26 Mar 03
10 edits
I found a really interesting article series last night on chesscafe. They are entitled '400 points in 400 days'. Author Michael de la Maza, after frustration with books and chess coaches, devised a method of improvement that saw his UCSF rating (i.e. OTB tournament play) improve from 1300 to 1700 in one year. This success was achieved despite the statements of coaches that 100 points is about as much as can be hoped for.
You will need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader plugin for your browser, here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
The articles can be found here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf
In the first article de la Maza suggests that beginners mostly need tactical skills:
''As GM Jonathan Levitt wrote in a recent KasparovChess.com article: ''At lower levels of play...tactical awareness (or a lack of it) usually decides the outcome of the game...'' ''
''As FM Pelts and GM Alburt write in Comprehensive Chess Course (Vol II):
''We beg students who are addicted to opening manuals to remember that most players who spend their time studying theory never reach A-level.'' ''
He then introduces several tactical skills drills, one for finding forks and skewers, one for single Knight moves, and one for multiple Knight moves.
In the second part author de la Maza outlines a problem study routine ''the Seven Circles program'':
1000 problems in 64 days, then the same problems in 32 days, then the same in 16 days, ....
He writes:
''The 1000 tactical problems that you choose should have the following properties:
[a.] They should be ranked in order of difficulty
[b.] You should work through the problems in order of increasing difficulty.
[c.] The problems should begin with simple one-move mates and two-move combinations and progress to 7-8 move mates and combinations.''
''1. They should be from real games.''
''2. The solutions should contain a minimal number of errors.''
De la Maza ''found the problems in the CT-ART 3.0 chess software program to be ideal for the Seven Circles program .... In addition to possessing the three aforementioned properties, CT-ART is also a great teaching tool and has a built-in chess program. The teaching tool provides hints when errors are made and the built-in chess program is available to analyze alternate variations. I found that the chess program saved me hundreds of hours since I did not have to enter complicated positions manually into a chess program when I failed to understand the solutions.''
I [CJS] downloaded the free Demo version of CT-Art here:
http://www.convekta.com/downloads/DEMO/Ct-Art_Eng.exe
but encountered a solution error on the second problem (rook obviously out of place by one file, corrected by a program patch that pops up in a new window, inverted!)
No matter, I can come up with 1000 problems from my books.
I'm going to try it. This jibes with my idea that the only book that ever REALLY helped me is 'Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess', a long series of problems with the properties De la Maza mentions (except the 7-8 move sequences, I don't remember more than 3-4 in Fischer).
paper
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by paper
I found a really interesting article series last night on chesscafe. They are entitled '400 points in 400 days'. Author Michael de la Maza, after frustration with books and chess coaches, devised a method of improvement that saw his UCSF rating (i.e. OTB tournament play) improve from 1300 to 1700 in one year. This success was achieved despite the statements ...[text shortened]... a mentions (except the 7-8 move sequences, I don't remember more than 3-4 in Fischer).
paper
JS Home > Book Reviews > Key to Index > All Indexes > Rapid Chess Improvement: A stufy Plan for Adult Players
RAPID CHESS IMPROVEMENT: A Study Plan for Adult Players
Author: Michael de la Maza
126 pages
Everyman Chess (2002)
Reviewed by Jeremy Silman
A couple months ago a young man in his 20s with a 940 rating contacted me for lessons. He had only been playing for a short time, was a very intelligent guy, and already had solid tactical skills (probably 1500+ tactics). Why then was he only rated 940? I was interested in answering this question so I accepted “Stu” as a student, and our quest for his improvement began. During one tournament, Stu was playing a 1200 player. He was winning the game easily but, in the thick of battle, made some blunder and lost. Afterwards Mr. 1200 said, “I heard you are taking lessons from Silman. Don’t bother! Instead, just read RAPID CHESS IMPROVEMENT by Michael de la Maza and you’ll get good, just like I have!”
A few weeks later Stu was playing another 900 player. Stu achieved a Lucena (I had taught him that it’s easily winning), forgot how to win it (sigh&#8230😉 and drew. Afterwards his opponent said, “Yeah, that position’s just a draw. By the way, you know how I got so good? I read RAPID CHESS IMPROVEMENT.”
Aside from the absurdity of a 900 and 1200 player claiming vast improvement due to this book (and both players showed no tactical or positional skills whatsoever in the games mentioned), I admit to being intrigued by the repeated mention of a book I knew nothing about. Thus, I bought it, read it, and now completely understand where these two (deluded) gentlemen were coming from.
