"Rapid Chess Improvement" by Michael De La Maza. Is the training method described in the book a great way to improve or bogus?
I've heard mixed reviews. The reason I'm asking is that I purchased the book but when i got to the third chapter I found out that I need a chess program called CT ART 3.0 to participate in his program. I haven't purchased CT ART 3.0 yet but I will if the program in the book is worth it. Otherwise I'll get the personal chess trainer 2.0.
Originally posted by estonian3You need approximately 1000 puzzles sort in order of diffuculty. Ct-art3.0 is $40 i belive and well worth it. You can get free online puzzles but have to look for them so it's up to you.
"Rapid Chess Improvement" by Michael De La Maza. Is the training method described in the book a great way to improve or bogus?
I've heard mixed reviews. The reason I'm asking is that I purchased the book but when i got to the third chapter I found out that I need a chess program called CT ART 3.0 to participate in his program. I haven't purchased C ...[text shortened]... f the program in the book is worth it. Otherwise I'll get the personal chess trainer 2.0.
I did this program and was dumb enough to collect my own problems from books and online sites and spent 90 hours doing this just to save $40! What a waste of time.
My results for the rapid chess improvement in on my blog, address under my profile.
Good luck.
Originally posted by estonian3you don't necessarily need ct-art, just a 1000 or so tactical problems to do the 'circles' on. there's also two shorter web-articles about DLM, which you might want to check out before getting the book.
"Rapid Chess Improvement" by Michael De La Maza. Is the training method described in the book a great way to improve or bogus?
I've heard mixed reviews. The reason I'm asking is that I purchased the book but when i got to the third chapter I found out that I need a chess program called CT ART 3.0 to participate in his program. I haven't purchased C ...[text shortened]... f the program in the book is worth it. Otherwise I'll get the personal chess trainer 2.0.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf
I don't know anybody who gained susbtantial amount of points doing DLM, but doing tactics never harmed anyone. (well, except michael de la maza, who stopped playing chess after his program.)
here's a blogging group of people doing DLM, and a chart about what kind of gains you can expect in reality:
http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/2005/05/ratingprogress-of-knights-errant.html
Originally posted by estonian3one guess is he got burnout from the program, but I don't think anyone knows for sure. it could also be he just lost motivation after reaching the big goal 2000, but again, who really knows. maybe his life situation just changed, and he didn't have the time or energy anymore.
what? he stopped playing chess after the program. LOL thats hilarious! Are you serious? And why?
Originally posted by estonian3Why don't you try and improve by playing a game. Member since January and you haven't made a single move yet??
"Rapid Chess Improvement" by Michael De La Maza. Is the training method described in the book a great way to improve or bogus?
I've heard mixed reviews. The reason I'm asking is that I purchased the book but when i got to the third chapter I found out that I need a chess program called CT ART 3.0 to participate in his program. I haven't purchased C ...[text shortened]... f the program in the book is worth it. Otherwise I'll get the personal chess trainer 2.0.
Originally posted by wormwoodI couldn't get excel to cooperate with me, but i believe theirs a correlation between the graphs I ploted for my blog. At least I see a pattern not sure about others who see the graphs.
I don't know anybody who gained susbtantial amount of points doing DLM, but doing tactics never harmed anyone. (well, except michael de la maza, who stopped playing chess after his program.)
here's a blogging group of people doing DLM, and a chart about what kind of gains you can expect in reality:
http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/2005/05/ratingprogress-of-knights-errant.html[/b]
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
reinfelds book has 1001 chess positions and would be an excellent substitute ... and the book is real cheap, under $10. as for the effectiveness of the DLM method, i think any concentrated chess study program can be effective. of course most people won't be devoted enough to study for the prescribed period of time. most people will only read a chapter or two, and for a day or two. so yes the DLM program won't work, but it's our fault, not the author's.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by wormwood2000 players know their openings and so the games get more difficult to play. under 2000, you can expect alot of glaring mistakes. so it takes a lot more effort to improve rating wise above 2000. from my experience, i realized my openings were just not good enough against 2200 players, my middlegame just so-so. fortunately i believe my endgame knowledge was okay.
one guess is he got burnout from the program, but I don't think anyone knows for sure. it could also be he just lost motivation after reaching the big goal 2000, but again, who really knows. maybe his life situation just changed, and he didn't have the time or energy anymore.
