Why do we find it hard to improve?

Originally posted by moonbus
The order of the points I made is non-trivial. I said you should stop calculating first if you want to improve, not stop calculating forever. Most beginners start by calculating, and this is natural and correct. You will, however, reach a maximum rating of about 1700-1800 by simple calculation. The reason is that, if you do not have the capacity to correctly ...[text shortened]... (when necessary) as a useful supplement to, rather than as the primary, mode of chess thinking.

Maybe that is my OTB problem now, for I can't remember all the opening variations I memorized when I was younger because of that thirty year break from chess, and therefore, I must start calculating earlier and have gotten caught in several traps because of my faulty calculating.

Originally posted by moonbus
My remarks were addressed to Robbie Carrobie, the first poster to this thread. His rating suggests that he has probably attained 99% of what is attainable by brute-force-calculative modes of thinking and that he himself has already realized that he has reached the 'bonk' point of no further returns. Getting over the next hurdle of chess proficiency will not ...[text shortened]... joice, for you are about to be initiated into the real magnificence of this game!

If I know an opening I can just play it without calculating. Or on RHP I can just look up an opening and make a decision which one to play without calculating, if that is what you mean. However, it is when I don't know an opening that I must begin calculating at an early stage when playing OTB. It is when I run out of known moves, that I begin calculating and using the knowledge of Nimzovich's chess praxis to play the game. I am pretty good at calculating as long as I can move the pieces around on the board to see what might happen. Howevr, OTB when I can not do that and have less time, my old brain has trouble keeping track of the calculations and it gets tired too quickly.

If I know an opening I can just play it without calculating. Or on RHP I can just look up an opening and make a decision which one to play without calculating, if that is what you mean. However, it is when I don't know an opening that I must begin calculating at an early stage when playing OTB. It is when I run out of known moves, that I begin calculating and using the knowledge of Nimzovich's chess praxis to play the game. I am pretty good at calculating as long as I can move the pieces around on the board to see what might happen. Howevr, OTB when I can not do that and have less time, my old brain has trouble keeping track of the calculations and it gets tired too quickly.(rj)

i'd recommend for you, with years of chess experience, to focus on your positional judgement or static evaluation of a position, as moonbus suggests to lower rated players. but this is not a dig at you, merely your positional judgement will help get you out of tiring calculations to some degree. maybe positional chess is not to your liking but i think it would improve your results, particularly OTB.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There seems to be no simple answer and solution to the question:

Why do we find it hard to improve?

Wow, in 2013, we finally validated Emanuel Lasker's statement. In his treatise, "Manual of Chess," he wrote in 1947:

"Education goes on in a most haphazard fashion. Most chess players slowly climb to a certain rather low level and stay there."

Yermo wrote about his experiences and decided to do a thorough analysis of his own games.

In his book on Alexander Alekhine, Kotov defined 5 areas where player need to concentrate on:

1. combinational vision
2. tactical ingenuity
3. ability to think strategically
4. ability to give an overall assessment
5. endgame play.

Seek to improve those areas. And very important, do not read any more chess books. Do not seek chess advice. You must now think on your own. Write your own book.

The real question is with so many books, engines, databases, videos, how come most amateurs still remain amateurs...?

If you feel the need to read, real all of Lasker's books - Manual of Chess, Chess Primer, Common Sense in Chess, and finally, for some philosophy, read the Struggle.

For Carlsen , improvement means becoming a World Champion or maybe a top grandmaster.
When 2 grandmasters know exactly the same things(can't happen but let's assume it can) , the one with the ability to use them more creatively will obviously win.Because chess , is not just knowledge , it's also creativity , inspiration and personality(the ability to perform under high stress).

At lower levels , amateurs don't improve because of the terrible mistakes they do at their training.
Kotov mentions the 5 points someone has to focus but something most don't know is that for Soviets , knowledge of the basic endgame positions was considered obligatory.In Shakhmatyi Bulletin(called "the best chess magazine in the World" by Fischer) , Averbach many times mentions that according to Botvinnik , no matter what rating you have , if you don't know the Elementary Endgame positions , you are a beginner.
So when Kotov talks about the 5 improvement areas,when he mentions endgame play , he means advanced endgame technique and he assumes you know things like "opposition" ,"critical squares" , Lucena position , Philidor position and all the other basic endgame positions.These basic endgame positions for the Soviets were considered so important that Yusupov calls them "one of the Secrets of Soviet Chess" , Smyslov calls them "the foundation of improvement" and Mark Dvoretsky says that they can help even grandmasters improve their tournament results(Jacob Aagard says that Mark Dvoretsky's "Endgame Manual" is the main book he uses when preparing for a tournament)
And now the critical questions:
How many of you that complain improvement is too slow or too hard , know the basic endgame positions?
How many of you have devoted more time to endgames than openings?