Mr. de la Maza is a player who (at around 1321) suffered badly from elementary tactical oversights and, rather than lie back and accept eternal misery, decided to do something about it. Creating his own tactical study plan, he followed it with incredible verve and leapt up “…400 USCF rating points in my first year of tournament play and almost 300 rating points in my second year of play.” This, and a little luck (you always need some luck to win a tournament!), helped him win the U2000 section of the 2001 World Open, which netted him a $10,000.00 prize. He then retired from active play with a 2041 rating.
That’s a nice success story, and it certainly makes the average tournament player salivate in lustful desire. Any student that looks at the de la Maza book will ask, “Can I improve as fast as he did? Can I win $10,000?”
Mr. de la Maza starts out by doing something I can’t stand: he tells you, over and over and over (page after page after page), what he’s going to do for you without teaching you anything. This technique is popular in many self-help and how-to books. It serves as page filler, it revs the reader into a frenzy, and it obscures the fact that the author actually has very little of worth to say. In short, RAPID CHESS IMPROVEMENT is less instructive than motivational. It incites emotion, promises far more than could or should be promised, and ultimately is nothing more than pie in the sky in view of the true lesson he’s imparting: Study Tactics and Work Your Ass Off!
Mr. de la Maza’s well-intentioned manipulation is based on a sincere desire to help those who suffered as he did. I respect that. And I can’t help but agree with his true (sometimes “coded&#8221😉 message: Tactical skill acquired by hard work will make you much stronger.
How much work did de la Maza do? Let’s have him tell us: “It took me about twenty months to achieve a rating of 1900 and during that time I studied two to three hours a day for a total of approximately 1500 hours of study. In addition, I played approximately 200 chess games, each of which took approximately three hours for a total of 2100 hours of study time.”
I hate to break this to the many chess hopefuls out there, but EVERY chess writer/teacher begs the student to master basic tactics. And it doesn’t take a genius to agree that hard work will always inspire some sort of improvement (sometimes small, sometimes enormous). The problem (As mentioned in my article: BUILDING A BASE OF CHESS UNDERSTANDING. To see it, click HERE) is that very few people are able to offer up this much time, effort, and dedication to chess due to the constraints of job, family, children, and life in general.
I’m reminded of the ever-renewing slew of young starlets who arrive in Los Angeles from farms, towns, and cities all over the U.S. Each has a dream, and every one of them knows that they WILL be that one in 20,000 that will succeed. Once they hit the streets of Hollywood, a variety of manipulative, shady characters meet them, tell them that he’ll turn them into the star that they know they’re preordained to be, and…well, it’s not pretty. Preying on people’s hopes and dreams is one of the oldest scams in the world, and this desire to be “a great chessplayer” makes such dreamers swoon at de la Maza’s inspirational words.
Some years ago I received a serious flier that recommended you quit your job and enter the “lucrative field of chess.” Upon reading this, my heart stopped and I had to push a finger into the wall socket to regain a beat. Imagine the déjà vu when I read these de la Maza words on page 47 of his book: “If you do not have access a computer you should make every effort to get one. New computers can be purchased with a monitor for under $400 and used computers can be purchased with a monitor for under $200. The money you spend will be immediately returned to you when you start winning prizes at tournaments.”
Note how he constantly pushes “hope” – hope that you’ll get good, hope that it will be easy, hope that you’ll win lots of money. His non-stop blither about “chess vision” makes one squint into a mirror and imagine that a super hero is looking back, while his promises to the gullible chess student of hundreds of rating points in one year and a nice income from chess prizes is, in my opinion, almost criminal and is most certainly ignorant.
Most horrifying, perhaps (how to pick one horrific moment over another?), is his sample game (one of his own in which he plays White), where he shows how one should think move by move:
Opponent’s threat: No significant threats.
Decide move: 1.e4 of course!
1.e4 c5
Opponent’s threat: No significant threats, but watch out for …Qa5.
Decide move: No tactics. 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3 are both reasonable.
2.Nf3 d6
Opponent’s threat: No significant threats.
Decide move: No tactics. 3.e5 is most shocking. Continue development with 3.Nc3.
3.Nc3 Nf6
Opponent’s threat: No significant threats.
Decide move: No tactics. Continue to develop with 4.Bb5+.
4.Bb5+ Bd7
Opponent’s threat: No significant threats but light-squared Bishop is attacked.
Decide move: No tactics.
5.Bxd7+ Qxd7
Opponent’s threat: No significant threats.
