Combine the Best of Old and New School Improvement Methods

Get Better at Chess for Everyone

Aug 2016

Occasionally I run into players who think that Bobby Fischer "did it all by himself", i.e. locked himself in his room, studied chess until he was world class, and then burst onto the tournament scene.

Uh, no.

Every day after school, Bobby would go to the Hawthorne Chess Club. That was the name NM John Collins gave to the group that met at his home. As Collins detailed in his book My Seven Chess Prodigies, this group included several strong GMs, including Fischer, the Byrne brothers, and William Lombardy. Around the time Fischer was hanging out, Lombardy was also a regular at Hawthorne, and William was the midst of winning the World Junior Chess Championship. Meanwhile Fischer was going to the Manhattan Chess Club and playing in every over-the-board event he could up and down the East Coast.

In other words, Fischer was doing what pretty much every good chess player ever has: hanging out with very good players, playing and learning from them (getting feedback), and playing in as many slow chess tournaments as possible. Every strong player I know competed in strong over-the-board events for years before becoming a titled player.

OK, these days the situation is somewhat different. You can play slow games all year on the internet (see our Chess.com group the Dan Heisman Learning Center) and we have computers you can download for free (e.g. Stockfish) that play hundreds of points stronger than Magnus Carlsen and can be used as tools to review your games.

So is the Fischer/old school paradigm for getting to be a strong player completely outdated?

I would say that some aspects are, but the main aspects are not. 

There is no doubt that strong chess engines and other computer tools have made the "lock yourself in the closet" argument stronger. There are so many tools and websites to enhance all aspects of an aspiring players' game that I can hardly make a dent in the list by naming some, but here at Chess.com we have many wonderful built-in tools and videos. Well-established chess "apps" like ChessBase and Chess Openings Wizard (formerly Bookup) have proven track records for helping even the strongest players.

But the presence of all these wonderful and helpful tools doesn't make computer-only chess learning optimal or even feasible (at least feasible in the sense that it can get you to title-level play).

Proponents of the "lock yourself in a closet with a strong engine" approach have often stated something to the effect of:

"If I have an engine rated 3300 to review my game or an opening with me, why would I need a strong player or instructor to help me?"

I think I answered this question extensively in my Chess.com article "In Defense of Chess Instruction" several years ago - this article evoked some strong comments of both sides.

If we buy the occasional argument that "other humans can't help you play chess better", then the same would apply to similar learning activities; i.e., you could use the same type of logic to try to show that no one should be able to help you learn how to read (because both chess and reading require an extensive amount of "you must practice it by doing it" experience).

It's true that engines will spot tactics better than any human, and it's also true that tactics/safety is the single biggest component of chess strength. But here are just a few of the kind of important questions/comments an engine can't help with your improvement:

• You are playing too fast (or too slow)
• You are not recognizing critical positions and devoting the proper resources to them
• Your thought process is inefficient
• You are not finding all your possible candidate moves
• You are looking deep before you are looking wide
• You don't understand how to play this type of position
• You don't understand the concept of break moves (or any other important idea)
• You are playing the wrong type of opponents
• You are playing time controls that don't optimize improvement
• You are making visualization errors in analysis
• You are not playing toward the imbalances in the position
• You don't understand WHY you made that tactical mistake so you can minimize future occurrence
• You are spending too much time on trying to find tactics that win material and not nearly enough time trying to prevent your opponent from having future tactics where you lose material
• You are not looking up your opening moves after the game and thus not only playing inferior moves, but you continue to repeat those moves game after game

The list actually goes on and on. But you get the idea. The "how's" and "why's" of improvement are not optimized by simply examining engine analysis, and that's assuming you are really proficient at interpreting what the engine output is showing you. That kind of passive feedback has stringent limits. Imagine how much less you would learn in school if teachers never reviewed your homework, did not return quizzes and tests, and never critiqued your work. Feedback is vital for any efficient improvement plan.

That's why I suggest that the number one improvement idea is to hang out with good players; analyze, play, and review games and positions with them; and let them critique your play. In other words, learn just like Fischer did at Collins' home.

I understand that not everyone has a good chess club (or strong friend) nearby where they can easily do this, but if you can, it's the best resource you have. And here's where the computer can offer something other than just a strong engine: a place like Chess.com offers access to many strong players who would be willing to play you online, and even stronger ones who offer instruction if you so desire.

If you augment your games, no matter your opponents' strength, with post-mortem analysis (you can type, but maybe they have a phone or skype...?) so much the better. One thing I have found from giving private lessons to about 1,000 players over the past 20 years is that the stronger the opponent, the more likely they understand the importance of post-mortem analysis and will, assuming they have time, review the game with you. They know it helped them, and thus most are willing to help you, too.

By doing the above, you are at least emulating online some of the best aspects of "live" slow play. It may not be as efficient, but it's better than the old days attempt to "closet lock".

In summary, I hardily recommend using all the best computer-based improvement tools you can find or afford. But these tools should augment your improvement program, not provide its exclusive basis.

-------------

All of Dan's Get Better at Chess for Everyone columns can be found on this page at his website.

In addition, all of Dan's many other Chess.com articles and blogs can be found at this link.