Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Is possible? - beginner adult to Grandmaster


  • 8 months ago · Quote · #41

    Phelon

    I've heard it said Carlsen had hundreds of GM games memorized when he was still just a kid.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #42

    Ubik42

    rtr1129 wrote:
    Ubik42 wrote:

    Is there any evidence or science behind Rashid and his game memorization stuff? It sounds interesting because its different from any other method of study, but I could never find anyone who became a master by his methods.

    One example comes to mind: GM Rashid Ziatdinov 

    I think he is just outlining the old Russian school of chess improvement though, the "300 key positions" idea. So if that's the case, then yes, there is extensive evidence to support it. 

    However, to say that he is recommending memorization is far from the truth. Memorizing may be involved, but it's better to think of it like learning a new language, or learning martial arts. If you study for many years and become a master of a foreign language, you wouldn't exactly call that "memorization". The same way, memorizing 300 important examples of martial arts does not help your kung fu when your opponent is throwing you to the ground. You have to learn something from the master's example, and learn it so deeply that it's part of your instinct (without thinking).

    I can't find the reference now, but I recall one GM giving a time estimate of how long it takes to absorb each key game/position. After I read that, I did the math and thought, "That will take between 5-10 years to learn 300 key positions!" So it's not even close to just memorization. Studying each key position/game takes a lot of time. The exciting part is, you have the road map, if you choose to follow it.

    I understand that his method has more than just memorization behind it, I was just shorthanding it. I just wanted to know if there was anyone who had actually followed his recommendations and become a GM from it.

    I dont know how he slected his games and positions. Was there any science behind it, or did he just flip through games and say "this looks good" (to me).

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #43

    Phelon

    rtr1129 wrote:

    Here is what I would do:

    Go through all 3478 of GM Ziatdinov's tactics problems. He says to do them 10 at a time. Do 1-10 until you get a perfect score, then 11-20, then 1-20, and keep adding 10 until you can do all of them perfectly. He says then you will have the tactical ability of a GM.
    http://rashidchess.com/quiz/quizEng.htmGet a copy of GM Ziatdinov's book, GM-RAM. It has around 250 positions and games that he says make up most of the fundamental chess knowledge. He doesn't give you any analysis though, just the positions and games. You have to memorize them, and then do the work to study them and learn them completely (read other books, do your own analysis, etc). Your goal is to know each of those key positions and games fully (is it win/loss/draw, plans for both sides, etc), to be able to play those positions perfectly, and to do it instantly without having to think (the same way you speak your native language).

    He says if you do that, you can be at least at master level (I think he might have said GM even, but that's debatable). In any case, there is a blueprint for you to follow.

    GM Soltis says the way to improve is to study master games. You have to try and learn something from the games you study. It's about quality, not quantity. If it takes you 100 hours to learn something from 1 game, then that's what you have to do. If you try to rush it, you won't learn anything and you won't improve.

    One way to do it is to solitare chess, where you cover up all of the moves, then you guess what the master's move will be, then you look at his move. You have to figure out why the master played a different move than you. It's hard and takes a lot of time but it is well worth it.

    You can also research the idea of "deliberate practice". Basically it means you have to practice doing something that pushes you just beyond your current abilities (if you practice something too hard, or too easy, you won't improve). If you push yourself just enough, and you do it every day, then after a few years have gone by you will have improved very much.

    Thanks for the link. I always appreciate new study material. Also anything that could improve my tactical skill is great in my opinion. I'm stuck around 2650 on tactics trainer and 2050 on chess tempo and would like to continue improving. One of these upcoming months I might make it a goal to memorize all of these, just to see if it really will bring a big boost to my tactics skills, or atleast a moderate bump.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #44

    rabbit611

    • Ubik42 wrote:

      Is there any evidence or science behind Rashid and his game memorization stuff? It sounds interesting because its different from any other method of study, but I could never find anyone who became a master by his methods.

      One example comes to mind: GM Rashid Ziatdinov Smile

      I think he is just outlining the old Russian school of chess improvement though, the "300 key positions" idea. So if that's the case, then yes, there is extensive evidence to support it. Smile

      However, to say that he is recommending memorization is far from the truth. Memorizing may be involved, but it's better to think of it like learning a new language, or learning martial arts. If you study for many years and become a master of a foreign language, you wouldn't exactly call that "memorization". The same way, memorizing 300 important examples of martial arts does not help your kung fu when your opponent is throwing you to the ground. You have to learn something from the master's example, and learn it so deeply that it's part of your instinct (without thinking).

