How do you recommend I study rather than read?

[guyhayton]

On another thread I started, I have an ever expanding library and now the school holidays are over more time (grin)

I could just sit down and read the books in order alongside a portable chess board... but I get the feeling that this would be insufficient. Other than scribbling notes in the margin, is there a method of study that is recommended by others - what works for them.

It sounds like a silly question, but I remember years ago somebody telling me about index cards and coloured pens for revising my maths. In the past decade I have become an advocate of Dabid Allen's GTD theory for time management in my work life.

So come on... what's your favourite method/secret to chess study

[Peter Constantinou]

I haven't studied chess in a while, but I do think it's probably safe to say that reading won't transfer into over the board results without practice.

For example, in order to learn how to mate with bishop and knight, I think there are two distinct steps:

1. Study the theory: passively follow an example showing the main steps of the procedure. Repeat as necessary.
Having finished this step, you possess the theoretical knowledge, but practical mastery requires a second step.

2. Practice the ending repeatedly from different and "bad" positions (i.e. disorganised forces and centralised enemy king) against a suitable opponent and against the clock. Only by completing step 2, would I suggest that you can mate with bishop and knight.

I think this example reflects a more general truth about chess learning, whether it be opening lines, middlegame plans or whatever. Obviously, different people learn best in different ways, but as a general rule (and I believe my argument is fairly mainstream), you actually have to play chess and practice implementing your learned ideas in order to get better at doing so. So by all means read chess books, not least because it's interesting and fun, but in itself, I don't think they will necessarily cause you to improve unless you also practice and play, to convert your knowledge into practical ability.

That could be all nonsense though, as I'm not a grandmaster or a coach!

[David Pardoe]

Good advice Peter. Chess, like many pastimes is really about `participation`. To some extent `standard` doesnt particularly matter as long as you enjoy playing and can find a group of like minded players with whom to meet and enjoy social banter and the challenge of battle over a pint (or two)...perhaps.
Standard can improve quite markedly by practice in this way, and by friendly exchanges of ideas...critical comments and advice. Yes, by all means do the study...and the arbitary collection and study of various material will all add to your enjoyment.

[Arshad Ali]

So come on... what's your favourite method/secret to chess study

No pain, no gain. Better to take painstaking effort on something small rather than grand -- but inevitably superficial -- surveys and study plans. Less is more. So pull out a Chernev book. Start with the first game and, taking the side of the winner, cover the moves with a card. Then try to guess the winner's move and write it down, along with some analysis to demonstrate why you think it's the best. Then compare it with the winner's actual move. Do this for the whole game. Then write down where your mistakes were. If you find you disagree with the winner's moves or (more likely) you disagree with Chernev's analysis, check your analysis against Chernev's using a chess engine. This will take you many, many hours (for just one game). Maybe days. But your insight will be genuinely enhanced.

[guyhayton]

So pull out a Chernev book. Start with the first game and, taking the side of the winner, cover the moves with a card. Then try to guess the winner's move and write it down, along with some analysis to demonstrate why you think it's the best. Then compare it with the winner's actual move. Do this for the whole game. Then write down where your mistakes were. If you find you disagree with the winner's moves or (more likely) you disagree with Chernev's analysis, check your analysis against Chernev's using a chess engine. This will take you many, many hours (for just one game). Maybe days. But your insight will be genuinely enhanced.

Now! this sounds like the kind of thing I need... although I still need to understand how to interpret a chess engine's analysis

[Arshad Ali]

Now! this sounds like the kind of thing I need... although I still need to understand how to interpret a chess engine's analysis

Don't know if I can answer this briefly but you and the engine work together. For instance you see an apparent improvement on the move played or some piece of analysis: you feed it to the engine as a new move and find that the engine gives a whopping evaluation of -3.84: you check the computer-generated analysis and find you're dropping a piece a few moves down. Or the engine tells you you get mated in four moves. So the engine analysis here quickly puts paid to your "improvement" or riposte. Don't trust the engine's evaluations when they are minor (e.g., +- 0.38) and don't trust long lines of analysis. If some move in an engine's line of analysis doesn't make sense, appears non-optimal, feed what you think is a better alternative: most of the time you will be wrong but occasionally you will be right (as subsequent analysis of the new move by the engine will demonstrate). What you are doing together with the engine is making a tree of variations and then (by yourself alone) looking for thematic strategic, tactical, and mating patterns embedded in the tree. When you annotate the game by yourself, be sure to explicitly discuss these patterns. This is what top-flight annotators like Nunn, Timman, and Marin are doing. You will become a stronger player this way.

When you study endgames, set up the positions against a computer and try to win (or hold the draw). For example a certain K+R+P vs. K+R ending may be won and you may understand the analysis: the thing is to demonstrate to yourself you have actually learnt it and can use it. So set it up against an engine and play it out.

[guyhayton]

That's a great narrative on engine analysis... I have printed your posting out to put in my Chess scrapbook. Thanks

[Arshad Ali]

It's a bit dated but Kongsted's How to Use Computers to Improve Your Chess (pub. Gambit) goes into more detail than I possibly could. Also Steve Lopez's Electronic T-Notes at Chessbase are useful.