played literally 140 blitz games ever lol, so not sure if you're trying to make a point. Unlike you, I don't consider bullet and "chess" to be two separate things, which is why I'm here. I learned and acquired a 2200 rating through play. Never reading books or studying chess. It's not hard. I believe in learning a sport through play, not by reading a book.

2138 is hardly 2200.

And 145 isn't that little-In Comparison, I've played 9 bullet games.

2138 is hardly 2200. And 145 isn't that little-In Comparison, I've played 9 bullet games.

@SveshnikovisKing said in #39:

2138 is hardly 2200.

And 145 isn't that little-In Comparison, I've played 9 bullet games.
It takes 5 seconds to see that I've achieved 2200+ in bullet recently.

And actually it is that little in comparison when you consider that I've played 71,000 bullet games. So you have a 100-to-1 of blitz to bullet, ratio and I have a 500-to-1 ratio of bullet to blitz.

Regardless, still not sure what you're trying to get at. Again, I consider bullet to be "chess" and my bullet skills tend to carry over to every time control.

@SveshnikovisKing said in #39: > 2138 is hardly 2200. > > And 145 isn't that little-In Comparison, I've played 9 bullet games. It takes 5 seconds to see that I've achieved 2200+ in bullet recently. And actually it is that little in comparison when you consider that I've played 71,000 bullet games. So you have a 100-to-1 of blitz to bullet, ratio and I have a 500-to-1 ratio of bullet to blitz. Regardless, still not sure what you're trying to get at. Again, I consider bullet to be "chess" and my bullet skills tend to carry over to every time control.