Originally posted by buddy2When the Student is ready to learn...
I stopped playing chess for twenty years--too busy. Gave away all my books. After I retired, I took it up again. I discovered my rating had gone up 300 points USCF. I figure if I stop playing for another twenty years I can become a master. I think there's a lesson here...but i don't know what it is.
Many people do believe the classic chess lie that you openings are a silver bullet. Clearly this is false and there are so many people that will tell you it's false that I think it perpetuates due to self-delusion. People don't want to have to think and they don't want to learn. They want to memoriaze opening variations without true comprehension. This is why amatuers can blunder in someone elses "pet line" and still be fine.
Enough on that, here is some practical information: I was a 1400 USCF, quit, started playing again 4 years later (after college) and I am now(1.5 years later) a 1676 USCF, and this is how I study:
First off, I enjoy studying chess, I love figuring out why a move was made, and most of all, I love outsmarting my opponent. A positive and determined approach to studying is helpful in any subject, further, I would argue that without it all study if futile.
1. Tactics, I consider myself mostly tactically sound, but once a week I log onto Chess Tactics Server and do about 20 minutes worth of puzzles. On long car rides when I don't drive, I will take a book of puzzles.
2. Review complete annotated games (correspondece games are the best since they are generally the most heavily analyzed during play). The most important thing here is that you chose a side, and consider the position every move. Are any tactics available, what are the positional considerations. What is blacks plan, what is whites, what would I do here? After the move, review: was your move acceptable, did it match what was played? if not why was the text played? Finally examine all variations cited; try and do this in your head, as if playing a game and only revert to the board if necessary.
Each game takes about half an hour and I do about 5 per week.
3. Endgames: Approx once a week, I sit down and do 20-30 minutes worth of endgame puzzles. I also read Pal Benko's column in Chess Life monthly.
4. Openings: Everyone likes the supposed silver bullet, and there are practical applications. After reviewing a game (#2), I will allow myself to pull out a book on my current opening and go through a chapter or a couple of games (based on organization). These must be quality books with more in them then just variations. I like the ones where at the start of a chapter, it gives a variation, then gives whites ideas and blacks ideas. After this it has sample games by GM's. Initially, I will go through the main lines and the ideas but no sample games. Once I have an understanding of the ideas, I will go back and review the games.
After tournamanets, I enter my games into chessbase light and then wait a week or two. When I feel ready, I review my games exactly as in #2, taking notes. After I am through with that, I will compare the opening to MCO, or any books I have on the opening. Finally, I will play through it in ChessMaster considering the computers recomendations.
Critiques of my methodology are most welcome.