12631 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Great Comment Transpo - I put all or nearly all of Averbakh's & Ed Lasker's (Basic Mating positions) on A5 cards with a diagram. I have about 1250 now (Pongo, Livshitz, Chernev - Combiations The Heart of Chess, and Combo's that I played on the Internet that I call Real Returns)
You have to study tactics; It's the point - CheckMATE the KING;.
Probably, a book like Nunn's Middlegame book would be good, but better are the Yussupov series. But even Yussupov makes it clear you have to set-it UP!! No Computer.
Regarding your remark with the 'mark's' in the book: FULL ON!
I mark the diagram with a check (success) or a 0 (failure), 1/2 (partial - although only in horseshoes and hand grenades do you get partial credit).
Algorab - Livshitz recommends that you do one or two hard sit-down concentrated sets of puzzles 2x a week but no more.
Good choices are:
Really stay away from the computer. It's too easy to grasp for the Grey Monster and not engage your BRAIN. It is harder and more tiring to SET-IT-UP. But I know what you mean,... I grow to hate the cards and my dbase of positions sometimes.
As DaliLuk above remarks, no one wants to come to practice.
They say that Practice Makes Perfect, "Close, but NO Cigar!"
"Perfect Practice makes Perfect,..." and if you have limited time (or parents who forbide you to spend more than 90 minutes on the INternet), I would once again say that Reinforcing Tactical Patterns will give you more Return on Investment then any other study. If you get to the 2050-2250 level then Lev Psakhis (Advanced Chess Tactics; this book deserves the Book of the Year Award. So much useful and REAL life experience. Lev tells it like it is and he deserves some respect, i.e. 2x Soviet Chp; I hope he is winning his battle with cancer. Sorry for the plug);
Anyway, I have to stop my Rant,.... and study some tactics Oy
Tony H - Gud ON UI found a used book by some very famous American Basketball coach in NorthEnd of London,... John Wooden. I guess he is very famous. Forgive my ignorance, but wonderful words:
Four Laws of Learning (John Wooden)
The goal is to create a Correct Habit that can be produced instinctively under GREAT Pressure. To make sure that this goal is achieved, add the following three extra laws of Learning:
I, obviously need to follow my own advise. ;-))
I think it is a myth that you improve if you are punished for your mistakes.
Punish the mistakes, but REWARD the successes,.... Everyone want to punish, but a good teacher emphasis your successes and tries to get you to repeat them.
Nothing succeeds like success
I teach the same way, always look for the positive, point out the mistakes but spend 5x as much time on the good stuff.
My early years of stock trading are a testament to this!
The topic clearly illustrates the main problem I proposed in the first topic. People are discussing several different study methods yet no one knows which is the most efficient.
The source for the claims on that webpage is very old (1982), and I suspect that is isn't based on the kind of "research" that matters. (empirical)
Yet that stuff about "learning styles" gets repeated over and over again. :(
In Willingham, D: "Why don't students like school?" from 2009 he basically says that there are no empirical basis for the claim that you can improve teaching by considering those "learning styles", and that people are more alike than different in terms of how they think and learn.
All you need is more than one child and you know there are different learning styles... in a family of 8 kids, we had a huge range of personalities, learning styles, aptitudes toward different subjects that changed at different ages. I understand the allure of keeping things simple, and for any larger classroom, you really have little choice. But to say everyone generally learns the same is a bit oversimplistic.
This is one of those areas where everyone has an opinion, and you can hang your hat on any one theory. We can debate forever. When it comes to chess, there are certain tactics, combinations, strategies that are inherint in the game. Fail to learn them at your own risk.
Which ... comes back to practice, practice, practice :)
Try my free program, I have 7 lessons posted. See my blog site in my profile. It all comes down to how much time you have and focusing on what you need to know. Lesson001 pretty much explains it, the subsequent lessons expand on it. My claim is, I can get anyone up to chess master if they will dedicate themselves to my methods. I have a group too, join that.
All you need is more than one child and you know there are different learning styles... in a family of 8 kids, we had a huge range of personalities, learning styles, aptitudes toward different subjects that changed at different ages.
And that is propably why the theory is so popular. Verifications seem to be everywhere.
But the theory doesn't just say that people have different personalities, interests and abilities. That is most certainly true, but the theory claims something more, which isn't obviously true.
