I don't know if it is good or not, better or worst than other methods. But, be sure that there are more than 20 guys at the following chess improvement blog link and the links to other blogs in it that have improved from 50 to 400 points. You can message each of them if you want to share thoughts or oppinions.
http://www.temposchlucker.blogspot.com/
Originally posted by chesskid001In his "Reasses Your Chess", Silman himself gives some credence to La Maza's insistence that the quickest way to improve is to study tactics. Silman says that as a boy he gained 400 rating points after reading a tactics book by Znosko-Borovsky called "The Art of Chess Combination."
Hopefully Silman's review is not biased, because in the article at least de la maza bashes silman.
I would pass on that, I went up 200 pts in one year (and my rating is still climbing) just playing on here and reading positional books, like
The Winning Chess Series,
"How to Reassess Your Chess" and "The Amateurs Mind"
De La Mazas program has you slave doing 3 hrs a day of chess problems, which basically assumes you dont have a life. Dont try it unless you wanna end up like RahimK and hate chess. And have no clue about the positional aspects of the game.
I like Silman's advice he offers in his book review:
"By all means, study tactics as often as possible, but don’t allow yourself to look at a grandmaster game and understand nothing whatsoever about what’s going on. To avoid this state of “chess existence without beauty,” one must seek balance. Understand a couple openings (don’t memorize, understand the ideas of your opening), understand basic strategic concepts, learn endgame basics, and master key tactical motifs. All this can be done at your own pace, and you CAN improve without the use of snake oil."
Like Dan Heisman says, everything you do with a chessboard is going to improve your game (blitz, opening study, etc.). Question is how much is it going to help you. From the articles of D. Heisman and also from my own experience I'd say that two things are more important in reaching a reasonable level (1500-1900); a.) Doing your best on every move and b.) Tactics.
There are some things we should know before passing judgment on Rapid Chess Improvement:
1.Before realizing that he lacked the tactical knowledge, De La Maza had studied chess with little success (openings, strategy etc.). This means that he was just lacking the crucial piece - basic combinational patterns.
2. During the time of his rapid improvement De La Maza was unemployed, devoting his time to chess.
3. From 1999 to 2001 he played in 44 tournaments (translates to a lot of slow chess). He analyzed his games and created his own method of a blunder check (= avoiding stupid mistakes, i.e. doing his best on each move).
So in conclusion I'd say that if you really want to improve it is going to take some serious work. This doesn't mean that the work must be dull or boring (solving tactics is very addictive) but the amount of time you have to spend looking at the black & white board is huge.
Personally I've gone through a modified Seven Circles few years ago (I only went through the problems on level 10 - level 60, repeated the problems nine times and my time span was longer than De La Maza's). It took me 202 hours and 12 minutes. Did I get better? Of course (about +200 on playchess, I didn't have any real rating at the time). Would I have gotten even better if I'd played 100 slow games against reasonably better players instead? Couldn't say.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12775875
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/Heisman_Part_2.htm
Originally posted by HomerJSimpsonI don't hate chess. If I did I wouldn't be here help people still.
I would pass on that, I went up 200 pts in one year (and my rating is still climbing) just playing on here and reading positional books, like
The Winning Chess Series,
"How to Reassess Your Chess" and "The Amateurs Mind"
De La Mazas program has you slave doing 3 hrs a day of chess problems, which basically assumes you dont have a life. Dont try ...[text shortened]... d up like RahimK and hate chess. And have no clue about the positional aspects of the game.
It's not as fun anymore for me, and thus I have given up competitive chess. Now I just play for fun, blitz games which are meaningless. You heard me, blitz games = nothing! 😛
I believe there are other factors also though. Finishing Univ, Finding the right job. In coparision to this, Chess seems meaningless.
But when I retire, you better watch out. I'm giving you fair warning in advance 🙂 Especially you Homer J.
BTW, I live in Springfield Place! Honestly, and there was this dude who used to live here named Homer. It's a condo.
