chess.com Tactics Trainer - The Woodpecker Method

I dont undestand.. the graph show a ~450 leap from jan 2006-2008. Why is that an improvement of 35 rating points in 10yr time?

Maybe you need to read all the messages, or at least go to the FIDE site, just google Axel Smith FIDE rating. This is the real rating of Axel Smith:

So let's see the real progress:

January 2003 - 2139

January 2004 -2182 Big improvement, which is normal for an adult studying all year long, since we don't know how many hours or books he studied. But 43 points are really good!

January 2005 - 2139 Well, Oh no what happened? Was he just lucky? He lost all the points!

January 2006 - 2093 Ops, he lost 46 points, maybe the magic training is not working, the guy is in free fall!

January 2007 - 2205, Here the magic training worked! 123 points gained. (But from 2139 are only 66, which is normal for an adult studying all year long)

January 2008 - 2458 And now the big leap, 253 points!!

January 2009 - 2391 Ops a big fall, so he was just lucky the year before, he lost 67 points!

January 2010 - 2423 WOW big improvement, he must have discovered the secret method! No, he is still down 35 points from the big leap!

January 2011 - 2451 Yes, big improvement! No he is still down 7 points. Wait, maybe in January 2008 was using Rybka? Who knows...

January 2012 - 2470 WOW, Oh yeah, this is what I'm talking about, using Rybka again. Improved of 19 points in 1 year!

January 2013 - 2485 Yeah 15 points a year, must be magical!

Now, let's stop joking, and let's make the real math.

In 2003 Smith was 2139

In 2014 is 2486

2486 - 2139 = 347

2014 - 2003 = 11

347 / 11 = 31.5 points a year, yeah he really discovered a magic training method. The Soviet School method is finally revealed!

I dont know if a fall of 67 points is very uncommon at those levels, but from ja 2008-2014 he has been more or less the same level. He doesnt say that you will keep rising sharply. It is very imaginable (especially at my level) that you learn something new, benefit alot and then stabilize or even have a setback.

I cant say anything about him using engines.. thats up to the cheatdetectors in the world to proof.

Again, please read all the messages written before. Here the problem, and the questions raised were related to the tactical method learned by one of his GM friends.

But if you read the book, you discover that GM Andersson, one of the best positional players in the world (at Karpov/Petrosjan level, in case you don't know the name or the games), taught IM Smith for endless hours. Then another point was his trip in Russia, where he also admits he learned a lot.

Then of course there is the long and detailed opening preparation, and a lot of other stuff, which you can read in the book.

But the problem is that often people not trained in science exchange the cause (in this case of his improvement over 10 years, not over 2 years, and training regularly all year long) for something totally unrelated. So the improvement rate given so magically is maybe due to GM Andersson spending endless hours with Smith, and not due to playing 1000 tactics a day.

This also begs the question (that strangely nobody wants to answer): which player at amateur level can afford to spend endless hours with one of the best positional GM in the world, and how much does it cost?

Because very likely I can also become an IM, if I have one of the best GM answering all my questions, all year long, and helping with my opening repertoire. But publishers, and snake oil salesmen, prefer the mass of amateurs to believe that with 29.95 dollars they will improve of 400 points over 2 years (or at least they hint to that, since they know it is not true, and they don't want to get sued)

Unfortunately when we go to the FIDE site, we see a player that over 10 years trained for a long time, and then at a certain point improved. His results are not impressive, because he is still not a GM with all that work, and with the fact that he surely learned the game when he was young. Since I don't believe that in 2003 magically he began to play and was rated 2100+.

I think your method of calculating his improvement is flawed, the simple fact that he improved 365 points in two years and managed to maintain that level is extremely impressive. OK, he may have plateaued out a bit and lost a few rating points (which happens sometimes after such a dramatic rating gain) but if you compare the fact that up until 2005 he was just any other 2100 and improving at a slow rate to 2010 where he is a stable and strong 2400 IM then I would consider that  to be quite some improvement he had there. He may not have improved as much as he did since his huge rating gain but at least he has maintained his playing level over the years in which he orignally reached so fast, and I would consider that very impressive. 

I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this 31.5 points/year improvement... What the rating graph shows is that he was a solid 2100+ until 2006, then made a 2-year jump to 2400+, and remained there ever since (and pushing for 2500 now). What you're saying is implying that he continuously added 31.5 points per year to his rating, which he did not and which belittles the jump he has made.

Also the claim that he improved from 2100 to 2400 in 10 years - from 2003 to 2013 - seems incorrect to me, as he's been around 2400 since 2008.

And the BS about using Rybka is not worth any comment except for pointing it out...

The author is not saying that he discovered anything magical and is very honest about the work required. He worked very hard and happily admits that, and can document what worked for him and his friends/trainees. At the same time he admits that the work required is not for everyone, but feels that everyone might benefit from using his recommendations to some extent (as was mentioned, 100-200 puzzles for the amateur using Woodpecker method, for example).

It seems to me that you haven't read the book, as you would have known that he is not suggesting any nonsense like e.g. De La Maza did (knight circles? how many do you do during a normal tournament game?), but all his methods are solid. Moreover, and that's what speaks the most - the book is universally praised by readers and reviewers alike, barring kibitzers in forums.

By your logic, you would have been much more impressed if the book would have been released in January 2008, right? Since then he would have a much higher annual increase: (2458 - 2139) / (2008 - 2003) ≈ 64, more than twice the increase you found now!!!