      I can't find the reference now, but I recall one GM giving a time estimate of how long it takes to absorb each key game/position. After I read that, I did the math and thought, "That will take between 5-10 years to learn 300 key positions!" So it's not even close to just memorization. Studying each key position/game takes a lot of time. The exciting part is, you have the road map, if you choose to follow it.

    • 21 minutes ago · Quote · #42

      Mersaphe 

      Not everyone can be grandmaster. Just accept this fact. But if you practice and play many games, you will improve and become a strong player. You don't have to pay any money for this. There are plenty of free online resources (i.e., chess.com for playing, chessgames.com for looking at grandmaster games / chess history including tournaments and world champions, and chessbase.com for the latest chess news). Also you can download a free chess software online (many very good programs are free) but this is optional

      The most important thing is to play chess and study grandmaster games. These will make you a better player. Good luck

    • 17 minutes ago · Quote · #43

      johnyoudell 

      One to two hours a day won't do it. Neither will 12 hours a day unless you have a whole bunch of talent.

      Have a look at what Laszlo Polgar has to say about the way he set about training his daughters. Took longer than two years though.

      The fact that your focus is on status pretty much demonstrates that you don't have enough interest in the game for its own sake to excel so you might look for something which you like more.

    • 17 minutes ago · Quote · #44

      rtr1129 

      ProfessorProfesesen wrote: 

      At the age of 30 

      The Nobel Peace Prize of 1952 was awarded to Dr Albert Schweitzer

      ======================================================================

      That is what can be done. Crying doesn't get you anywhere.

      At the age of 98, George Dawson decided he wanted to learn to read. On his 100th birthday, he read his own birthday cards for the first time in his life. At the age of 102 he wrote a best-selling book. It's never too late.

      The question is, how important it is to you. If you feel it's your life's mission to save children in third-world countries, then you can be 50 years old and become a doctor. It's hard to think that chess is anyone's life mission though. Well, Fischer, but look how that ended.

    • 15 minutes ago · Quote · #45

      Phelon  

      I've heard it said Carlsen had hundreds of GM games memorized when he was still just a kid.

    • 4 minutes ago · Quote · #46

      Ubik42  

      rtr1129 wrote:
      Ubik42 wrote:

      Is there any evidence or science behind Rashid and his game memorization stuff? It sounds interesting because its different from any other method of study, but I could never find anyone who became a master by his methods.

      One example comes to mind: GM Rashid Ziatdinov 

      I think he is just outlining the old Russian school of chess improvement though, the "300 key positions" idea. So if that's the case, then yes, there is extensive evidence to support it. 

      However, to say that he is recommending memorization is far from the truth. Memorizing may be involved, but it's better to think of it like learning a new language, or learning martial arts. If you study for many years and become a master of a foreign language, you wouldn't exactly call that "memorization". The same way, memorizing 300 important examples of martial arts does not help your kung fu when your opponent is throwing you to the ground. You have to learn something from the master's example, and learn it so deeply that it's part of your instinct (without thinking).

      I can't find the reference now, but I recall one GM giving a time estimate of how long it takes to absorb each key game/position. After I read that, I did the math and thought, "That will take between 5-10 years to learn 300 key positions!" So it's not even close to just memorization. Studying each key position/game takes a lot of time. The exciting part is, you have the road map, if you choose to follow it.

      I understand that his method has more than just memorization behind it, I was just shorthanding it. I just wanted to know if there was anyone who had actually followed his recommendations and become a GM from it.

      I dont know how he slected his games and positions. Was there any science behind it, or did he just flip through games and say "this looks good" (to me).

    • 3 minutes ago · Quote · #47

      Phelon  

      rtr1129 wrote:

      Here is what I would do:

      Go through all 3478 of GM Ziatdinov's tactics problems. He says to do them 10 at a time. Do 1-10 until you get a perfect score, then 11-20, then 1-20, and keep adding 10 until you can do all of them perfectly. He says then you will have the tactical ability of a GM.
      http://rashidchess.com/quiz/quizEng.htmGet a copy of GM Ziatdinov's book, GM-RAM. It has around 250 positions and games that he says make up most of the fundamental chess knowledge. He doesn't give you any analysis though, just the positions and games. You have to memorize them, and then do the work to study them and learn them completely (read other books, do your own analysis, etc). Your goal is to know each of those key positions and games fully (is it win/loss/draw, plans for both sides, etc), to be able to play those positions perfectly, and to do it instantly without having to think (the same way you speak your native language).

