chess.com Tactics Trainer - The Woodpecker Method

...and? I see a jump from 1500's to 2000's between 2001 and 2003, and then a jump from 2100 elo in 2006 to cca 2450 in 2008...

the secret is the woodpecker method! LOL

EVERYONE -- Look again at the chart in post #6.

Choose two reasonable (but still arbitrary) end points to start "measuring his progress," however construed.

For example, in October 2003 he was roughly 2200, in July 2009 he was roughly 2400.

200 points in roughly six years.  All with INTENSE study, undoubtedly.

Now he wants to sell a book with a sexy picture of his back, on the back cover.  

So What of It ??  Caveat Emptor.  Buyer Beware.  End of Story.

A group of truly religious followers has been created, please join!

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/the-woodpecker-method

zborg,

True, we went off-topic with these rating and impvement calculations.

However, in the book author says "In 2006, I switched from being a human being to being a chessplayer". He himself points out that year as the start of his using these methods, so choosing any arbitrary dates and saying that "based on these years where he did not improve much he wants to sell the book", seems like too much to me.

And before you start to take period 2006-2013 and averaging rating gains, please read my previous comments here :-)

What I think he's simply saying is - in 2006 I started to train seriously, this is what I did and this is where it brought me during these years. Hard work is required - take it or leave it.

I think the book could have a better title to sound less like a scam, and more like a serious training program, which it is.

Way too obsessive.

I don't understand why I cannot make fun of M-R-N-S who believe anything, and would invent every ridicolous rationalization as excuse to justify their belief. After having explained rationally why the book, and the method were a scam, I find the only way is to make fun of them.

But it doesn't violate your right to believe in big BS.

Rooster85 is really too funny. So for him the author of the book didn't train seriously from 1996 to 2006 (because everybody can reach 2200 in 10 years), but only from 2006 to 2008, then again he stopped training seriously from 2009 to 2014, since there is a clear lack of improvement.

AHAHAHAHAH some people are really too ridicolous.

Let me know when he trains seriously again...

Rooster but in your school when they were teaching you math, did you explain to the teacher that in your world 2+2 can be equal to 5?

Great suggestion! I'd really like this too.

ok, you're clearly here to make fun of people starting from a book author and including everyone that dares to challenge your one and only truth...

I've pointed out several facts you had wrong and here you are, making fun of me, of everyone that likes a good book, and making up ridiculous things. You don't want to discuss arguments but instead throw in some random "fact" that shows "oh look how clever I am and how everyone else is soo stupid and ridiculous" - so I wish good luck to you, but I've grown tired of feeding the troll.

Sorry Rooster, but how do you think someone can take you seriously, when by your own admission you use the "data" you want. When the period taken into consideration is not the one you want, to demonstrate your own truth, then you come out with a ridicolous explanation like: "from 2009 to 2014 he wasn't training seriously..."

Again, you and the publisher are lying using statistics. I do understand the financial reward of the publisher for using such scam technique, but you? What are you getting out of it?

You say it is a good book, but you miss the fact that Axel Smith didn't become an IM reading a "good book" also if he admits he read hundreds, but because of the coaches he had.

You can stop wasting your time, do you want to become good as Smith?

Quite simple, hire GM Andersson, and then you will become good too.

But strangely amateurs like you believe in the fable of the "good book," and publishers makes money on it.

If you are happy to be scammed, good for you, but at least don't hurt other amateurs which could really be interested in becoming chess players, repeating the lies of the publisher.

By the way, today you forgot to do your 1000 tactics.

Quote me where I said that Smith stopped training seriously from 2009 to 2014, or stop lying.

You keep saying I lie using "statistics", even though it is you who just takes arbitrary numbers to prove your point.

