I suspect enjoying chess culture and history is probably more important for us average dudes than the elite.
The very top players get rewards from becoming better and better.
For the rest of us - for whom improvement is less likley/takes longer - my guess is finding ways to enjoy the game to keep inspired and motviated to bash our heads against the board year in year out.
I'm not as such in disagreement with Christof. I just think we will lose some human perspective if we choose to forget our heritage only to focus on our contemporary view on chess. But yes, maybe the most effective method
My goal is not narrowly limited to “get better.” I enjoy playing chess and learning about chess. I like history and literature. I’m not a chess technician. Why wouldn’t I read old books? Few modern authors can write about chess like Chernev did. Why would I care that they’re more accurate? As Invisible Chess points out, why would I restrict myself to either old or new books? I guess Mr. Christof S. doesn’t watch old movies because the special effects are not as good as the newer ones’.
I believe that even if a specific move may not end up being the best move in a position the thought process may help us in other positions, it adds a layer, or as you put it, dimension, to how we approach the game! :)
I am basically on team Christof. We can learn from the past greats while still reading newer, higher quality books i.e. Hendrik's books, My Great Predecessors, and Terekhov's Smylov book (off the top of my head).
I decided NOT to buy books older than published in 1990. It was a concious choice and since 1997 I did not buy more than 15-20 books that were published before 1990 (and these old books I buy only because of the low price before I had the access to the new ones).
What I really love in older books is the way of thinking, the culture, the specific times and conditions these players (and thinkers like Lasker!) were functioning.
However for the exclusive application of chess improvement I believe you can just focus on the books published last decade and it will be more then enough to reach master level. I have no doubts about that especially when one can have the access to all the interactive (Chessable) courses and tools (engines, databases, interactive chess books, etc.).
What I like the most about the old books is not the precise analysis or the lack of mistakes, but rather the approach to chess in general. Before we had the common access to engines (let's say 2014 when Stockfish became available for everybody in the world) we needed to approach chess with all the human's mindpower. Nowadays we have tools - especially databases, engines and tablebases, and they help us to get to the position objective evaluation as close as we have never had the chance.
When we have the chance to compare the chess theory and approach to chess for the last 150-200 years, divided by decades - it really shows how our game has evolved over the years. I see it the same way as with computer chess. Just 80 years ago the scientists started the project of "looking for a model that can help us to see the improvement in artifical intelligence" - and they chose chess. When anybody read chess computer history - it is a fascinated journey showing how the progress of the engines (and all the battles in machines/engines championships) shaped the approach of chess players.
All in all - yeah, pure practical players may not read any books and become masters. However I cannot imagine how much we could have lost if we would not have the access to the herritage that is called chess history (in the broadest sense).
I also read somewhere that, some the concepts explained in older books may have become obsolete.
So caution required.
Anyway, for our Chess levels - historical books, games, videos of old games, analysis etc are quite essential. Just to keep in touch with Chess [which is hard sometimes!]
I'll go one further. In order to improve a skill, you can ignore all books. How many basketball books did Larry Bird read? If he read one, I bet it wasn't 50 years old.
I agree that playing and reviewing is a key component of improving. I however still think that if Micheal Jordan voiced over all his games with commentary on his thought process there would be something to learn
My other thought on this is ...
I suspect enjoying chess culture and history is probably more important for us average dudes than the elite.
The very top players get rewards from becoming better and better.
For the rest of us - for whom improvement is less likley/takes longer - my guess is finding ways to enjoy the game to keep inspired and motviated to bash our heads against the board year in year out.
I might also be colored by my profession as an archivist 😉
I'm not as such in disagreement with Christof. I just think we will lose some human perspective if we choose to forget our heritage only to focus on our contemporary view on chess. But yes, maybe the most effective method
We *can* of course not buy any books from 20th century or earlier.
And obvs some old books should be avoided.
But it's not an "either or" is it. Can't we read both.
And you can get a *lot* of great old books very cheaply
My goal is not narrowly limited to “get better.” I enjoy playing chess and learning about chess. I like history and literature. I’m not a chess technician. Why wouldn’t I read old books? Few modern authors can write about chess like Chernev did. Why would I care that they’re more accurate? As Invisible Chess points out, why would I restrict myself to either old or new books? I guess Mr. Christof S. doesn’t watch old movies because the special effects are not as good as the newer ones’.
I completely agree 🤝 I like the movie comparison
I believe that even if a specific move may not end up being the best move in a position the thought process may help us in other positions, it adds a layer, or as you put it, dimension, to how we approach the game! :)
I am basically on team Christof. We can learn from the past greats while still reading newer, higher quality books i.e. Hendrik's books, My Great Predecessors, and Terekhov's Smylov book (off the top of my head).
Was he saying that we *should* do it, or that we *could* do it?
I decided NOT to buy books older than published in 1990. It was a concious choice and since 1997 I did not buy more than 15-20 books that were published before 1990 (and these old books I buy only because of the low price before I had the access to the new ones).
What I really love in older books is the way of thinking, the culture, the specific times and conditions these players (and thinkers like Lasker!) were functioning.
However for the exclusive application of chess improvement I believe you can just focus on the books published last decade and it will be more then enough to reach master level. I have no doubts about that especially when one can have the access to all the interactive (Chessable) courses and tools (engines, databases, interactive chess books, etc.).
What I like the most about the old books is not the precise analysis or the lack of mistakes, but rather the approach to chess in general. Before we had the common access to engines (let's say 2014 when Stockfish became available for everybody in the world) we needed to approach chess with all the human's mindpower. Nowadays we have tools - especially databases, engines and tablebases, and they help us to get to the position objective evaluation as close as we have never had the chance.
When we have the chance to compare the chess theory and approach to chess for the last 150-200 years, divided by decades - it really shows how our game has evolved over the years. I see it the same way as with computer chess. Just 80 years ago the scientists started the project of "looking for a model that can help us to see the improvement in artifical intelligence" - and they chose chess. When anybody read chess computer history - it is a fascinated journey showing how the progress of the engines (and all the battles in machines/engines championships) shaped the approach of chess players.
All in all - yeah, pure practical players may not read any books and become masters. However I cannot imagine how much we could have lost if we would not have the access to the herritage that is called chess history (in the broadest sense).
Interesting read.
Sometimes latest books, resources [with annotations] contain computer analysis mostly [eg Informant].
Usually, older books have original analysis.
I also read somewhere that, some the concepts explained in older books may have become obsolete.
So caution required.
Anyway, for our Chess levels - historical books, games, videos of old games, analysis etc are quite essential. Just to keep in touch with Chess [which is hard sometimes!]
Should we really ignore all [chess] books written before 2000?
Of course, NOT! I bought a chess book by IM Christof Sielecki some time ago. I want my money back, now! 😬
I'll go one further. In order to improve a skill, you can ignore all books. How many basketball books did Larry Bird read? If he read one, I bet it wasn't 50 years old.
I agree that playing and reviewing is a key component of improving. I however still think that if Micheal Jordan voiced over all his games with commentary on his thought process there would be something to learn