#1
"How effective do you think studying chess books is" ++ It is still the #1 way to learn
The essence is still to play and to analyse lost games.
Study of annotated grandmaster games is good too, either from a book or digitally
Endgame study is also important, either from a book or from a table base
"Pretty much whatever you can think of that is crucial to playing better chess
opening repertoire ++ no
pattern recognition ++ yes, from books and from analysing lost games and from tactics puzzles
tactics ++ yes, from books and from analysing lost games and from tactics puzzles
strategies ++ yes, from books and from study of annotated grandmaster games
positional play ++ yes, from books and from study of annotated grandmaster games
puzzles ++ good
drills ++ not useful
lessons ++ good
live commentaries ++ good
post-game analyses ++ good
"reading chess books gives you a deeper understanding of the game" ++ yes
"I don’t see how this is any more effective than watching or listening to prepared lessons/position analyses by extremely strong chess players online."
++ Beware of passively watching videos.
"chess books give you the “grasp of the nature of chess,” or the “foundational understanding” of the game" ++ Yes, that is true
"there’s an essence to the game that is accessible to you only through reading chess books"
++ It can only be conveyed through a book, a video is too ephemeral.
Math is also conveyed through books, not through video.
"definitely so for relatively lower-rated players"
++ For lower-rated players blunder checking and tactics are everything.
How effective do you think studying chess books is in improving one's skills in the world of engines and excessive online material? What are some main pros and cons for you personally? It seems that studying chess books fails the cost-benefit analysis for most players if the sole goal is performing better at playing chess. Pretty much whatever you can think of that is crucial to playing better chess (opening repertoire, pattern recognition; tactics or strategies, even understanding of positional play, or what have you) seem to require much less time, effort, and money to learn or get better at through just using online sources as there's an infinite number of puzzles, drills, lessons, live commentaries, post-game analyses, etc., that covers almost everything about the game of chess. It is much faster to check out different lines and see for yourself why they do or do not work with the help of engines, much easier to improve visualization, and better with memorization, thanks to myriad ways to save positions or games, such as using online libraries. Considering that most people do not have so much free time to devote to being a better chess player, it is hard to find a good reason to use the time for reading chess books, which seems to be a very slow learning method for an activity that requires so much practice, for the sole purpose of improving one’s skills.
I sometimes hear people say that reading chess books gives you a deeper understanding of the game as you get to learn about the refined experiences of phenomenal chess players with detailed explanations. However, I don’t see how this is any more effective than watching or listening to prepared lessons/position analyses by extremely strong chess players online. You get a taste of the human perspective in both cases if that is even a problem to begin with. Another thing that I keep hearing is that chess books give you the “grasp of the nature of chess,” or the “foundational understanding” of the game, or something like that, without which you would not be able to achieve. I humbly disagree. First, whenever I hear something like that, the person uttering the statement never defines these terms precisely. They seem to think that there’s an essence to the game that is accessible to you only through reading chess books (just some sort of a reading obsession ig). Second, even if there was such a thing, it is not clear why books would be superior to anything else in giving you that.
If there were no online counterparts of the content in chess books, it would make sense to make use of them. That doesn’t seem to be the case though, at least definitely so for relatively lower-rated players. So tell me, apart from taking greater pleasure from reading books -which would likely keep you more attentive to learning- than any other methods, what are some good reasons to read chess books to improve one’s chess skills instead of the activities I have mentioned?