One of the things that struck me funny about de la Mazas' book ( and there are a lot of things funny about the book), is that he said he had spent months (years?) studying all of the classic books, with middle game strategy, openings, master games, etc, and he felt that it was all wasted time! But there is a simple, logical fact that shoots holes in that absurd comment- he could not have become the chess player he did only on tactics! All of the strategic planning that he did and positional understanding came form the hours of studying those concepts as well, even if they only were there in his subconcious mind. Tactics are one important aspect of the game, but a lack of positional understanding will not allow tactical opportunities to spring forth. The guys book was so annoying, that I threw it in the garbage! I will stick with Silman and CT Art and Chernev etc.
My experience was similar. I spent years studying classical games and endgames, but very little time on openings and tactics. As a result, I plateaued until I started studying tactics and then my rating went up; consequently, I'm excited about the game again.
I believe that in chess you have to do a lot of things well and very few badly. You also have to be comfortable in many different types of positions because you’re not always going to be able to attack or wind up in an endgame where you possess the two Bishops. Universality should be the goal: You should be able to attack and defend, play quiet positions or chaotic ones, and play endgames and middle games well. If you're weak in one area, bone up on it and eradicate it.
Same with openings. I used to play d4 primarily and now I never open with it -- I went through my English phase and now I am experimenting with e4. In chess, you’re either moving forward or you’re like I was before I started studying other aspects of the game. Moreover, unless you’re a Capablanca or Reshevsky, facility in chess takes a lifelong commitment.
Originally posted by 33movesYou should read silman's review about that book on his silman's website and other reviews.
One of the things that struck me funny about de la Mazas' book ( and there are a lot of things funny about the book), is that he said he had spent months (years?) studying all of the classic books, with middle game strategy, openings, master games, etc, and he felt that it was all wasted time! But there is a simple, logical fact that shoots holes in that abs ...[text shortened]... annoying, that I threw it in the garbage! I will stick with Silman and CT Art and Chernev etc.
From what I read and heard, La Maza was a decent player but kept dropping pieces. He started doing tactics and stopped dropping pieces got over 2000, won some money and quit.
That is what I heard. So the main thing was that he was dropping pieces here and there and by not doing that he gained 400 points in X months.
Tactics are the best way to gain rating points. The only problem with just tactics, is it leaves holes in your games, like endgame and positional knowledge, etc.
I recently got to new highs in 1 min chess on ICC, a game i play more then anything.
This seems like an absurd way to play chess, but if your tactics are weak, it will be very obvious in a bullet game.
I read Combination Challange by Lou Hays 2 /12 times, and that what i atribute my rise in bullet rating too.
Now i need to finish Positional Chess Handbook by Isreal Geller, and maybe i can get to new highs in slow chess!
Originally posted by GrandmousterWhat kind of puzzles does that combination book have?
Tactics are the best way to gain rating points. The only problem with just tactics, is it leaves holes in your games, like endgame and positional knowledge, etc.
I recently got to new highs in 1 min chess on ICC, a game i play more then anything.
This seems like an absurd way to play chess, but if your tactics are weak, it will be very obvious in a bu ...[text shortened]... nish Positional Chess Handbook by Isreal Geller, and maybe i can get to new highs in slow chess!
I'm find a pure combination tactics book which has only combination puzzles and not mate in X ones. Most of the tactics books I have read have Mate in X problems and very few combination puzzles which are X moves deep. I found several decent ones on this Kasp website, they were over my head but when I looked at the solution and went over them again, Wow they were amazing. I still remeber this really cool one. You trade off 1 pawn each then 2 pieces each which is forced and then you trade off 1 more piece and the opponents piece can't recapture because it is pinned. It was brillant!