Anybody have experience with de la Maza's book? I understand it's a best seller in the chess world. I also found out it's quite popular on chess blogs on the net. I have the book, sort of gave up in disgust, as i got to the upper levels of difficulty. But in hindesight, maybe i should be disgusted at myself for giving up so easily. Anybody can check de la Maza's improvement at the USCF site. It's a matter of record. Whether his method works for everyone i don't know. It's based, of course, on the premise that chess is 99% tactics, so one should bang away at that over reading about openings, middlegames or endings. He's not cagey about his beliefs on this subject. Unfortunately, he no longer plays, so some critics make light of his theories. The subject came up in another thread so I thought it deserved its own.
Originally posted by buddy2I have not read his book but it makes sense that tactics can get you a long way in chess. Tactics and positional chess are part of the opening, middlegame and endgame. But in order to play good positional chess you need to know tactics first. You could study the endgame but then you will lose in the opening or middlegame. And opening study is probably the last thing to do.
Anybody have experience with de la Maza's book? I understand it's a best seller in the chess world. I also found out it's quite popular on chess blogs on the net. I have the book, sort of gave up in disgust, as i got to the upper levels of difficulty. But in hindesight, maybe i should be disgusted at myself for giving up so easily. Anybody can check d ...[text shortened]... light of his theories. The subject came up in another thread so I thought it deserved its own.
Here in the Netherlands we teach the youth players with a 6 step tactical course and the only thing we teach them beside that is some basic endgames. And a lot if them do become experts eventualy.
I read an article about the book which the 7 round tactic program. I started doing that with a 1000 puzzles which i collected from books and online.I'm almost done round 5 although its been over a year since i start because i don't have time to do the puzzles everyday. So i might do them for 3 days and take weeks or even months off and then start again. But my rating has gone up a lot. started at 1500 unrated in may last year adn i'm at 1718 right now...after 28 game of OTB play.
Those buying the book, thinking it will give them the awnsers, will be dissapointed. The book is not about chess at all, there are no tactics, no exercises, it is simply a small study program. De La Maza makes the argument, that a chess master, is like geting a BA in a chosen field, to become an elite in that field, and that those rated under 2000, are simple hobbyists who don't play enough or have the qualifications. He makes the argument, that like a BA, if you want to become a master, it will take 4 years of study, study, study, work, work, work, exercise, exercise, exercise, that is hardly much fun, but at least later on you can take pleasure in geting wins. I doubt most will be able to follow his program, towards the middle half of it, he says you must do like 500 tactical exercises A DAY, towards the end, that number is like 1000 a day!
Originally posted by buddy2Here's how it works, IMHO:
How does 1718 Canadian equal to in USCF and why doesn't the chessworld get together and agree on one rating system? Between BCF and USCF and FIDE it's driving everyone crazy!
USCF: Ratings the highest, too high, not strict enough
BCF: Ditto, not as bad as USCF
CFC: Way too underated, especially among class players, a 1600 rated CFC usually plays like 1800-1900 USCF when they go to tournaments in America, it's rediculous, one guy told me, rated 1300 CFC, they put him in a rookie tournament in America, and he won all the games easily, and everyone thought he wasn't a rookie because he never hung peices, that's rediculous, players who hang a pile of peices should be like 900 rated, not 1300 like they are in America.
FIDE: The hardest to master, a FIDE master is usually very skilled, and can win any tournament on a good day.
Originally posted by RahimKDoing them in-frequently will not help you. The goal of his 7 circle program (I believe that is what it's called) is to pound as many tactical patterns as possible in a short time. Who cares if the program is tough, as long as it still works? Those who have the time/will to do it, then by all means do. But those without the time, quit babying about how hard the program is.
So i might do them for 3 days and take weeks or even months off and then start again.
Originally posted by Timothy2005He recommends using a certain program for tactics training though, and that's a problem, he says no books will do/work. And those tactical problems books by Wilson are complete jokes, filled with errors.
Doing them in-frequently will not help you. The goal of his 7 circle program (I believe that is what it's called) is to pound as many tactical patterns as possible in a short time. Who cares if the program is tough, as long as it still works? Those who have the time/will to do it, then by all means do. But those without the time, quit babying about how hard the program is.
