I got linked to IM David Pruess's post from a chess blog I've been visiting for a bit now...
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-advice-most-chess-players-dont-like-to-hear?page=2
Post I'm referring to is about halfway down the page. Pruess seems like a nice guy, wants to see people improve rather than sell books offering "miracle cures". Any opinions on this though? It seems like most people here believe the way to go is CTS overdose rather than studying losses.
If you have the fortitude to go through every single one of your losses, then do it. See where you went wrong and then study what you perceive to be your weaknesses. But also note that Pruess advocates, in that same post, the 10-15 minutes of tactical exersizes that many here recommend. If you have a very limited time each day to study (under 20 mins) then you should probably devote yourself to tactics. If you have more, do the tactics first then go over your losses.
Sounds like excellent advise to me.
A daily study program I made a few months ago and try to follow:
1.puzzles 30 minutes,going quickly through them
2.1 or 2 chapter(s) in a book until finished.
3.play through,short,annotated games
4.analyse a loss
5.endgames
Every week there's at least 1 day I do nothing(often more).Too tired or simply not in the mood for chess.
The days I do study I rarely reach 4 and actually never get to 5.It shows,I make the same mistakes over and over and absolutely suck at endings.
When I've finished the current book I'll switch 2 and 4.Should also switch 3 and 5 but I enjoy playing through games too much.
So it's not really going so well and I'll never get anywhere if I don't pick up the pace.
But I do see slight improvement and I'm enjoying myself and I'm fine with that.For now anyway.
toet.
In my opinion great chess advice doesnt often get given. Or maybe its just how i learnt. Anyone can learn openings and tactics and endgames and you'll get to about 1600. I got good by playing thru hundreds and hundreds of fully annotated games and eventually it is the pattern recognition that sets you apart, but it takes a long time and you have to enjoy doing it...
The other thing I would say is that average player never knows where they are in a game, even more interestingly they think good players know where they are too. I often dont know where I am, but pattern recognition leads me to know there are only 2 or 3 moves to chooes from, and you have to just believe it will come right. Might sound a bit odd, but most IMs and GMs are indeed a bit odd!
Originally posted by carpisteWhat do you mean when you say "don't know where they are in a game"?
In my opinion great chess advice doesnt often get given. Or maybe its just how i learnt. Anyone can learn openings and tactics and endgames and you'll get to about 1600. I got good by playing thru hundreds and hundreds of fully annotated games and eventually it is the pattern recognition that sets you apart, but it takes a long time and you have to enjoy do ...[text shortened]... t believe it will come right. Might sound a bit odd, but most IMs and GMs are indeed a bit odd!
toet.
I think loads and loads of free advice is given most of
it good and well intended.
But it often goes unheeded, not out of stubborness it just does not sink in.
It's only when the player get stung does it stick.
It's like seeing a 'Wet Paint' sign.
You have been told it's wet and still you touch it.
Playing as often as possible, hopefully against a reasonablle player(s)
gaining the playing experience is the way. Join a hess Club.
Totally agree all 'male' chess players are odd. I love them all,
especially the oddness.
The female chess players I know quite well, about 12 in all including GM's
and WIM's are all pefectly normal.
(mind you I'm not really the one to judge what is perfectly normal.) 🙄
Originally posted by greenpawn34I think you're probably right about that.
I think loads and loads of free advice is given most of
it good and well intended.
The thing that bugs me though is that players and coaches hardly ever mention what they've done wrong in the past... I just started playing like 6 months ago and I feel like a lot of the community is divided up into these "cults" offering miracle cures: Jeremy Silman and his thinking technique, De La Mazza and his "circles", etc. They can't all be right! I'M SO CONFUSEDDD...
All I want to know is, "What's the most reasonable way to spend 1 hour a day on chess?"... (w/o boring myself, burning out, exploding even)... Like I'm sure using CTS for an hour a day for a year would be just GREAT! for my game, but boredom starts to set in after like 15 minutes and I contemplate reinstalling X-COM UFO Defense. On the other hand, going over grandmaster games takes For-Ev-Ver, and unless the annotations are really detailed I rarely have a clue what's going on!
Originally posted by DivGradCurlWell actually,all those approaches do work.The trick is to find the one you enjoy.
I think you're probably right about that.
The thing that bugs me though is that players and coaches hardly ever mention what they've done wrong in the past... I just started playing like 6 months ago and I feel like a lot of the community is divided up into these "cults" offering miracle cures: Jeremy Silman and his thinking technique, De La Ma ...[text shortened]... nd unless the annotations are really detailed I rarely have a clue what's going on!
I think a reasonable way to spend 1 hour a day is to go over annotated Morphy games.
Disect his attacks,soak up the mate,and general tactical,patterns.
Add a few tactics puzzles a day,3-4-5.Don't have to do more but do them every day.
Then move on to another player,disect his games and so on and on and on.....
It'll still take forever.There's no quick way.
toet.
Originally posted by DivGradCurlI'm just curious how you got to 1600 in only 6 months ? That took Josh Waitzkin 3 years to do and they made a movie about him.
I think you're probably right about that.
The thing that bugs me though is that players and coaches hardly ever mention what they've done wrong in the past... I just started playing like 6 months ago and I feel like a lot of the community is divided up into these "cults" offering miracle cures: Jeremy Silman and his thinking technique, De La Ma ...[text shortened]... nd unless the annotations are really detailed I rarely have a clue what's going on!
Originally posted by savage4731starting out is fundamentally different when you're an adult. one can get to b or a-player rather quickly but very few can progress from there.
I'm just curious how you got to 1600 in only 6 months ? That took Josh Waitzkin 3 years to do and they made a movie about him.
Originally posted by randolphActually I know quite a bit about starting out as an adult. Although I played chess when I was young, I wasnt very good and never put in any effort to learn as a child. When i decided to improve as an adult I gained about 1000 points in 2 1/2 years up to 1800. If you've done any research you know thats pretty much unheard of. Typical for adults is about 100 points a year.
starting out is fundamentally different when you're an adult. one can get to b or a-player rather quickly but very few can progress from there.
Children learn much faster than adults because their brains are much more malleable and because they have significantly more free time. Compare how much effort you would have to put into learning a foreign language as an adult to how much effort you put into learning your first language. Chess is the same way.
Am I the only one that finds this guy's story strange? If we assume he started out at 800 (which is generous) that means he's gained 900 points in 6 months. Thats 18x faster than a typical adult, 9x faster than a "genius" and even 4x faster than the fastest people in Rapid Chess Improvement none of whch were absolute beginners when they started.
At that rate, He should hit 2000 in about 2 months, and probably be an IM by the end of the year. Then probably a GM the year after and world champion just a few months after that.
Wow, I cant believe we have an actual chess super genius on here. The most talented player to ever live. I feel honored. He's so good he's never lost a game since learning how the pieces move. Whats funny is he's actually ASKING advice instead of giving it.