It's as if you would have bought a very fast car that can accelerate from 0–100 km/h in 10 seconds and then after you have driven home you'd complain that its average acceleration is much lower… (Homework assignment for the interested: give an expression for this average acceleration.)

Anyway, if you are interested in Axel Smith's early rating development you can find the information here. LASK is the national ranking system used in Sweden, it's about the same as FIDE but slightly higher as you can see from the image.

Well one can use the statistics to lie, as the publisher did. But since nobody obliged us to follow a 2 years system, let's change it to a 4 years system.

In 2003 was 2139, in 2007 he was 2205 = 66 points

In 2008 was 2458, in 2012 he was 2470 = 12 points

Yes, impressive

Wait let's use a 5 years system, as they ask you in a job interview, where you will be 5 years from now?

In 2003 was 2139 in 2008 was 2458 = 319 / 5 = 63.8 points a year

In 2008 was 2458 in 2013 was 2485 = 27 points in 5 years = 5.4 points a year.

From 2008 there is no improvement. Again maybe the next book the publisher will say that he became GM magically in 1 year, when he finally makes the GM status.

But the reality is that this player, has played chess for over 20 years (I repeat: I don't believe he magically happened to be born in 2003 with 2100+ rating) and trained every day, of these 20 years, many hours, with the best coaches in the world (so not by himself in a desert).

Again we don't know the hundred of hours he spend with GM Andersson. We don't know the hundred of books he read, and who cured his opening repertoire.

By the way, if one goes to school, and study everyday because he cares about the subject he studies, it is really a surprise if one day gets a master or PhD? No, it is normal.

I'm sorry but it is not my "logic," if you want to believe the lies presented by the publisher, using statistics, it is up to you.

I'm not naive and believe in the idea of "culture." Einstein wouldn't have existed if there weren't other scientists before him, Maxwell is surely the best example.

And here, thanks to your link, we can see Mr. Smith chess history. In 1996 he was 1150, not FIDE, from what I see in the graph in 2005 he was 2206 for his federation, and then we can see the FIDE graph too.

So we have a chess player who progressed of 1056 points from 1996 to 2005. Which means 117 points a year. Maybe that is more impressive than the publisher statistical lies.

If we take into account his entire chess history, from 1996 to 2014, which is 18 years, then yes, we are not impressed at all, because many other players made it to GM in the same amount of time.

But of course if we use your logic, hey in 1995 he was 0, in 1996 he was 1150, WOW, a progress of 1150 points, maybe he should have written the book then?

Again my question is the same: is it really an impressive achievement with the endless hours he spent studying chess with GMs like Andersson?

No, I don't believe so. But everyone can believe what they want.

Simple math, however, shows something the believers don't want to see.

There are no "statistics" at work here, as the "population sample" includes only one element.

But I think you made your point pretty clear by now and readers have enough information to make up their mind.

Impressive performance and book.

But at least you can give a honest assessment about it. Do you consider impressive a professional player who becomes IM in 18 years of chess? (Of course let's not consider all the FIDE GMs who are rated over 2600 and are 20 years old or less, but actually didn't start to play at 2)

Tactics Trainer is the best way to improve your game

I think because your eyes need testing.

No wait, you were right. The graph does show a huge jump in  a short space of time.

I'm very impressed by Axel Smith's rating surge, and I think his book is honest.

This is my honest assessment and personal opinion

Obviously the best players, keep their methods secret, like this 9 years old who is already above 2000!

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/29/meet-the-9-year-old-chess-expert/

Let's hope Quality Chess offers her to write a book on how she had such incredible rating surge of more than 1000 points in 2 years.

longo2012:

I think you might be missing (or choosing to ignore) the point that myself and others have presented here.

I had a 1940 rating at the end of 2002 and then I made a jump to 2080 the next year. It was a year I trained the most in my life (up to now). In the following 10 years, I went to college, then to work and long story short, I did not train and play much and by end of 2013, my rating is still 2106.

With your method of calculations, that would be an improvement of 15 points per year - but that is simply not true. It was a 140-point jump in one year, followed by a long period of stagnation.

I think that actually you are the one here using statistics (averaging rating gains) to skew the facts...   

Btw - another fact is that Axel Smith became an IM in 2008 (check the FIDE site) - so in 12 years of playing chess and not 18. That beats achievements of about 99% chess players in the world and is pretty impressive to me.

No Rooster you miss the simple thing that Axel Smith dedicated his life to chess, he plays as a pro, and work as a chess coach because his poor chess achievements don't let him gain enough money from playing, like GMs, who began to play at his age, do.

While you went to College and got a "job" Now can you tell me what is the degree of Axel Smith, and which job does he do for a living?

Because if you want to compare ratings, like your with Smith, then both of you must work in the chess field, or both of you in different fields.

But it would be quite silly to compare a pro, spending hundred of hours with a GM like Andersson, to an amateur like you who must do a real job for a living.

And Axel Smith didn't begin to play 12 years ago, at least get your facts straight.

:-)

You see, I wasn't comparing my rating with Smith's at all...

My point is that my (and Smith's) improvement happened in jumps in short periods of time, and not in little gains of strength/rating over a decade. Not sure why you're diverting your answers from that simple truth.

If I improve a 100 points in one year and then quit chess for three years, did I improve 25 points per year? Now that would be a secret method indeed, to not play nor study, and still gain 25 points a year in strength :-)

And please read my previous comment more carefully - I said that Smith became an IM in 12 years of playing chess (1996-2008), and not that he started playing 12 years ago. I was pointing out that you did not have your facts straight before accusing a strong player by most people's standards of "poor chess achievements".