You seem serious, so let me see if I can find a Coach Heisman article:http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman04.pdf
What you're doing seems very much in the spirit of his advice, but I have no experience with the GiantChessBook or ichess. Good luck!
You seem serious, so let me see if I can find a Coach Heisman article:http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman04.pdf
What you're doing seems very much in the spirit of his advice, but I have no experience with the GiantChessBook or ichess. Good luck!
Thank you!
I read the article I mentioned from chesscafe too.
Let me tell you what these things are.
iChess is an Android tactics trainer. I has normal, advanced and master puzzles. The master puzzles give a challenge to even the strongest chess engines. So, I'm doing advanced level.
TGCPB is even better. It starts out from relatively simple 2-3 move problems, but the difficulty grows quickly. It's last chapter is what most GMs would find challenging, according to the author, confirmed by engines.
And I'm serious about chess. So, I might be the next World Junior Champion!
Coach Heisman takes a little different approach. He believes you should hammer relatively easy (900 to 1200, or close) tactics sets in order to foster pattern recognition. He knows we're smart enough to figure out problems: Coach wants you to be able to do little more than glance at a problem to recognize the solution.
Yes, but if we're able to solve 2500 level tactics, we can easily solve 1200 level at a glance. My conjecture.
If you're consistently solving 2500 level puzzles within a reasonable amount of time, I know you don't need my advice. Good for you!
But what will you do when there are no direct tactics into the game? ;)
I would try to practice the tactics where you have problems, for example if you messup a lot with back rank tactics you should practice those until you are good to go. Then go to your next weakness overloading or whatever and practice those and so on. I am not sure if these stats are being tracked on chess.com, but I know there is a nother site who actually does this. It gives you an overview where your weak spots are in tactics. I can't give the link because chess.com doesn't want/allow links to other sites(i think). This way it will cost less energy/time, time you need to train other weaknesses.
In the May/June 2000 issue of Chess Horizons FM Charles Hertan said, “What wins games at every level up to 2400 is forcing sequences…” In the June 2000 issue of Chess Life USCF Master Robert Fischer opines, “Getting from expert to master is a difficult transition. But getting to expert is about grasping tactics.” And, finally, in How to Get Better at Chess: Chess Masters on their Art by GM Larry Evans, IM Jeremy Silman, and Betty Roberts, GM Nick De Firmian is quoted as saying, “If you’re a GM you should be able to overpower the IM tactically. The GM will often blow out the IM in this area."
What these quotes suggest is that developing tactical ability may play a critical role in extremely rapid chess improvement until, at minimum, the master level. I look forward to avoiding opening, middlegame, and endgame study for years to come.
These ain't my words, BTW.
Chess is 99% tactics.
It sounds to me that you've already made up your mind on your training method. So why are you bothering to ask for advice?
I just wanted to convince you guys that tactics are at leadt very important in chess, not something lke practice if you do it wrong.
I think most people here will agree that tactics are important. How important it is is open to debate. How best to study tactics is also open to debate.
P.S. Can you really solve 2500 level tactics in, say 15 to 30 seconds in a reliable fashion?
You appear to be learning by rote and whether this is correct or not depends upon what ends you wish to achieve. I doubt that it will improve your overall game of chess but, read the link below and judge for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning
Something else worth considering, perhaps :-
"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 end game must be studied in relation to the end game." - Jose Capablanca
Tactics plays a big part of a holistic program for improvement and usually is more intensive and necessary for aspiring players than the other stuff (which can be postponed/deprioritized for a bit later, i.e. until you cross into Class B/A rating levels)
The infamous Maza book unfortunately sensationalizes rote-practice and it is very easy for people to think this is a silver bullet for making Expert/2000+. Sure ... a well-trained power-lifter can probably give/take hits in the ring from a professional fighter but at that level, the fighter wins because he's trained to excel in the whole game, not one part of it.
Though being damn good with your tactics sure does make you formidable relative to somebody who doesn't sees shots as well as you.
The tweaks/caveats I'd personally add to Maza's testosterone filled pages are
- If you simply practice other people's tactics than the mistakes you made on your board, you're not paying attention to your blindspots.
- Practicing advanced insanely long multi-motif tactics has lower ROI compared to being able to focus on the more practical 3-5 ply shots so that you spot them within seconds.
- I've noticed you are probably more likely to re-inforce and strengthen your bad calculation/concentration habits if you are not doing the practice in a deliberate manner.
For instance, I've dabbled with the classical piano for a while and there are pieces that I've played a million times (started 30 years ago) that I still get wrong in key sections.
Why don't I ever get them right? Am I just stupid or lazy? Maybe. Though I've noticed that for the piano:
- I can't seem to be bothered or OCD enough to dwell on these problem spots => good enough is enough to keep me satisfied. I'm being honest with myself. I'm competent enough to keep my insecurities/feelings of uselessness at bay so not motivated to take the next step and become razor sharp at it. This is not a trivial thing, mind you. Your brain will f##king sabotage you into complacency the first chance it will get.
- I'd rather have fun spending 30 mins practicing 5-6 pieces than all my time re-practicing the same bar OVER AND OVER like a deranged lunatic trying to knit a sweater that isn't really there.
That's the difference between "rote practice" and "deliberate practice" so the OP might want to research that a little bit as part of his training program.
After reading 400 points in 400 days, I'm focusing on tactics more than ever. I'd do 350 problems of ichess (rated advanced) within 16 days. Then I'd do all them again in 8 days, and then in 4 days and so on... Until I do ALL of them in a single day. Then, I'd solve The gaint chess puzzle books problems the same way, except that I'd start at 64 days.
My questions:
1) Is what I'm doing correct?
2) I'm 1400sh or lower in real life, and I'm planning to get to 2000 as soon as possible (I'm young too). Would the advanced puzzles of TGCPB get me there, or is extensive positional knowledge must?