Does practice really make perfect?

I was wondering if practice really makes perfect. I suppose so; I love playing chess and have been going for weekly training in my school for the past 3 years, from a mere rookie (okay, when I first started I didn't know knights could jump) to a generally OK intermediate player with a rating ranging from 1200-1400, in various chess sites and in real life as well.

However, I'm not going anywhere despite having these chess weekly training as well as playing on chess.com. Sure, it helps some--the more you play, you remember more variations and learn from your mistakes(hopefully).

But, the scenario is this. Practice is general, which means, a player can keep playing with opponents that are really lousy or extremely pro, but will he improve?

If you play with lousy players, you make blunders but still manage to win, thus possibly overlooking your mistakes as anyway you've won. And the more you win, the more overconfident you get. You forget that person is just a novice.If you play with great players, you lose pretty early by a ferocious attack, you get discouraged, and if you keep "practicing" this way, losing one game after another, you get seriosuly demoralised.

This is just a thought. Generally I prefer playign with people a little higher rated than I am to challenge myself. I hardly ever analyse my game as I don't really know how to do it by myself. So yeah...I know that's wrong. But what I really want to know is whether practice makes perfect applies to every situation.

Because after all, there are chess geniuses who learn it for a few years and have their skills shoot sky high. Was it practice? Or just brainpower?

[qoute]If you play with great players, you lose pretty early by a ferocious attack, you get discouraged, and if you keep "practicing" this way, losing one game after another, you get seriosuly demoralised.[/qoute]

i'm pretty much have this problem, but i've only really been getting into the game for the last month or so, so i guess i have alot more to learn. But in all honesty i'm loving every second of it :D, even the stupid lose's

i think it has alot to do with practicing the right way & of course alittle skill, one of my grandfathers was a grandmaster ramon lontoc i belive his name was, i'm heading back overseas this coming month hopefully i can talk to some relos about it & find somone to play & teach me while i'm there :D.

animalsafariranger> But what I really want to know is whether practice makes perfect applies to every situation.

Practice helps converts whatevever you're doing into habits. For example, if you embark on a crazy fad diet, you may become very good at following that diet, but I doubt you'll ever become an athlete. Bad practice can give you poor habits for life. Only correct practice leads to optimal improvement.

I've seen countless players with 10,000+ blitz games under their belts who never progressed beyond 1100-1300, so simply playing doesn't lead to perfection. One needs to analyze their losses, and study, and play over master games. Or decide they don't wish to do those and be happy where they're at.

Hello old friend, 

It's not just practice. It's also remembering the tricks and good moves your opponents did and how to avoid falling into such traps. It worked for me, though now with so little time to play [and being unable to/lazy to remember games] I'm kinda sucky now =x At least you're doing better than me. Cheer up!

I'veread a few chess books, both the kind that teach chess, and the ones that are about chess.  Those ones that are about chess all seem to agree that no one is a "natural" at chess.  No just gets good at it because it just happens.  It's all about practice.

Some have said that Bobby Fischer was a natural, that he was just naturally great at this game, but from what I've read, that just simply wasn't true.  Yes, he was great, no question, but it was from practice, not just inate ability.  He lost a chess game when he was 13, and that bothered him so much he studied his butt off for a few years, learned from his mistakes, and became who he did.

So, I think "practice makes perfect," but the difference here is that in chess there is no perfection.  From what I've found, most times there is no single "perfect" move or "perfect" plan.  There might be the one that everyone agrees is best, but usually there's also another one that's "interesting," which leads to unclear positions and no one can foresee what will happen.  That's chess.  Sit back and enjoy the game.

If you don't want to study, just play the game and enjoy it, learning what you can that way.  If you want to improve by studying and that's fun to you, do that instead.  I like tactics puzzles, I probably go through about 30 or more each day in a book.  At one point I was doing several hundred a day.

Just do what works for you and is fun.  After all, it's a great game (the best in the world as far as I'm concerned), but it's still a game, so if it's not enjoyable, you're missing the point...

hey thanks all for your comments. recently i read a book by Michael de la Maza called rapid chess improvement. he says tactics are the key to a game. makes a lot of sense to me. (: im still a busy student so I'm not sure if i can follow his plan (which allowed him to improve his rating drastically in 5 months). but it's a great idea and a great read.

yeah i guess practicing is good, but it's great only if coupled with analysis. (:

Practice does not make perfect.

Only Perfect Pracice by a Prefect Person could only Possibly make Perfect.

Yup, I went there but I couldn't find the part about the De La Maza method. Anyone tried the method? Does the short 400questions seven circles work as well?

Hello again animalsafariranger,

Can't you just print out your games and take it to your CCA sessions for your coach to help you analyse? I tried doing that once XD

Okay; Batgirl got a little caught up in semantics as perfection is not truly achievable, but the gist of the question is improvement in what one practices. The short answer is yes, but the it truly does matter how you practice, i.e. where is your training coming from.

For chess the best you could ask for is what is known as "Classical Training". The old masters, who are numerous world wide but one well known American is Bruce Pandelfini (spelling?) comes to mind. Have an excellent curriculum that doesn't just go over your games, but rather introduces you to key learning concepts across the board. A simple example would be a basic K+P endgame technique.

This kind of training along with practice of those principles will surely improve  your game, but of course this will take time. There has actually been a study on this and it has been estimated that it takes approximately 10,000 hours of proper training, and practice to become an expert at what you practice. 

Playing and practising are not exactly the same thing, in my view.  If all you do is play, play, play, you'll hit the ceiling pretty quickly.  Good chess requires a nice mix of book-learning and tactical intuition.

- Study the endgames (it's hard to beat Silman's Complete Endgame Course); it's also helpful to set up a 'won' endgame on a computer and then see if you really can win it

- Do regular tactics exercises (whether or not you can keep up with the pace of de la Maza's "circles" program)

- Study strategy (Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess is good here)

- At any one time, have at least a white opening and a black response to 1. e4 and 1. d4 that you are studying and using all the time

- Never lose a game without discovering why; your lost games hold a key to unlock revelations about your current 'imperfections' as a chesser, and thus are an opportunity not to be missed.  Analysis good!  (I use a computer for this.)

Good luck!