Amateur's Mind - Terrific! or Terrible!

I agree with the 'endless streams of variations' but I stick with 'the study of Master Games is a waste of time' at that level. Actually, I think its valid quite a lot above that level too. IMs think on a completely different level to those below say 2000 F.I.D.E. Grandmasters even more so!

Whilst I'm being heretical, I'll extend this to cover opening theory. This is the biggest waste of time for almost all of us. Opening principles, yes - we should study those seriously and this will improve ratings quickly. The learning by rote and in-depth of opening variations is probably the biggest waste of time we all invest in.

For a 1300 player, I'd rate the most profitabe areas of study to be.

1. The avoidence of blunders.
2. Opening principles
3. Easy(ish) tactics.

Positional play (above the most basic principles) is way down the list and theory on any specific opening should be left until one cracks the 2000 F.I.D.E. barrier. Really. I know it goes against most advice but most of that is wrong. Down at the 1300 level, all games are decided tactically. Positional plays starts to matter as we approach 1800 or higher.

Excepting, of course,  whatever you find interesting and fun - that's WAY more important than improving! :-)

Steve

kingpatzer: what other books would you recommend for weaker players not afraid of hard work and looking to improve?

I take exception with the phrase ‘afraid of a hard workout.’ Just what does that mean really? Because one is not willing to grind out session after session makes them afraid? Have you ever heard the term ‘burnout?’ I’M sure the meaning of your statement was not to give offense but I would suggest a better use of words…..

I've heard that tactics are everything for novices like me.  I've read Seirawan's Tactics book and I'm half way through Heisman's Tactics book.  What other tactics books do you (or anyone in this thread) recommend?  I just picked up Susan Polgar's "Chess Tactics for Champions" and it looks pretty similar to Heisman's but I'm sure the excercises will help.  I've also spent plenty of time at Chesstempo.com but for whatever reason I prefer books (probably because they are so portable).

On a side note - thanks again to all who've posted here.  I'm getting some really useful information and assembling a mental list of books to look into immediately and for future examination. 

Yusupov doesn't only work with "talented persons." 

He does only work with people willing to work.

Of course, talent is often the result of hard work guided by a skilled mentor.  

I agree…..my words were aimed at Dvoretsky. I’m a fan of Artur’s work. He also seems to be a genuine nice guy

Logical chess is aimed at beginners while Understanding Chess is at a more advanced level.

I read the Amateur's Mind recently and my rating improved some.  Some of the ideas in there were either new to me or clarifie.  Honestly, though, I thought there was a ton of crap in the book, too.  The student games didn't seem to help me any.  Its like he gives your a couple of examples of kids losing to an IM, complaining about how they always fall for these same problems.  Of course, just because I don't think they helped doesn't mean they didn't.  Maybe it let me see how players at my level think and subconciously tried to think differently.

A good summary of the book is that it's a simple book that introduces a lower rated player to strategy, containing examples of master games and low rated players trying to re-create them.

I have Amateur mind and have read it.  Loved the book but it didn't help my chess game 1 point.  I am fairly low rated adult player but the only thing that has helped my game is going through some tactics software and doing them over and over.  Studying Master games actually made my rating drop as I was still missing tactics.  Perhaps Michael de la Maza is right... tactics tactics tactics.  Yes I read chernevs move by move and it still did nothing, so I wasn't reading games that were above my level.

I just bought the first three books of Yuspupov's build up your chess and I find them frustrating.  Often his examples seem to have nothing to do with the 12 exam questions given.  They might say that they are aimed at below 1500 but don't believe it.  I've come close to throwing them across the room into the garbage can.   I am willing to work hard, but I wouldn't recommend these books to anyone.

I wouldn't recommend Yusupov's works to any adult U1600.

Fixed.

Agreed, Hic!

de la Maza's book is ok, once you get past the self-promotion. But there are many other authors out there who are better for adult novices. Some of my personal favorites include John Littlewood (author of Chess Coaching), Bruce Pandolfini (yeah, I know others don't appreciate him), and Aron Nimzovich.