Decide move: No tactics. 6.e5 continues to be quite interesting, at least in part because it creates a crazy position that Black will not know: 6…dxe5 7.Nxe5 Qe6 8.f4. Stay safe with 6.0-0.
6.0-0 Nc6
Opponent’s threat: …Nd4 is unpleasant.
Decide move: No tactics. Exchange pawns and open up center with 7.d4.
Is this guy kidding? Is he trying to turn us into soulless chess machines made of flesh? I half expected him to write (once a threat finally appeared): “Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!”
My final spasm associated with RAPID CHESS IMPROVEMENT (or should I rename it: RAPID CHESS IMPOVERISHMENT) is the 16 pages he devotes to reader’s praise. The title of this chapter is “Success With Rapid Chess Improvement.” I read the letters with interest but soon that interest turned to incredulity. Of the more than 16 letters he lists, only two people (perhaps I missed one?) claim any rating gain! Instead, we get “success” stories like this:
“Excellent!”
NM Spencer Lower
“I would like to thank you for creating your systematic chess…I am totally stunned and surprised about this whole new idea – and I will of course try it myself!”
Torsten Hellmann
“I read your [RAPID CHESS IMPROVEMENT program] and really enjoyed it. I think that it will be a great help to me.”
Brian Summer
Perhaps I should write a book called, GRANDMASTER IN TWO WEEKS where I will recommend buying a Fischer signature (don’t worry, you’ll regain the spent money in chess prizes), sitting on it for two weeks straight (no getting up allowed!), and then heading for the nearest international event where you can take your rightful place as a world beater. Letters would pour in like: “I’m still sitting, but I can’t wait for the two weeks to be up so I can be World Champion!” or “When I find time to sit like that I know it will make me a great player!”
Everyone clearly loves the idea of easy and rapid improvement (who wouldn’t?), and they all can’t wait for those rating points to pour in (kind of reminds me of those late-night infomercials about instant wealth). Yet, hope alone won’t get the job done.
The simple truth is, everyone has his own individual needs, weaknesses, and strengths. When I get a new student, I look at his games in
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by paper
I found a really interesting article series last night on chesscafe. They are entitled '400 points in 400 days'. Author Michael de la Maza, after frustration with books and chess coaches, devised a method of improvement that saw his UCSF rating (i.e. OTB tournament play) improve from 1300 to 1700 in one year. This success was achieved despite the statements ...[text shortened]... a mentions (except the 7-8 move sequences, I don't remember more than 3-4 in Fischer).
paper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy This Book
at Amazon.com
whole site Links Books CBC ChessFiles
Advanced Search Rapid Chess Improvement –
a study plan for adult players
Michael de la Maza
Everyman Chess, 2002, 126 pp.
Randy’s Rating: 6.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody searches for the Holy Grail of "rapid chess improvement," and while this book has a few interesting theories and may work for a certain type of player, in many areas its content comes off more as infomercial than instruction manual. The author definitely has a story to tell, and he enthusiastically tells it. My guess is that many players can improve by rigorously following the training program developed, but I am less certain that they can or will reach the lofty levels the author suggests based on this program alone.
The author, rated 2041 by the United States Chess Federation, uses his own chess improvement as the primary example of the strength of his thesis. According to the introduction, he rose from a 1321 rating to 1756 in his first year of tournament play, and he improved from 1756 to 2041 in the second year. This book explains the system the author used for that ratings rise.
The author starts with an introduction where he discusses some of the problems with standard chess instruction. His first three insights make a lot of sense and should prove useful for many aspiring adult players. He suggests, for example, that study of sophisticated techniques (in particular studying trendy openings) is less useful than focusing on tactics. While certainly not a new concept (Ken Smith of Chess Digest fame had written a study program focusing on tactics many years back – which is available, free of charge, on the Chess Digest website), it is the crux of the author’s improvement program.
The author also suggests that GM instruction is sub-optimal at the class level, because they are too far removed from the players’ level. I thought the author’s analogy, that a university mathematics professor would probably not do as well as a first grade teacher in explaining basic math to 6 years, a good one. He also suggests that quick fixes (i.e., focusing study on tactics) works at the class level.
Up to this point, I think the author makes a lot of good, useful points. However, I think he starts to go over the deep end in his discussion of "the mythology of chess mastery." de la Maza believes that "anyone who can read and write fluently in a language and can ride a bike can become an Expert and probably a Master." I think this statement is highly improbable, and it can foster unreasonable expectations among readers.