      He says if you do that, you can be at least at master level (I think he might have said GM even, but that's debatable). In any case, there is a blueprint for you to follow.

      GM Soltis says the way to improve is to study master games. You have to try and learn something from the games you study. It's about quality, not quantity. If it takes you 100 hours to learn something from 1 game, then that's what you have to do. If you try to rush it, you won't learn anything and you won't improve.

      One way to do it is to solitare chess, where you cover up all of the moves, then you guess what the master's move will be, then you look at his move. You have to figure out why the master played a different move than you. It's hard and takes a lot of time but it is well worth it.

      You can also research the idea of "deliberate practice". Basically it means you have to practice doing something that pushes you just beyond your current abilities (if you practice something too hard, or too easy, you won't improve). If you push yourself just enough, and you do it every day, then after a few years have gone by you will have improved very much.

      Thanks for the link. I always appreciate new study material. Also anything that could improve my tactical skill is great in my opinion. I'm stuck around 2650 on tactics trainer and 2050 on chess tempo and would like to continue improving. One of these upcoming months I might make it a goal to memorize all of these, just to see if it really will bring a big boost to my tactics skills, or atleast a moderate bump.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #45

    Ubik42

    Whats with this thread anyway.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #46

    Somebodysson

    becoming a medical doctor and becoming a chess grandmaster have almost nothing in common. Just about anyone can become a medical doctor, and just about no one can become a grandmaster.  Give or take a little bit. The Schweizer story is completely irrelevant. Becoming a top olympic athlete in a some sport one takes up at 25 after playing video games for 15 years is a more apt analogy. 

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #47

    Phelon

    An extremely inept analogy actually considering that chess involves the mind where as olympic athletic sports involve the skeletomuscular system and the cardiovascular system. The doctor/gm analogy is much better, as flawed as it is.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #48

    Somebodysson

    the analogy had to do with likelihood, not method. And becoming an olympic athlete has a lot to do with developing instant reflexes, which is a lot of what becoming a chess grandmaster involves.  Almost anyone who wants to can become a medical doctor. Almost no one who wants to can become a chess grandmaster. 

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #49

    rtr1129

    Gata Kamsky tried to become a GM and a doctor.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #50

    Somebodysson

    no need to seek personal information about people in order to address the question of the supposed parallel between medicine and chess grandmasterdom. A chess grandmaster is a much rarer beast than a medical doctor. A medical doctor has less education than a PhD in just about any field. And a PhD is much much more common than chess grandmaster. Medical doctor has no place in this conversation. Elite athlete is more to the point, and there are far more elite athletes than there are grandmasters. 

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #51

    Somebodysson

    Xmas_is_Today wrote:

    I am not sure about how much any of us know about the "requirements" to become a Chess Grand Master or a Medical Doctor, unless we are such.  My father is a Medical Doctor, perhaps I could ask him.

    Or maybe there are medical doctors that can comment here?

    I think it is odd that absolutely no Grand Masters have commented on how easy or hard it was to become a Grand Master.  Perhaps they are hiding something from us?

    This is a chess discussion site.  Why have no actual Grand Masters commented on this topic, as they would be the ones with knowledge?

    Thanks,

    Jenny

    ask Tarrasch he'll tell you which is harder. 

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #52

    Somebodysson

    which is 'least rewarding'? which 'three goals'?

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #53

    Somebodysson

    I guess that depends on what a person wants to do with their life. I still don't know what you mean by rewarding.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #54

    Hy19roPH1l1C

    I don't see why not. I started at 26 and a year later i've improve quite a bit. I think if you really want to become a GM you should seek one out in person at a local chess club and continue to find as many games with players as high as possible. 

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #55

    rtr1129

    Xmas_is_Today wrote:

    Three goals:  Elite Athlete, Medical Doctor, Chess GM

    Chess GM is the least rewarding of the three.

    You must still be in your 20's.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #56

    Somebodysson

    Xmas_is_Today wrote:

    Take a wild guess.

    Thanks,

    Jenny

    I'd have to agree with the person who guesses you're in your 20s, although I'd guess you're closer to 10. 'Jenny' used the term 'rewarding'; Jenny wants us to guess what 'she' means by it. Maybe this guessing game is something people of 'her' generation play.

    Thanks, Alejandro Wink


Back to Top

Post your reply: