lichess.org
Donate

So... Does playing chess by itself actually improve your chess?

I would say no... But you need to analyse your games, what went wrong, learn openings, theories, etc....

Funny how just doing it by itself is not going to help you the slightlest arrived at a certain stage whereas for every other sport it would be different...

Any tips on how to improve your chess for lazy ass students?? :p

I'm intermediate~
I disagree that in any sport simply participating aimlessly inherently makes you better. If, when you are playing, you are actually thinking about your moves, then yes it will inherently make you better, even if it's a very long, slow process. If you're just moving pieces randomly with out even thinking about making an attempt at strategy, then this would probably be akin to simply going out and throwing a basketball in the air without actually even bothering to look at where the basket is, and I don't think that would make you any better at basketball at all.
"Studying the opening is just memorizing moves and hoping for traps, but studying the endgame is chess." - Joshua Waitzkin

as early as possible I'd decide an a repertoire and stick to it, play the same lines over and over again and know how to draw those endgames blindfolded and in your sleep If you want to win or draw and rarely lose that is the only way to do it, it is also the most direct route and therefore the easiest but an easy row to hoe it is not.
@SystemDC
A few months ago I posted in the forum on chess.com about the pros and cons of playing bullet, and blitz.

And guess what ?

It was a big surprise for me that GM Dlugy (unofficial blitz world champ many years ago) commented to my post that his chess improved a lot ... by playing blitz !!

That was an interesting comment to read from such a player.

And I can imagine that a lazy chess student like you, might enjoy that idea as well ;-)

oh and my vote is no. progress that slow can not be considered progress at all. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. There are many "invisible" advantages in chess and you can never properly analyze a position unless you've been introduced to them all and have a guess as to how to prioritize them. That is where local clubs are helpful. Losing to better players who in a few minutes of conversation can expose you to stronger ideas is invaluable. In that same line of thought you tube videos and live streaming are much more efficient means of exposure compared to books or computer analysis, just playing is for improving and developing ideas you already have but not effective for discovering new ones.
#5 When I learn music, I first examine what I need to do from a physical and mental aspect, and then I practice it over and over again. Yesterday, I played the same 3 minute fantasia by Luys Milan 75 times.

As a professional musician, I would say that you don't do the 'same thing over and over again but expecting a different result' - you hone the skills you have and look in detail at the problem areas.
So, it's not really a difference of kind between chess and other competitive endeavors.

The trick is that to improve at some activity requires correct, timely feedback.

In chess, you will improve by just playing, but only to the extent that you get correct feedback from playing.

As a beginning player, if you drop a couple pawns to a 5-move tactic, you probably won't even realize what happened until the mistake is in the past. At that point, unless you go back and analyze the game, you're not going to benefit much from that learning opportunity.

On the other hand, some mistakes get very clear feedback, and those can be expected to gradually disappear just with playing experience. If you just drop a piece in 1 move and your opponent takes it, you already have your correct, timely feedback.

That's why people who just play a lot will improve to some extent, but then plateau once the mistakes they make are beyond their ability to easily recognize while playing.

To use the basketball analogy, you can get pretty good at shooting just by shooting a lot, and that's because you get instantaneous feedback; you either made the shot or missed. Sure, you're not going to improve as quickly as if you actually analyzed your mechanics and such, but you will still make steady progress.

Ultimately, it's just a matter of the feedback you get. If you're able to realize your mistakes during the game, then that feedback will allow you to improve. If you get to a point where your mistakes are less obvious and you're not sure where you go wrong, then just playing won't really help. The same also applies if your opponents aren't good enough to punish your mistakes. You're again missing out on the necessary feedback.

The very not-quick-fix, not-sexy answer is that the best way to improve is to play games you take seriously, and then use a stronger player/coach/engine (preferably both!) to figure out your mistakes and how to avoid them.

It's all about the feedback :)
The other aspect I forgot to mention in my last post is the negative aspect of playing a lot. To the extent that you don't get your corrective feedback, not only are you missing an opportunity to improve, you're reinforcing bad habits.

That's the other reason just playing a lot of chess is not a reliable improvement method. You might get some decent feedback on obvious mistakes, but you're reinforcing all the bad habits that don't get obviously punished by your opponents.

Some players are more suited for chess/more talented, and they can figure things out while playing better than other people can. Those people (like Dlugy) will benefit more from playing a lot of games. Those people (like Dlugy) also probably critically review their games more than they realize :)
@ #3 this means Waitzkin never thought about his opening moves, never analyzed on hin own. I just don't believe it, that's the way for patzers.

@ #7 excellent! Would be great to find more posts of this quality here in the forum!

The main problem in chess seems to be the sheer endlessness of possibilities. So even if you get the right feedback, how much of this would you need to improve, for example from 2400 to 2600? Even if you analyze deeply and you really understand, that another move is better in a certain position, this position may be very specific and will never occur again. So how much will you learn for your play in general? Sometimes you will learn a new idea, that you can use in a certain type of position, so there is a bit of generalization. Still you need ten thousands of these and often enough when you want to use them, exactly in this position you should not! So you even have to refine the concept of this single idea more and more. So I think most of us could improve to a certain level with this concept of feedback. But could we all become 2700 players? Maybe here we come to this mysterious "talent".
I am a beginner at chess, only starting to pick up the game in July. In the beginning, I just play a lot. It did not really help me improve much. My rating on lichess was around 1200~1300. As I started doing more tactics training while playing, my rating gradually improved to 1400~1450. It was a really slow process. I was really frustrated. The main problem was I had 0 understanding of strategy. I was just trying hard to find ways to make tactics happen.

Then, I decided to subscribe to chess mentor on chess.com, continue doing tactics and decrease actual game play. Within a short amount of time, my rating went up to 1700.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.