First, I believe that it is hard to make generalizations about the ability necessary to attain a class in chess when one hasn’t even attained it. While the author’s meteoric rise would suggest that he will indeed make master, there are many tactically adept players who do, indeed, rise quickly to the expert level (or the A level for that matter), only to stall and find progress difficult at that point. In my experience, those who stall are often players who have not developed a rounded game. At higher levels, defensive technique is much better, and tactics alone will not get one to the level of Master.
Second, simple logic and statistics suggests that this is sheer fantasy. It is likely that somewhere in the range of 95% of chess players would meet the author’s qualifications, yet only about 5% will make master. Can one really accept as valid the concept that all the chess teachers (many of whom stress tactics as a core of their study programs) have it wrong and that the author alone can stand the statistics entirely on their head?
The author attempts to justify his claim by using an example of a person seeking specialized knowledge in a field, such as archaeology. He believes that after a two-year course of study at a local university he would know more than 99% of the people in the world about archaeology. He then figures out the number of hours of study and concludes that becoming an accomplished chess player should take approximately 2400. To his credit, the author recognizes the problem here – an accomplished chess player (which I’ll define as a Master) is determined in a comparison of only serious players, not the general population. The author never really has an answer to this, so he switches to an argument that (according to USCF data) one can be in the top 7-11% of all chess players with a 1900 rating, which he would now use as the validity for his archaeology example.
Indeed, the author even admits that perhaps a "special gift" is necessary to get to the highest level. He hedges that admission by noting that "several authorities, most notably Laszlo Polgar, would argue that chess perfection is a product of nurture, not nature." It is true that the elder Polgar can make a strong case given the early chess training provided to his daughters, but it should be pointed out that this training started at a very early age and continued for a long time – it is farfetched to suggest that the author’s suggested time commitment comes even remotely close to the program developed for the Polgar sisters.
Given the inability to prove his assertion, it is surprising that the author concludes the section by summarizing that "becoming an Expert or a Master can be achieved over time through hard work – a special gift is helpful but is definitely not necessary." I can only say, "I doubt it."
The primary content of the book consists of several chess vision drills that the author explains in the next two chapters. These include a variety of exercises, which are generally useful but by not means revolutionary. The gist of the author’s approach is for the student to dedicate significant amounts of time over a several week period to doing these exercises and solving the problems.
The primary technique is to gather 1000 typical game problems with tactical solutions and work through them at an ever-increasing rate. Under this plan, the student will go through the same problems seven times (hence the title of the chapter, "The Seven Circles"😉. The student will first go through the problems in 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2 and 1 day. According to the author, this will build calculation and then pattern recognition ability.
It is up to the player to find the 1,000 problems, they are not included in the book. This could, of course, hamper the ability of some players to benefit from the book. The author recommends using a software program from Chess Assistant, known as CT-ART 3.0; while this is a useful tool for this exercise, it will require an additional $26 investment. The author provides a list of recommended books with usable problems if one does not wish to go the computer software route; I would agree with the author that this alternate route is a lot more time consuming.
The book concludes with a chapter on How to Think that strikes me as elementary bordering on pedantic, another on practical tactics, and chapters that mostly work as infomercials for the author’s teaching methods.
In conclusion, I really had a hard time giving a numerical assessment to this book. I do not deny that the author’s teaching method will prove useful to some players, but there are lots of things that also caused me to roll my eyes while reading it. I think the author presents a reasonable but far from revolutionary approach. It will be up to the individual reader to determine whether he or she needs to spend $17 (or more, if you go the recommended software route for problem) for a basic method for improvement plus a pep talk.
Copyright Randy Bauer, all rights reserved.
27 Mar 03
3 edits
Jan,
Okay, found it on his website: It is here:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/instruction_chess_news/030803_build_chess_under.html
It seems like a very balanced approach, but the jewel is this:
''Many so-called teachers would have you look for tactics in all positions, which is a waste of time. Instead, look for undefended pieces, a weakened King, or a double attack. If none of these things exist, there CAN’T be a tactic. If one or more of these things DO exist, then go to red alert: a tactic might be screaming for you to notice it.''
followed by two examples. That insight is worth more than some of my books.
Thanks again,
Paper
09 Apr 03
Originally posted by paperHi Paper Tiger!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jan Pot
... BUILDING A BASE OF CHESS UNDERSTANDING ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Silman mentions this article. Do you know if it can be found online?
Sure enough you find it on the Internet and much more at Jeremy Silman's website. You just have to type <Jeremy Silman> in your searchmachine (mine is Google, which I consider the best available here in Europe) and click 'Enter'. Lots of good chess reading there and tutorials by Jeremy himself. Try it, Tiger and let us know what you think of it.
Cheerio!
Jan