Here are the links to part one and two by Michael De La Maza from The Skittles Room on Chesscafe.com
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf
Has anyone read it?
Has anyone actually...DONE it?
I read over it for the first time today. There's definitely some logic to it (I do believe that tactical issues are responsible for the vast majority of my wins and losses), but alot of it is pretty ridiculous as well...yet I'm still curious about it. I especially like the "Seven Circles", an excersize culminating in an 8 1/2 hour session of non-stop tactics. Perhaps a little over-the-top, but very kung-fu sounding nevertheless; I imagine an initiation ceremony involving tattoos and a secret temple somewhere...
"Grasshopper, you have survived the Seven Circles..."
I almost want to do it just for the crazy "I did it" amusement factor, not because I think it's necessarily the best method to get better.
Silman completely trashed De La Maza's book "Rapid Chess Improvement" which was based on this article, but then again I've never cared for Silman's style much either.
Any other thoughts on this system???
Originally posted by xnomanxi own the book.. read about 8 pages, great stuff 🙂
Here are the links to part one and two by Michael De La Maza from The Skittles Room on Chesscafe.com
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf
Has anyone read it?
Has anyone actually...DONE it?
I read over it for the first time today. There's definitely some logic to it (I do believe that tactical ...[text shortened]... ever cared for Silman's style much either.
Any other thoughts on this system???
Originally posted by xnomanxNo way, man. Not me. But this guy apparently did it.
Has anyone read it?
Has anyone actually...DONE it?
http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-finished-circles.html
P.S. - Also check out his later posts. He has quite a bit of discussion on the circles even as recent as May, 2008.
From what I can tell there's not much difference between the book and the article.
I dont disagree with anything MDLM says but I think the biggest criticism is that nobody has the amount of time to do everything he says or the desire to do it. That one knight drill if done correctly should take over ten hours a day. And I'm supposed to do that every day?
Most people I know change his plan to fit their circumstances.
Silman is just trying to carve himself a niche and sell books. Even he doesnt believe some of the idiotic things he says. HTRYC is a good book for 1900+ and completely useless before then. (other than the endgame part)
I have read the book. Some of the exercises are pretty good.
I used to work in a job that allowed me to use my laptop at work & the most CT-Art puzzles I could do a day was 100 every day for 5 days a week over about 6 months.
To do the full 7 cycles you'd have to give up work & have an incredibly high boredom threshold as well as total dedication.
I've read it but have very little confidence that it actually works so i haven't much applied what he says. Chess is much more complex for this to be enough for such improvement unless you're starting from 1000 or so. Chess is much more than tactics and tactics flow from positional elements.
Originally posted by Mad Rookhe has completed the seven circles for chess tactics for beginners, not CT-Art as Maza suggests. For CTB, I think it's doable, but for CT-Art, no way. impossible. and probably unnecessary too.
No way, man. Not me. But this guy apparently did it.
http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-finished-circles.html
P.S. - Also check out his later posts. He has quite a bit of discussion on the circles even as recent as May, 2008.
What Maza suggests is that you do not get much deep in a position when it seems difficult for you, and just look at the answer after 5 minutes (or something). which I find is completely against the target of any tactical study: painful analysis of complicated positions.
by the way, the idea behind Maza's suggestion is true I believe, repitition is a must for tactical study.
Originally posted by diskamylAh, Okay, CTB would be a lot easier than CT-Art. CTB would probably be more my speed anyway. (Actually, I'm using several novice tactics books instead of CTB for my tactics study.)
he has completed the seven circles for chess tactics for beginners, not CT-Art as Maza suggests. For CTB, I think it's doable, but for CT-Art, no way. impossible. and probably unnecessary too.
What Maza suggests is that you do not get much deep in a position when it seems difficult for you, and just look at the answer after 5 minutes (or something). whi ...[text shortened]... the idea behind Maza's suggestion is true I believe, repitition is a must for tactical study.
I've wrestled with the two schools of thought on tactics training - whether to train on easy or hard problems. I think Dan Heisman has convinced me to go the easy problem route. He advocates repetition of easier problems. Spend no more than, say, 5 or 6 minutes on any problem at first. If you can't get it, look at the answer, and go on to the next one. Keep repeating the problem sets until you can get at least 85 percent of the problems within 10 to 15 seconds for each one.