What I see from your comments (apart from personal attacks) is: Oh yes, he's been a 2400 for 5 years now, so the book has to be a scam, doesn't it? so what if he improved, he's not a 2700 so clearly he's a loser... and from some year to some year, his improvement is not even notable (this you prove by averaging ratings - not taking any other factors into play like determination, availability of time, trainers, sparring partners, etc - and then by not getting your facts straight and adding 6 years here or there) 

If this is what you chose to believe then good for you - btw, do you remember that this thread was about a specific question about a method from this book and how have a possibility to apply it with tactics trainer here? but then you came, attacking the book and it's author with your "truth" (stated above)

And yeah, grow up and read the book before uttering such BS as your last sentence.

So he didn't stopped training seriously but from 2009, when he was 2391 to 2014, when he is 2486. Let's see, he improved only 95 points!! A real record, based on the woodpecker method!

Wait, 2014-2009 = 5, let's see 95 / 5 = 19 points a year!

Who knows why you and the publisher didn't point out at such brilliant result? A sin of omission?

Then let's really come to the woodpecker method, described at page 225 onward. Since this is a serious book, a good book, made by someone who has the reader as best interest.

He writes that the serious professional should do 1000 positions, and the amateur a number of 100-200 exercises a day (Yes, you didn't do them today, not even 200, so what are you waiting to buy the diamond mebership??).

But where are the data? Where are the names of the IMs, GMs, or amateurs who actually improved using such method?? So we can check their FIDE or national ratings?

He quotes his friend who raised of 100 points, and in few weeks made GM, but maybe it was his time to make GM, and Smith made the wrong cause/effect correlation.

Sorry Rooster, if I'm infringing your need to believe, but adults do that, they don't believe in Santa or other invented myths, they generally look for real proofs.

Remember Tikkanen stopped only when he solved all the 1000 exercises in one day, and it took him a whole day!

Unfortunately we have evidence in Chess Tempo that there are people doing 1000 or more tactics a day, and they are not even near to IM or GM level. Again buy a membership, since you don't need to believe me, and look at the other members data, and you will discover how ridicolous are the statements on the woodpecker method, and how unfounded in real progress.

Nobody does 1000 new tactics a day.

Please show us the evidence that there are people doing 1000 tactics a day.

Axel Smith said Tikkanen repeated the exercises until he could finally do the 1000 he had repeated in one day (and that it took him all day, even when he already knew the solutions.)

'He writes that the serious professional should do 1000 positions, and the amateur a number of 100-200 exercises a day'

Isn't this what is called a 'lie'?

On what page does Axel Smith say a professional should do 1000 exercises a day?

I look forward to you naming the names of the people you found on Chess Tempo doing 1000 exercises a day.

Longo2012 must have some kind of axe to grind to work so hard and use smoke and mirrors to try to keep everyone from seeing the huge jump in the rating over a 2 year period.

I think anyone looking at the graph is able to come to their own conclusions, however, longo and his hand waving aside.

Way too obsessive, and immature.

Fburton why do you need to create a fake account? Just to trash everyone opinion without taking responsibility?

Your account was created in 2011, but you didn't play 1 blitz game, 1 correspondence game, not even 1 tactic trainer position.

And Glasgow is definitely not in Catalonia.

So if you have something to say on the topic, you are well accepted, but your personal attacks, show your immaturity.

Of course, someone who hide behind a fake account, like you, must also have an agenda. Do you come in chess.com just to troll?

Longo2012, read all my posts and then decide if I come to chess.com just to troll. Don't just assume.

Of course Glasgow isn't in Catalonia. It's in Scotland. So?

What makes you think it is a fake account? My surname is Burton, and my first initial is F - hence fburton. Is your real name Longo?

I am reading Axel Smith's book at the moment, and enjoying it immensely. In my opinion it is an excellent book and could be of great help to those who want to improve their chess skills, particularly at a higher level.

The amount of negativity in these forums is astounding. Who cares if you only gain 35 elo a year if you can do it consistently! Soon you will reach Magnus' level if this is consistent gain. But even if you only reach Axel Smith's level that is still ok compared with being a 1000-1500 rated patzer. You could just try the Woodpecker Method! Some players have played chess for years and hardly improved, so why not?

Btw I think ANYONE can become 2000 FIDE level. That's still amateur class.