It predicts that people can be put into groups based on their "learning style", and that you can teach the same subject matter (ie opening theory or french verbs) to those different groups better, by doing it in a way that should somehow match their particular learning style.
As far as I know, that has not been shown to be the case.
Every opinion is not equally good on a subject like this. I hang my hat on what those cognitive scientists say.
10000 hours is a good heuristic. If any motivated player spent that much time on their game over, say 5-6 years, they would definitely be a master at the end of it. [As opposed to reading the latest hot opening theory and playing blitz with their friends.] Many of the strongest juniors who became GMs saw the improvement come over 6-8 years [it takes them longer because they are not fully developed and don't have total control over their free time.]
It's like the secret to becoming a good investor - the secret is that there is no secret - it takes time, energy, dedication, perseverance, and hard work and no shortcuts.
Hard work, Repetition, Honest Evaluation of your strengths and weaknesses,.... Repeat, Repeat, Repeat,...
But something to think about, Capablanca (3 August, 1922) once said, "As to myself, if business men gave as little time to their business as I generally give to chess, they would all go bankrupt in a very short time........Of course, if a man wants to become a leading chess player and has not the great natural ability required for such a thing, he will need more time than a day has hours, but he will never get there."
So guess it is back to tactics, tactics, tactics, at least I have fun,...
Everyone seem to go offtopic.
What I intended to say is:None of the grandmasters have shared a tested method of improving one's playing strength. There is one (or more) since there are famous chess schools which produced great players (e.g.:Botvinnik's school)
What we get as books are just tools but we don't get a detailed manual to use them.
Tactics books: You can repeat the puzzles until you know the solution by only looking at the number of the puzzle but you will still miss tactics in your own games. Conclusion: you are probably doing something wrong
Strategy books: These books are just ordinary game collections grouped by themes, nothing more. Mostly all of them contain the same material with different examples. I'm pretty sure the author does not expect the student to improve, by only examining how a grandmaster who spent all his life playing chess, turns a pawn weakness into a win. The proper way of using these kind of books is unrevealed.
Endgame books: I have studied a couple of rooks ending recently with the help of nalimov tablebases. They are full of only moves, one mistake and your won game is a draw. The author mentions at these positions if you play something else you miss the win. It's nice it shows he knows the endgame but how should I recognise these moves in my games when I'm on my own? Of course no more information is provided, only a long ass variation.
What the author says to the student: Figure it out on your own jackass I won't tell you how to get better for a few bucks.
guesso - take a look at Psakhis ' Book Advanced chess tactics,... I think it is the book that you are looking for,... He wrote it on his death bed (but I guess he is back. Great)
He tells you like it is and NOT the usual BS. Unfortunately, you will have to actually read it and go through it and stay off the internet, because his examples take time. But I have the distinct feeling that he really shared it all as a last laugh on all his GM colleagues.
Kind of like, "...well I have given the keys to the barbarians and I am passing into the next world. So I get the last laugh."
Nobody reviews it, because they do not want you to know about how good it is and how close it comes to answering your question.
Open your wallet one more time,... and engage your brain and you will find what you are looking for,...
Oh, and turn of the Grey Beast (i.e. computer)
trying to be helpful and NOT to serious GUD Luck Matie
As soon as you said that you gonna give poor andyclifton an ulcer.
10000 hours is a good heuristic. If any motivated player spent that much time on their game over, say 5-6 years, they would definitely be a master at the end of it.
Examples of chess players who you're basing this off of please.
There are two ways to use chess material :
- immersion : you replay games or model play in typical positions
- active learning : you try to find out the best moves by yourself, than you compare with the solution, then if you're wrong you formulate why in your own words.
Both these methods work. The 1st one may work better for young players. Most GMs have use extensively the 1st method, along playing and analyzing a lot.
If I gave you the book on how to read a chess book, you would request another book on how to read the book I just gave you.
Blunder of the Day
by PattayaPatzer 2 minutes ago
by Evilution 2 minutes ago
Is it possible that there are psychic chess masters
by Ubik42 8 minutes ago
"Boring"? Not on your life!
by red-lady 9 minutes ago
What do you do when a game has you up against the wall?
by campbellh 10 minutes ago
5/24/2013 - Winning With Technique
by horses2002 10 minutes ago
Game drawn by insufficient material?
by BO1990 13 minutes ago
Chess Has Been Busted
by waffllemaster 13 minutes ago
by dtrasatti 14 minutes ago
by Brasigringo 15 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com