@thefrickouttaherelol said in #55:
> I disagree on several grounds.
>
> 1) I'm in the top 10% of all players. I've been within the top 5%. That might not be "that good" to you but it's better than 90%+ of all other players.
> 2) I'm better than when I started, demonstrating that one can learn just by playing bullet.
> 3) I continue to improve, demonstrating that I have yet to hit a wall from just playing bullet.
>
> All through doing largely nothing other than playing bullet.
The point is you will eventually hit a plateau and you will have to do something other than bullet to get better and that's where books come in. There probably isn't a single grandmaster out there who hasn't read a single chess book.
Well said
Hmmmm....I can agree, but not completely.
Books published a few years ago will, of course, be out of date, but they still provide a large dose of knowledge. (let's be honest, the books are mainly used by players up to a ranking of 2200+)
What's good about books?
1. You have to sit down at the chessboard. And it may seem strange, but looking at the d2 (monitor) and 3d positions on the board makes a big difference.
2. Books can provide knowledge that a computer does not have, namely about the way of thinking in closed open positions, which bishop is better, etc.
3. Taking the opinion of the chess program as an indicator of a good/bad move. For example, the computer is able to count 15 moves forward, determining that the position is tied. The problem is that computers can calculate it, but humans cannot. Well, unless you have 2700+, you probably still remember the 15-move variant (including its legs and legs) which ends in a draw. But if you have 1400, it's harder to find good moves on the board... all of them are good :)
The development of chess is huge on YouTube, Twitch, training, available knowledge, but I think that sometimes it's worth looking at your favorite chess book and feeling nostalgic :)
translated by google translate :)
I have to disagree with this argument.
People can, do and should learn from reading books. The problem is that we live in an era where people have lost the desire to put in the necessary attention to absorb the material. People want a quick approach and reading is not a fast way to learn but it is a long term durable strategy to learn.
The problem first is people have to read the right way. Educational material, whether a textbook or chess book, cannot be read like a novel. It has to be read slowly and digested and mixed with practice in the same way students use math textbooks and similar materials.
The mode isnt the issue. How people use or misuse it is the issue.
@professionalpatzer1 said in #64:
> The mode isnt the issue. How people use or misuse it is the issue.
Yeah but books are boring and lame and pwning n00bs in bullet is fun :)
I have like a full-time job and stuff lol. I play chess between meetings. If I had to read a book to learn chess I would literally never play it.
@savage_caveman said in #61:
> The point is you will eventually hit a plateau and you will have to do something other than bullet to get better and that's where books come in. There probably isn't a single grandmaster out there who hasn't read a single chess book.
I am afraid that there are some GMs who have not read a single chess book, but they watched videos or had good coaches instead. Those coaches could convey them the knowledge accumulated from the books.
I agree that just playing bullet can bring a player to a certain level, but in itself is not enough to get further. (In fact, I am afraid that playing too much bullet can rather hinder one's further improvement. True, there are many great players playing a lot of bullet, but they also study chess a lot and play many longer games as well. In my opinion, most of the top GMs play bullet mostly for fun.)
There is some depth in chess which requires more time to understand and appreciate. It has its own beauty, which is based on subtleties rather than on sacrifices. There are beautiful ideas which practically cannot be found in bullet or blitz, as they require more time.
I don't fully agree, I think books are almost always better than YouTube videos. It requires more concentration, that is a positive, not a negative.
I'm somewhat envious of you folks who can actually sit down and study chess. Not enough to change my ways, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
You need to understand what you are reading, and practice it! It would be of no use if you were to stare at videos for hours on end but not play a single chess game!
I'd rather just yeet around in bullet thank you.