How can one become a very good chess player without studying chess or openings?

Question

I heard that Capablanca never liked to bother with openings, would never study chess or read books. Despite all this, he became world champion. Is this an exception to the rule? Have times changed today were players are too strong and study is mandatory?

Answer 1

Capablanca didn't like to "study chess or openings" means that he didn't like to study formal chess (as it was understood in his time).

On the other hand, he studied more, and had a better grasp of chess principles, particularly as they related to the middle and end game. His best exposition of this was "Chess Fundamentals."

Because he focused on principles, rather than "book" moves, he was the hardest person in the world to surprise with a new line. He beat back the Marshall Attack that Marshall had reserved especially for him.

Nowadays, there is more and better book knowledge, so it's helpful to learn some of it. And the other reason is that not many players have the instinctive grasp of the game that Capablanca had.

Answer 2

Reading helps, unless you're Capablanca and can work it all out for yourself, which most can't, even the GM's. I would suggest do both, but you don't need to overdo it with either. Just concentrate on your weaknesses and read/figure out whatever is necessary for you to improve. Best of luck :)

Answer 3

GM Jonathan Rowson recently answered the question "how does anyone get good at chess?" on Twitter in fewer than 280 characters as follows:

Start young (5), fall in love with chess, get lucky with the characters in your particular chess world.
Keep going, be willing to lose a lot, admire someone, study, play, repeat. Befriend computers.
Lose some more. Scream in frustration.
Keep going. Win.
Takes at least a decade

The bad news is that "study" comes about halfway through his list. The good news is that he seems to prioritise other things above study in his list but the first three are things you don't have much control over. They do, though, apply to most if not all of the top players today. Starting early, falling in love with chess and having good mentors / role models in your early development are all key.

I'd just echo the Biblical quote which, although in another context, also applies here:

faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love

The point being that when you really love something then studying doesn't feel like studying. It is just more fun doing what you love.

Answer 4

One can have a natural talent for the skills inherent in chess, such as spatial relations and pattern recognition, but without knowing some of the basic principles of chess, most easily obtained through study, it's difficult to see how one could become truly great. Capablanca was supposedly such a natural talent, particularly in endings, but even he found it necessary to study openings when he reached the higher echelons of chess in order to continue to compete successfully. Other natural talents such as Reshevsky found the same to be true.

Answer 5

Some people seem to think there's a quick, certain road to success without doing the work. Millennia of experience refute this, with the possible exception of the unfair advantages of inheritances, nepotism and old boys' clubs contacts.

It's estimated that the average grandmaster recognizes ~100,000 patterns, i.e. configurations of pieces and sequences of moves that recur often enough to be worth memorizing. Sometimes, they're simple and obvious, like a knight fork or back rank mate, but more often they involve subtle things like forcing weaknesses in pawn structures, standard sacrifices in openings (e.g. the Cochrane Gambit in the Petrov Defense), tricky lines in openings (such as the Two Knights' Defense), choosing to transition into an endgame with the better pieces depending on the deployment of the pawns, stalemate positions and the moves required to force them, obscure mating patterns, etc.

Without study, especially in the endgames (and some openings), the uninitiated player is bound to stumble into problems they could have easily avoided, and lose. They'll also miss tactical resources for a win or a successful defense, if only because there just isn't enough time to figure them out from scratch at the board.

Playing a lot of fast games will build up experience the fastest, but the quality of play is likely to be poor, and many of the available attacking / defensive ideas won't occur to untrained players in the time available. So, they're not an effective substitute for training (self-directed or otherwise).

Ultimately, chess is an activity that requires discipline, and training is part of that discipline. If you're content to play mediocre chess, that's fine, but to be good, you must be prepared to be disciplined, and to apply that discipline in preparation. Because that's what your opposition is doing.

Answer 6

In those days, people do not have to reckon with tactics and preparation at the level of silicon beings, they just need to play better than the other guy. If Capablanca were still alive today, he would be crushed by most elite players because general principles do not stand up to tactical refutations, especially if they came from the computer.