I firmly believe that any adult can pick up My System by Nimzovich and learn a tremendous amount if they are willing to work at the book. I spent a summer with it and some game collections (Alekhine's My Best Games of Chess, 1908-1937, a collection of Rubinstein's games, Zurich 1953 by Bronstein, My 60 Memorable Games by Fischer and The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal) and jumped from a ~1400 to almost expert strength in just a few months. It took a tremendous amount of work, but it was worth the effort! Nimzovich lay the groundwork for my understanding the games of the great players.

All the tactics training in the world doesn't stop me losing to novices.

it seems that I've started too early. I've passed the first test thogh. I would like to continue with it, maybe only the first 3 ones

Maybe this is offtopic, but talking about tactics and opening books I think it was interesting with a list of things to do to get a higher rating. If I would guess these things is the keys that made me improve my chess

1200-1300 - Doing a lot of tactics training and start finding tactics in my games. Learn to mate with king+queen and king+rook

1300-1400 - Understanding opening principled (development), more tactics, starting to prevent tactics more in my games. Learning some pawn endings basics.

1400-1500 - Further opening understanding and avoids tactics a lot more often and use more tactical possibilities. Study a specific opening to understand the opening thinking, while the theory I learned along the way wasn't as important. I'm not sure if a book about opening principles or annotated games move by move would have been more efficient.

1500-1600 - Just now I started to realize that each move I make should have a purpose. I'm not randomly developing pieces anymore and understand what piece coordination and space really is about. The biggest key here was to play a lot of rated otb games and analyse afterwards.

1600-1800 - This is the last step to my real rating (1800 ELO). Now we're getting closer to my real rating when it isn't as easy for me to understand what I have done to improve. My positional understanding has become better and I have won positional games against players rated 2100+. The problem is that I keep on blundering every second game or so and my performance have the last 2 years been between 1500-2250 which is a large gap. 

Trying to get further - I need to stop making those blunders, so my rating strength is more stable. It doesn't matter if I positionally outplay my opponents and then lose to a tactic. This means tactics still is the main thing I need to improve and not opening theory yet, while studying some theory have helped my positional understanding a lot. I use tactics trainer 3 problems/day and play some games with shorter time control as I tend to fall for the same types of tactics independent if I think for 30 seconds or 30 minutes (for 1 move)

i really disagree with everything in your last two posts other than the statement that almost every game at this level is decided by a tactical error or a huge blunder like hanging a piece.

firstly, how exactly do you study "the avoidance of blunders"? i would say surely you do this through a combination of doing tactics problems, learning about strategy, developing your thought process, going through your games after you play them and finally a little bit of opening study.

doing a lot of tactics puzzles is of course very, very useful but it doesn't really teach you to think prophylactically. by developing prophylactic thinking you both become stronger in tactics and will surely make fewer blunders, but how will you do this if you aren't exposed to any lessons of chess strategy?

as for studying openings, i think as long as you go about it in the right way it's fine for people of any level. obviously attempting to study them like a grandmaster and memorise reems of variations which you will never see in play is not worth your time or effort. but having a book on an opening, seeing some of the main ideas before going and playing a bunch of games using this opening, and then checking back whenever you come across a problem, or playing through you games with a database and checking where you could have made better moves is great!

this way you slowly build up your repertoire based on things you see in actual real play.

i've only been playing chess a few months, but so far i'm really happy with the progress i'm making, and i would definitely put that progress down to studying a wide range of chess topics.

As I said in another thread I think the avoidance of blunders is mainly a thought process thing.

I have a 900 point difference in my tactics and blitz ratings and it's certainly not because I'm bad at technical endgames, they are my strongest attribute probably.

I just make unexplainable moves ignoring what my opponent is doing that I would spot instantly if I was playing over someone elses game.

Maybe it's part concentration and not taking them seriously, but mainly I think it's just having a methodical thought process. I'm OK the slower it gets because eventually I will see the threats - hopefully that comes with experience.

I guess it depends from person to person, but I have never needed to train my process of thought. It comes naturally with experience. For me it's been enough with training tactics and learned to recognise the patterns and playing a lot of games.

Keep going.  Worst case scenario, it's too hard for you and you need to come back to that book in a few months, best case scenario, you manage put in enough time and effort that you go through the entire book and come out a stronger player.

If you can't do it all, you know where your weaknesses are.

I found the pawn endgames a breeze for example, I know to dedicate my time in other areas, perhaps the opening one where the lessons I've done aren't so clear to me.