I agree, Deadtobe swallowed. I've noticed that he is applying time/efficiency principles to chess study. For example, he mentions How to Get Control of Your Time and Life by Alan Lakein and the Psychology of Optimal Experience by Csikszentmihalyi, and more in his book. Also, he is integrating the computer into chess study for more intense practice sessions. He even recommends that chessplayers go out and get a computer just to practice the tactics. At bottom, his method is based on the theory that tactics rule chess, and he might be on the right track there. The "Seven Circles" plan is simply a way to burn tactical patterns into the brain so that they come almost naturally during the game. He says it isn't easy. He says you'll sweat blood doing it. I don't think many people have the time and inclination to do what he wants. Maybe the common chess players are like Sunday painters who go out and dabble with art once a week and talk about it for the rest of the time. If you're doing it three hours a day, it's not a hobby. It's a job.
Originally posted by DeadBeSwallowedHe recommends any book as long as it has enough variety/problems in it in which to continually add to you tactical recognition.
He recommends using a certain program for tactics training though, and that's a problem, he says no books will do/work. And those tactical problems books by Wilson are complete jokes, filled with errors.
"If, for whatever reason, you absolutely cannot get access to a computer, you can, as a last resort, solve problems directly from a book. Please be advised that this option is far inferior to using CT-ART 3." I don't think he says this because books are themselves inferior, simply because they are far more inefficient to a computer program pumping out problems with the speed of a trap shooter. If you think about it, his theory makes sense. In any field of activity, frequent repetition of a variety of tasks brings skill. I remember a kid soccer player in my neiborhood whose father built a brick wall for him to practice off of. After a few years he managed to knock down the wall with his constant practice. He went on to become a professional and his father had to be rebuild the wall. Of course this is anecdotal, but i still believe there's a germ of truth in there.
Originally posted by buddy2exactly... de la Maza points out that CT Art 3 will give you the 1,000+ problems for his study program, already ranked by difficulty... He says it's best to start with the easiest problems and work your way up in difficulty. If you use books to obtain the 1,000 problems, you have to rank the difficulty yourself (some books may do this, but not many, most arrange problems by theme).
"If, for whatever reason, you absolutely cannot get access to a computer, you can, as a last resort, solve problems directly from a book. Please be advised that this option is far inferior to using CT-ART 3." I don't think he says this ...[text shortened]... program pumping out problems with the speed of a trap shooter. ...
He never says you can't use actual books, he just said that using software is a tremendous time saver...with books, not only do you have to rank the problems in approximate order of difficulty, but you would then have to enter each position into a software program (or set up each position on a chessboard). Very time consuming.
We already had a posting on this subject last year if you guys know how to search for it? For this guys book
I was dumb enough to collect 1000 problems off books and websites, sort them by their diffuculty level and then put them on Word so i could use them on different computers. That all took me at least 90 hours but i'm think more like 100 hours. I would write down how much time i spent doing this and i did miss a couple of days. So far i have spent 80 hours on the tactic puzzles and i'm almost done round 5. So i suggest just go and by Ct-art 3.0 . Yes it $40 or so but its worth it.. I basically was making $0.40 a hour making the problems my self 🙁
And for that guy about babying and saying it so hard. I'm not complaining about anything. When i have time i do them. Sure if you do them all at once its better for you, but even the way i'm doing them, its still workign for me. I organized my problem into 20 puzzles for one Word file.
I time myself and then after the next round i compare my times.. Even after taking 3-4 month off the next time i do the very same 20 puzzles i still knock off 1-2 minutes, so that means that position is still in my head 😛 So it does still work for me!!
About the Uscf ratings. A cfc rating of 1718 would be around 1690 Uscf. I'm not sure why the other guy thinks CFC is harder to get then Uscf because its the other way around. Check out our official Canadain chess site. It has the Stats for last year.
http://www.chess.ca/CFCvsFIDE.htm
And then you can compare that to the Uscf vs Fide ratings etc...