Should we read Plato and Aristotle? Should we read Euclid? Newer books on philosophy and mathematics have added to our collective intellectual wealth, but it is silly to say that we don't need those old books. Maybe we don't need them, but we can benefit greatly from studying them. I understand that someone would prefer to read only newer books, but that is a naive approach to knowledge acquisition. We should choose good books, regardless of when they were written. Maybe Nakamura doesn't need to read but the latest theory, but many of us discussing this have pretty modest ratings, and there are books we can benefit from that were written long ago. No books before 2000 means no Averbach, no Pachman, no Purdy, no Simple Chess (by Micheal Stean), no Logical Chess (by Chernev), none of the excellent collections of tactics puzzles written in the 1980s and 1990s, not to mention annotated game collections. Some books published in English in the last 10 years are English translations of Russian books written before 1950. Do we leave them out of our reading list?
in Article it says chess maybe " learn the wrong way of thinking". Cooperation is not learned. Empathy not learned. But there is a chess culture and I think it's great!
Chess culture is important as a Ding-an-sich, not because it might or might not help improving at playing bullet online. So that's really two different things, one being way bigger than the other. As a matter of fact, Sielecki never claimed culture is not important so his statement is probably technically close to being correct.
I find that a lot of players (at my humble level anyway) do not know simple endings such as Queen/King, Rook/King against King.
Here, any old book will do fine. I would also argue that even a book as old as Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals will turn a wood-pusher into a fairly competent player, who is then ready to take on more modern volumes.
Here, any old book will do fine. I would also argue that even a book as old as Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals will turn a wood-pusher into a fairly competent player, who is then ready to take on more modern volumes.
I think it's the same as with any game/sport: Is knowledge of baseball history going to make a modern player better?
The answer is "Not directly". What it can do is make this player love the game more, become more passionate about it, and therefor, perhaps, provide more motivation to work hard. If you grow up in a family deeply immersed in baseball culture, you're more likely to play it seriously enough to get good at it.
But you don't really need any comprehensive knowledge of baseball history, for that. And you definitely don't want to try to pitch or swing a bat like Babe Ruth used to. That's not gonna get you into pro baseball.
You just need baseball culture for motivation, nothing else. There are top baseball players who are extremely knowledgeable about the history of the game (A-Rod comes to mind). But the vast majority just grew up with one favorite team, and one or a few favorite players they looked up to growing up. That's their whole "baseball culture". And it's enough.
Presumably, the same is true with chess. I'm sure there are some chess prodigies who love chess culture, and read about it a lot. But, most just have one or two guys they look up to, and don't care at all about the rest of "chess culture". And, presumably, the name of that role model usually rhymes with Cagnus Marlsen.
The answer is "Not directly". What it can do is make this player love the game more, become more passionate about it, and therefor, perhaps, provide more motivation to work hard. If you grow up in a family deeply immersed in baseball culture, you're more likely to play it seriously enough to get good at it.
But you don't really need any comprehensive knowledge of baseball history, for that. And you definitely don't want to try to pitch or swing a bat like Babe Ruth used to. That's not gonna get you into pro baseball.
You just need baseball culture for motivation, nothing else. There are top baseball players who are extremely knowledgeable about the history of the game (A-Rod comes to mind). But the vast majority just grew up with one favorite team, and one or a few favorite players they looked up to growing up. That's their whole "baseball culture". And it's enough.
Presumably, the same is true with chess. I'm sure there are some chess prodigies who love chess culture, and read about it a lot. But, most just have one or two guys they look up to, and don't care at all about the rest of "chess culture". And, presumably, the name of that role model usually rhymes with Cagnus Marlsen.
Sielecki might be right. However, the opposite can be stated and that would not be less true than the original: "For improving at Chess, you can ignore all the books written AFTER 2000." Except if you already are 2400+.
can you teach me how to make such a good blog
Chess engines are quiet a novelty for us. There are few engineers that can explain in plain words how the matrix calculation are done by the machines , and there are less chess players who can apply that method to their games.
For those who are learning the game, authors from the classic periode are plenty of pedagogical resources.
On the other hand, "Centaur Chess", where humans and machines join forces, will require a deeper undertanding of what is behind the digital board.
In short, playing chess among humans is more than doing calculations; learning the basis of the game from a human perspective is beyond discussion; the current primacy of the chess engines can be challenge by humans by embracing the complex maths on the machine decision system relies.
For those who are learning the game, authors from the classic periode are plenty of pedagogical resources.
On the other hand, "Centaur Chess", where humans and machines join forces, will require a deeper undertanding of what is behind the digital board.
In short, playing chess among humans is more than doing calculations; learning the basis of the game from a human perspective is beyond discussion; the current primacy of the chess engines can be challenge by humans by embracing the complex maths on the machine decision system relies.
It's the mistakes by humans that allow games to be won at all. Who would want to read a chess book where ALL game references are from drawn engine games?
It depends on what you expect from the game. If chess is (for you) only about playing and gaining some points, then it is OK to ignore the old literature. But if chess is (for you) also a part of culture, art and history, you will enjoy the old literature even if it doesn't help you improve (but even the last point might be doubtful, I think you may also improve from working with older books).
For me it was fun to read an old book written by Polugaevsky (even though I played his variations only rarely). It was certainly more fun than some modern books full of extremely long (and hardly understandable) variations (almost without words). And just for showing games and variations a book is not even needed, nowadays you can have that in the internet. What gives a book its value are the unique thoughts and texts written by a strong player - the explanations are more valuable than a ton of sterile (but correct) variations calculated by an engine.
And even if some concepts are "old", they do not lose their value (how to play basic rook endgames, how to play with a queenside majority, or with a kingside majority, rooks on the 7th rank, blockade with the knight, good/bad bishops and so on...). Of course there is always some progress (especially in openings) but this applies also for science (biology, chemistry, medicine).
I suspect there might be some sort of benefit behind the fact that every biology student knows Charles Darwin.
For me it was fun to read an old book written by Polugaevsky (even though I played his variations only rarely). It was certainly more fun than some modern books full of extremely long (and hardly understandable) variations (almost without words). And just for showing games and variations a book is not even needed, nowadays you can have that in the internet. What gives a book its value are the unique thoughts and texts written by a strong player - the explanations are more valuable than a ton of sterile (but correct) variations calculated by an engine.
And even if some concepts are "old", they do not lose their value (how to play basic rook endgames, how to play with a queenside majority, or with a kingside majority, rooks on the 7th rank, blockade with the knight, good/bad bishops and so on...). Of course there is always some progress (especially in openings) but this applies also for science (biology, chemistry, medicine).
I suspect there might be some sort of benefit behind the fact that every biology student knows Charles Darwin.