@janosopeligrosoYou would think a very high rated player would be able to give good advice, but this is not always the case. There is something called Curse of Knowledge which is a cognitive bias that many IMs/GMs suffer from and are unable to clearly give sound advice to much weaker players. Check this out:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledgeReal life example:
A couple months back, I asked GM Hansen for a book recommendation based on my rating/skill level. He replied "I don't do chess books, you're asking the wrong person, nor do I have a recommendation"
If you don't want to read the wiki link, here is an excerpt:
... in a classroom setting, teachers have difficulty teaching novices because they cannot put themselves in the position of the student. A brilliant professor might no longer remember the difficulties that a young student encounters when learning a new subject.
#9 just responding to 'reading is nothing', which implies to me that he doesnt value reading chess books --> something i thoroughly disagree with.
I merely said I think you should find out where your weak(est) spot is in your chess, and that you can improve on all aspects of chess by using books. Sure, you need to read and really understand the books, and not read it as a newspaper as you say, but yeah, I find them very helpful and definetly not 'nothing'. The way you 'study' these chessbooks differs per person as well, as for some it comes easier than for others.
As to your #11, I'm not giving actual advice about books here, as I think this differs per person. Just stating how I feel about the usage of chess books.
Going back to the topic question. "Is it Worth Reading Chess Books?"
I don't think there is a defined answer to it. Of course. You'll almost always learn a thing or two. But it mostly depending on your talent, current strength, age, and dedication to the game.
The more talented you are, it's going to be easier to learn the game, so in the fist couple of stages it's unnecessary to read a book. I think from somewhere around 2000 ELO; books, opening knowledge, endgame technique becomes important. Therefore, a lot of players stay at that level, because of lack of dedication. If they are more dedicated to pursue their potential chess career they have a more effective way to do that by studying the game (e.g. reading books, preparing openings, analyzing games, etc.).
Talking about experience I have never read a single chess book EVER. It has not been necessary since there was still improvement without them. Now I'm getting more trouble in the improvement. I know the basics of chess. My tactics are fine, I know how to play some endgames, I've studied some openings, and have a (dubious) opening repertoire.
It's at this point, the more specific aspects of chess become important. Also, now that I can understand chess notation, it should be easier to read the books. So now should be a nice time to step it up and take the learning to the next level.
So going back to the question, yeah, it's worth reading chess books, but only if you're at a point where the basic learning procedures (i.e. playing games, analyzing your blunders, watching chess videos, etc.) aren't working anymore, and when your dedication is high enough to make it through all the struggles. Because having fun is the most important in this hobby.
That is my (not really thought trough) opinion. I would like to hear what you guys think about that.
Is it worth it to eat a spicy pizza?
Not exactly sure what you are even asking since the question is tied to internal values I can neither see nor infer.
I like books.
It all depends on the person. For some videos work, for others books. Saying they become more important around 2000 is arbitrary imo, I know 1500s who read a lot, prepare a lot, I know 2500s who don't read and have never read or prepare. Saying books haven't been necessary for you is hard to prove; but sure ;).
You have a couple of clearly defined aspects to chess. Positional play, Strategic play, Tactical play. You also have the three phases of chess; opening, middlegame, endgame. These are all things you can learn, be it by using books, using videos or using coaches etc etc. Figuring out where you need focus your energy on, is by far the most important to me. Once you know what you are lacking, is to me the most important.
Say your endings are terrible, by reading up and studying on those you can improve your winning/drawing chances against better players drastically. Then it would definetly be worth reading chess books. This is all very obvious, but just making a case for the usage of chess books as a tool to become better at chess. F.i. in studying endgames, playing/practicing certain endgames in practical games against solid players is also very helpful, but firstly you need to know the principles of the particular endgame.
Now I'm not saying chess books are the only thing, or the foremost thing, in improving in chess. F.i., when a 1200* (just a random chess-rating) asks me how to improve in chess; 9/10 times being better in tactics is the main key. Just working on tactics will easily get you from 1200-1600. The way you train that is up to you, using online tactic-programs, or tactic-books, or what-not.
The main point I'm trying to get across; just find out where you need to improve -most-, and after that (good) books about that certain subject can definetly help you and are worth reading.
Edit: #14 lol. Fair enough
#15 I pretty much agree with everything you're saying.
It really depends on the player and the player's interest.
@IM BeepBeepImAJeep
My post at #11 was not referring to you, sorry if it came across that way. I am speaking about high rated players in general, and some IMs/GMs.
I have asked different GMs in the past about specific things to improve my chess and never received a straight answer due to Curse of Knowledge cognitive bias - this was my only point. Or put another way, great players don't always mean they are also great teachers/advice givers.
I am definitely pro chess books, like you said, they must be utilized efficiently to gain value from them.
On a side note, if I was stuck on an island with unlimited food resources and a chessboard, and only had 3 chess books with me, they would be (in general)
1. A thick book on puzzles/tactics
2. Comprehensive endgame manual covering all endings
3. A book on positional play/middle game ideas
Yeah, for sure. Being a good players doesn't mean you're a good teacher. When I got training, my trainer wasn't a particulary good chess-player. But he was definetly a very good trainer, having trained a kids to GM, and knowing a lot of concepts/ideas/training methods, etc. So, yeah, agree with your points ;) same goes for your 3 books I guess! :)
@17 If you had to burn one of the three books to survive, which book would you burn?
:p
@DrHackLOL
If it came to that, I would burn book #3.