2 edits
Originally posted by eldragonflyI think the knights claim an average ratings increase of about 200 upon completion- MDLM's 400 seems to be exceptional (from what I'm reading).
Seems a bit silly to just redo the same 1000 tactical problems 7 times and expect a 400 point improvement in ones rating.
I have to imagine there are less painful ways to gain those points, not that it doesn't require constant work. I think there are more "balanced" (and possibly enjoyable) ways. It's quite possible that trying to do the Seven Circles (as described by MDLM, not modified), for most people, would only lead to burnout with minimal gains.
I think Dan Heisman's "An Improvement Plan" (from Novice Nook archives on ChessCafe) is a far more well rounded apporach that would be less likely to turn you off to chess.
Originally posted by xnomanxI agree about MDLM. but then again, as good advice as heisman gives, I've never ran into anybody who got significant improvement training his way either.
I think the knights claim an average ratings increase of about 200 upon completion- MDLM's 400 seems to be exceptional (from what I'm reading).
I have to imagine there are less painful ways to gain those points, not that it doesn't require constant work. I think there are more "balanced" (and possibly enjoyable) ways. It's quite possible that trying to ...[text shortened]... is a far more well rounded apporach that would be less likely to turn you off to chess.
I think it all comes down to sheer will power, regardless of what way you choose to go at it. blood, sweat and tears. 'enjoyment' is something you might want to forget right from the beginning. although some fun is required to stay motivated of course.
that would also explain why there's so many nutcases who are good at chess. obsessive, hostile crackpots with a feverish hunger for chess. 🙂
Silman had the better review of this book..it's a piece of trash really,,maza,,who after getting his rating in the 2000s stopped playing in tournaments, says nothing useful except that you should repeat positions in your studies..for a good laugh read his game analysis of how his thought process during a game works...it's very weak.
I really do not see much difference between De la Mazas thought process and Heismans and others each move telling their students to look for checks, captures and threats.
Basically he says look at all possible threats and if found respond.
If no serious threats he recommends then looking for a tactical sequence.
If no tactics are found he recommends implementing a simple plan based on improving mobility or pieces, preventing opponent from castling, trading off pawns to open the position, and trying to keep queens on the board(more likely to present tactics later in his opinion).
I really do not see anything horrendously wrong with this plan. And everyone mentions the 7 circles but few mention the other two important aspects of his improvement plan which
was this thought process every move - essentially an act of being very careful and not falling into traps and looking for tactics of your own.
and two going over all your games after played with a program like fritz and looking at the key moves when the position changed in one players favor or where an advantage was lost and asking yourself why and what would have been a better move.
All basic good advice imo
Concentrate your study time on tactics and chess vision.
Be careful every move and ask yourself key questions.
Go over your games.
And play opponents a little better than yourself.
basic good advice imo.
Originally posted by xnomanxI was just listening to the non-real time broadcast of Heisman's latest "Ask the Renaissance Man" on ChessFM (dated May 29). He spends a few minutes near the beginning of the broadcast discussing his views on MDLM's method. It might be worth a few minutes of your time to listen to it, if this thread interests you.
I think the knights claim an average ratings increase of about 200 upon completion- MDLM's 400 seems to be exceptional (from what I'm reading).
I have to imagine there are less painful ways to gain those points, not that it doesn't require constant work. I think there are more "balanced" (and possibly enjoyable) ways. It's quite possible that trying to ...[text shortened]... is a far more well rounded apporach that would be less likely to turn you off to chess.
But act fast, his 5/29 broadcast will only be available for a couple more days.
http://www.chessclub.com/webcast/Heisman
Originally posted by Mad Rookthanks for the link. I've listened to that, but I just cannot take it seriously.
I was just listening to the non-real time broadcast of Heisman's latest "Ask the Renaissance Man" on ChessFM (dated May 29). He spends a few minutes near the beginning of the broadcast discussing his views on MDLM's method. It might be worth a few minutes of your time to listen to it, if this thread interests you.
But act fast, his 5/29 broadcast will only be available for a couple more days.
http://www.chessclub.com/webcast/Heisman
he says tactics training should only be consisting of repitition of easy problems, and criticises Maza only because he recommends the repitition of a problem set which contains some difficult problems too .
I simply cannot believe this. Then how is one supposed to learn how to calculate variations? I mean, seeing a two move combo for the 30th time in 0.89 seconds is great, but how about all those losing moves at the end of a variation you have miscalculated?? how about realising you were actually 2 pawns down after a 5 move exchange?
I have tried the repition method and it just **** up with my thinking process. I left that method a while ago and since then I'm less miserable.
Originally posted by xnomanxWhile his ideas inspired my own tactical training regimen, I have not done his system, mainly for two reasons. 1) I don't have that kind of time
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???
2) It would require me to buy another chess program or spend time organizing my current chess programs to make the system work 3) The results seemed mixed- for example, some one included a link to the blog of a person who completed it. Upon further investigation, I learned that that person had only reached 1400 on ICC! That is hardly the kind of rating such dedication to the 7 circles deserves! And I have seen it among others; people who spend that incredible amount of effort with a modest rating gain. The point is that De La Maza's personal improvement was the exception, not the norm .
That is not to say that all of his points are bad; his ideas behind tactical study are good and as I said before his ideas have inspired my tactical training; however, it would be foolish to not study anything else as De La Maza expects.
One thing I can vouch for is his chess vision drills, particularly his concentric circle one. I remember when I first hit 1200 USCF, I had been stuck there for about 5 months. I then went up from 1200 to 1300 in two months. That was when I began doing the concentric circle, and within three months of hitting 1300 I was 1483. I did no other studying other than the this, and I still use it now for "maintenance" (I am about 1700 USCF now). Hopefully my advice has been useful.
Originally posted by diskamylEh, I didn't expect everyone to agree with him. I just thought I'd throw out another opinion for people to consider. But from your post, it appears to me that you're misunderstanding what Dan is saying.
thanks for the link. I've listened to that, but I just cannot take it seriously.
he says tactics training should only be consisting of repitition of easy problems, and criticises Maza only because he recommends the repitition of a problem set which contains some difficult problems too .
I simply cannot believe this. Then how is one sup ...[text shortened]... up with my thinking process. I left that method a while ago and since then I'm less miserable.
A couple of points: For one thing, Dan doesn't recommend only tactics study. He also recommends various forms of analysis and calculation study. Also, if you're really good enough to solve all of the easier tactics problems in under a second, I suspect that Dan would probably have no problem with increasing the difficulty of the problems. Dan's stated goal for tactics study is to practice a tactics set until you can complete at least 85 percent of the problems within 10-15 seconds.
A select few of his Novice Nook columns might help to clarify his ideas. But if you've already decided on your tactics study plan, that's fine. Who's to say which plan is best? In the final analysis, you decide which one you think is best and go with it. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, you reassess, modify the plan, then start again. And I'm not locked into Dan's plan. If someone can convince me that another plan is better, I'll switch in a New York minute.
Originally posted by onehandgannThat's like preparing to run a marathon and only training to run fast instead of lasting long. His advice or guidelines are full of holes that will limit your true skill. Stick with think like a grandmaster..
I really do not see much difference between De la Mazas thought process and Heismans and others each move telling their students to look for checks, captures and threats.
Basically he says look at all possible threats and if found respond.
If no serious threats he recommends then looking for a tactical sequence.
If no tactics are found he re ...[text shortened]... your games.
And play opponents a little better than yourself.
basic good advice imo.