Smyslov says:
"If the question is how fast I can improve and how far I can go, then the answer is:
Without extensive endgame study , not fast , not far."

Originally posted by Roper300
For Carlsen , improvement means becoming a World Champion or maybe a top grandmaster.
When 2 grandmasters know exactly the same things(can't happen but let's assume it can) , the one with the ability to use them more creatively will obviously win.Because chess , is not just knowledge , it's also creativity , inspiration and personality(the ability to perf ...[text shortened]... then the answer is:
Without extensive endgame study , not fast , not far."

It is important to know basic opening, middle, and endgames and one should focus on improving which of these prove to be the weakest in one's game. One may never reach an endgame if beaten in the opening and middle game. So I still believe one should take a balanced appoach in his studies to improve. One can not neglect deficiencies in the opening and middle game and simply concentrate on advanced endgame study and then hope to survive to the endgame with a position that these advanced techniques can be used to gain the win.

Originally posted by Roper300
Mark Dvoretsky's "Endgame Manual" is the main book he uses when preparing for a tournament)
And now the critical questions:
How many of you that complain improvement is too slow or too hard , know the basic endgame positions?
How many of you have devoted more time to endgames than openings?

In his book, "Chess Fundamental," Capablanca taught endings before anything else. Can anyone explain why? To reach the endgame, you must survive the middlegame. It requires calculation, evaluation, and strategic planning. If you're weak in those areas, then how are you gonna play the endgame?

Originally posted by u2krazie
In his book, "Chess Fundamental," Capablanca taught endings before anything else. Can anyone explain why? To reach the endgame, you must survive the middlegame. It requires calculation, evaluation, and strategic planning. If you're weak in those areas, then how are you gonna play the endgame?

I think Capablanca taught the endings first in his book, "Chess Fundamental" because he was teaching the fundamentals of chess and the endings are the most fundamental and easiest to teach because of their simplicity.

The book I recommended "Chess Self-Teacher" by Al Horowitz also begins with the simplest endgame stage of the game. The openings and middlegames are much more complicated to teach to a beginner so that he understands the ideas without the basic understanding of the object of checkmating the king that can be demonstrated best in the endgames.

Originally posted by u2krazie
In his book, "Chess Fundamental," Capablanca taught endings before anything else. Can anyone explain why? To reach the endgame, you must survive the middlegame. It requires calculation, evaluation, and strategic planning. If you're weak in those areas, then how are you gonna play the endgame?

Capablanca said that:

"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and opening must be studied in relation to the end game."

Most beginners think that studying endgame is pointless because they rarely get to endgame.That is a common misunderstanding.

According to Josh Waitzkin:
""Endgames are the heart of chess and studying the endgame builds an important foundation to support one’s skill development in all other phases of the game.In endgames, pieces can be studied in isolation so that a player can grasp their true potential without any ‘distractions’. Studying the capabilities of each piece will allow a player to not only play better endgames, but use and coordinate their forces more effectively in the opening and middlegame."

Endgame will teach you maneuvring to control critical squares, advancing or blockading pawns, preparing breakthroughs and exploiting the subtle superiority of one piece over another much better and much quicker than any other part of the game.Endgame will help you increase your calculation skill, your abilty to create plans and will also help you acquire an understanding about the tactical abilities of the pieces which is the foundation to increase your tactical skills.Many do many hours of tactical training and their improvement is painfullly slow(if any).You can't be good in tactics without understanding the "tactical function" of the pieces.Even the top players use endgame studies to increase their tactical ability.Aronian said in an interview that endgame studies helped him to prime his tactical ability and resourcefulness.Luke McShane said that endgame studies help him keep his tactics sharp.

Opening study is simply a waste of time at early levels(except understanding the basic principles you actually need nothing more) and middlegame study , although necessary , it will be more beneficial once you acquire the necessary endgame understanding.

My theory for lack of improvement is bad training. The training is not systematic. I'm coming back to the game and I am seeking training methods. Here's one master's version of how we should train. I think this is valid to a certain point. But I'm using his techniques so I can cover all the 5 phases Kotov mentioned.

http://www.geocities.com/lifemasteraj/training.html

Originally posted by u2krazie
My theory for lack of improvement is bad training. The training is not systematic. I'm coming back to the game and I am seeking training methods. Here's one master's version of how we should train. I think this is valid to a certain point. But I'm using his techniques so I can cover all the 5 phases Kotov mentioned.

http://www.geocities.com/lifemasteraj/training.html

Its very good and contains much practical advice.

