is made intrely of people that have never looked at a real chess book and learned averything from playing other people

nice idea but that would be a very small group.

and why reinvent the wheel?? 

wouldn't that be like a group of the lowest rated players on chess.com.

Not everyone who has yet to read a chess book is a poor player

no just the people that don't use the "real" moves

wat u mean by "real"....i neva read a book on chess....and im in the 1300s.....and average chess.com player rating

 

I mean by instinct and losses

Gards wrote: Not everyone who has yet to read a chess book is a poor player

---

This would depend on your definition of "poor" I suppose.

add wrote:

wouldn't that be like a group of the lowest rated players on chess.com.

---

 I actually resent this comment because I have never read a book on tactics or openings or anything about chess...I play from experience nothing more nothing less and my rating is at 1700

I am not saying I am a great chess player but I consider myself above average

 

 

monalisa wrote: I learned all my chess from the "articles" in Playboy, fascinating stuff :)-

---

 

Are you for real? Do I actually have a reason to subscribe to Playboy? I can't wait to tell my girlfriend. For real though, do they actually have chess articles? 

And I thought the only vaguely chess-related thing in Playboy was about mating...

Reb wrote: Gards wrote: Not everyone who has yet to read a chess book is a poor player

---

This would depend on your definition of "poor" I suppose.

---

 I am imagining your definition of poor covers quite a few more people than mine, as it should

Wait a minute... I'm an 1800 player and I've never read a chess book... I learned at about 3 by watching my Grandpa play my older cousins.  Soon after I started playing him, with a good idea of the rules (except en passant).

 

The point is, being a 'good' chess player doesn't have to involve study. 

so there can be a group?

shadowslayer wrote:so there can be a group?

---

 sure why not...only how could you know if the people that join are being honest?

 

i am another one who has never touched a chess book. All I know is from real game experience, both online and offline, and I'm in the 1500s

I also have never read a chess book, just a small number of online articles.

 

I learned to play 'better' chess, from playing (several years ago) 'club' OTB games in addition to regular OTB games with a much stronger player (around 140 BCF - www.englishchess.org.uk equates that to FIDE 1950).

 

I don't know that I would class myself as a 'good' player, possibly average ability? (subjective depending on which group you are measuring yourself against I suppose) but my rating at a number of different 'Correspondence' sites is between 1550-1850.

 

My feeling at the moment is that I am around 1600-1700 Online Correspondence Chess.

 

Here at Chess.com I am around 1650-1750 yet I am in the 90th percentile (I know this is lower on other sites I play at).

 

I suspect I would improve if I studied, in particular openings.

wjones4 wrote: shadowslayer wrote:so there can be a group?

---

 sure why not...only how could you know if the people that join are being honest?

 

---

why would they join otherwise?

uve got a point....but they wuld to beat every1 and get free points

notwithstanding,I never no looked at a real chess book ,but I learn most from chess.com.

and

I the honest chess player here!