I think Dan's philosophy is that learning chess tactics isn't much different than learning the multiplication tables - You simply memorize them through repetition until you can recall them quickly. After all, you have to be able to recall tactics within the time frame for a normal move in an OTB game. And Dan thinks trying to learn hard tactics is sort of analagous to trying to learn the multiplication tables for large numbers. After learning the multiplication tables up to 12 times 12, you could go higher, but you start reaching the law of diminishing returns.
I think one advantage Heisman has is that he gets to see which ideas work on his students and which ones don't. I don't know whether hard or easy problems is better, but at least I've decided what my method of tactics study will be.
Edit - And I guess you could even extend this basic philosophy. After mastering the easy problems, you could continue working with progressively harder problems, as long as you can still solve them quickly. If you get to the point where you can't solve them within 15 seconds, even with lots of repetition, then you could probably assume you're reaching the point of diminishing returns for tactics study.
His book is pretty bad. He could've put all his ideas in about 10 pages. Instead, he repeated it alot of times and put things there that have nothing to do with it (eg reader's letters) so it would barely be large enough for a book.
Ofcourse there's nothing wrong with doing tactical excercises. In fact, it's the most important thing up to 2000 (or maybe even higher) rating. However, De La Maza suggests that you should ONLY study tactics. I think he doesn't fully understand that strategy is for the greatest part based on tactics. Same thing goes for endgames.
Originally posted by Mad RookTactics involves multiple skills, including pattern recognition and calculation.
I've wrestled with the two schools of thought on tactics training - whether to train on easy or hard problems.
For pattern recognition, use lots of positions at a relatively fast pace. If a position takes too long, check the answer and move on. Like multiplication tables, I also don’t think complex/specific patterns should be used. Instead, focus on more common/fundamental patterns. These patterns should occur again and again in various positions and hence it shouldn’t be necessary to keep repeating the same problems over and over. If available, test yourself on as many new positions as possible.
Calculation training should involve more complex positions. Sometimes it may be productive to analyse a single position for half an hour or more (without moving the pieces, of course). And you should be more resolute about getting your analysis correct before checking the solution. Of course, pattern recognition aids calculation.
When training tactics, decide what aspect you are going to focus on. That decides easy (recognition) or hard (calculation) problems.
Originally posted by diskamylI'm pretty sure many of the 'knights' have done it with CT-ART. in fact, bdk is just about the only one who used something else I think? most have made some adjustments to it though. (here's a list of the 'graduates': http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/2005/05/ratingprogress-of-knights-errant.html )
he has completed the seven circles for chess tactics for beginners, not CT-Art as Maza suggests. For CTB, I think it's doable, but for CT-Art, no way. impossible. and probably unnecessary too.
What Maza suggests is that you do not get much deep in a position when it seems difficult for you, and just look at the answer after 5 minutes (or something). whi ...[text shortened]... the idea behind Maza's suggestion is true I believe, repitition is a must for tactical study.
I haven't seen any great results though, just moderate improvement, but as far as I've seen it's been because of lack of persistence. the overwhelming majority of the knights have taken long breaks during the circles (because of various degrees of burn out), which in my experience just about negates most of what you've managed to achieve up to that point.
The DeLaMaza CT ART program was the first I tried to improve my Chess. CT Art was way above my level, plus you have to do all the problems on some days of the cycle. I can see why burnout would occur. After DeLaMaza won that tournament he retired his jersey. So I think he was probably burned out as well. Now I have a book by Polgar that I just started working through. A lot easier than CT Art so far. I wouldnt attempt DeLaMaza's program unless you are at the level to solve CT Arts problems. Good luck.
Originally posted by xnomanxSeems a bit silly to just redo the same 1000 tactical problems 7 times and expect a 400 point improvement in ones rating.
Here are the links to part one and two by Michael De La Maza from The Skittles Room on Chesscafe.com
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf
Has anyone read it?
Has anyone actually...DONE it?
Originally posted by Mad RookI agree with what varenka said about recognition vs. calculation. fast tactics for recognition, quantity being the king, and slow tactics for calculation, quality being the king. both being important aspect of tactical skill.
Ah, Okay, CTB would be a lot easier than CT-Art. CTB would probably be more my speed anyway. (Actually, I'm using several novice tactics books instead of CTB for my tactics study.)
I've wrestled with the two schools of thought on tactics training - whether to train on easy or hard problems. I think Dan Heisman has convinced me to go the easy problem rout ...[text shortened]... ld probably assume you're reaching the point of diminishing returns for tactics study.
in addition to that, my experience is that a few dozen (fast, CTS) problems a day will only maintain your skill. a few hundred a day is what improves you. -I think this is also one thing that separates the improvement rates of people. other people simply work more.