Well, whereas the content of that site may be good, the structure and layout is absolutely inappropriate. After spending some minutes looking around, I still don't know what topics he covers nor his point of view upon chess training.

Long time ago, I've seen a similarly looking site, adressed to proving that spaceflight is impossible...

so I'm a bit reserved about its merits 😉

Originally posted by tvochess
Well, whereas the content of that site may be good, the structure and layout is absolutely inappropriate. After spending some minutes looking around, I still don't know what topics he covers nor his point of view upon chess training.

Long time ago, I've seen a similarly looking site, adressed to proving that spaceflight is impossible...

so I'm a bit reserved about its merits 😉

what is it that you disliked tvochess dude? As far as i can discern the author advocated

1. making a schedule for your training
2. practice tactics everyday
3. use a real chessboard
4. when reading a book, read it more than once
5. look at all the variations etc
6. try to visualise those variations prior to playing them

etc etc etc

all sound advice

Here's the advice from Bronstein:

Bronstein in the Sorcercer's Apprentice:

First, play through the whole game without hesitating more than a couple seconds at each move. If you have the urge to pause longer dont! Take a piece of paper and make some notes if you wish, and continue to play the game to the end. Then get a cup of tea or coffee, relax and try your best to recall from memory the spectacle you have just seen. Try to establish the reasons why certain decisions were made. Second, play through the game again, somewhat slower this time, and make notes of everything that you did not see the first time. Third, now go straight to those pencil marks and give your imaginative and creative energy free reign. Try to play better than my partner and I. If you do not agree, look closely at each decision, either for White or for Black, with a critical eye. If you look at a game like this you will discover a lot of new and useful knowledge, which you can use for your own benefit. Write your findings in a notebook in order to look at them later when you are in a different mood, especially if you like the game. When I was learning to play chess, I studied thousands and thousands of games played by the older generation in exactly the same way and gained a lot from them.

A.Nimzovich
HOW I BECAME GRAND MASTER

(a passage)
In August 1905 I played in a mixed tournament in Barmen and
... failed (+3 -8 =7). In those days I considered the failure an awful
misfortune, but to-day I am sure that the flop turned out to be the
salvation of me in an almost hopeless situation.
Embittered by the mocking treatment I met with from the
critics in the tournament games collection I made up my mind to give
up playing chess in a cafe, to take a cure for my nerves and then to
come to grips with chess.
Two or three months later I made great progress. Among the
factors that made this headway easier for me, apart from my inherent
combination play abilities, were my resentment at the failure in
Barmen, my strong dislike for Tarrasch and my yearning to master the
positional play elements.
Even the superficial analysis of the games I had played in
Barmen showed that my chief weak point was poorly played openings
(I did not know of a defence against l.d4). Later, more accurate and
deep analysis convinced me that I lacked the skill of consoHdating my
position. My game with Forgacs may serve an example, there I
attacked on the wings quite regardless of the position.
By that time the Nuremberg tournament games collection had
come out with Tarrasch's notes. I took the book to the bookbinder's
asking him to bind in blank leaves between each two leaves of the
text. Then I began to analyse some of the games, mostly the ones
played by Salwe, Duras and Forgacs, and M.Chigorin's ones as Black.
I entered the found results on the intervening leaves right away. I
always "played" for one of the partners only - either as White, or as
Black, trying first to find the best move on my own and then looking
up the move made in the game. So, my "game" lasted at least about 6
hours.
I learnt consolidating my position like this. In one of Salwe's
games there arose a position characteristic of an isolated Q-pawn.
White - ^ f 3 , pawn on d4. Black - ^d7, pawn on е6 (besides, each
player had quite a number of pieces). It tumed out that White did not
need to hurry at all to occupy point e5 with the Knight. In a few
moves the black Knight itself set out on its way to d5, so the e5-point
appeared in the hands of White without the least effort on his part.
This state of things was immediately stated on a blank leaf, the main
thing being not the chess content of the manoeuvre proper but its
psychological moments so to say: "Points are often made vacant
automatically!" "Don't hurry!" and so on. At the same time, feeling
uneasy and interested, I kept my mind's eye open for the slightest
"rustle" along the open file, the seventh rank and for everything
related to passed pawns. It was then that I discovered the notion of "an
outpost on the open file". But what I enjoyed most was pointing out
the errors and often shallowness in Tarrasch's notes. I profited a lot by
that.