chess.com Tactics Trainer - The Woodpecker Method

Don't need a book to tell you how. She obviously loves the game to play it often, and does training to supplement it. 2000 is amatuer class, you can get there easily in 4-5 years with not a lot of training. Getting there in two years, she must have had a lot of support from parents for one thing, and probably trainers for another.

FYI

http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/boty.htm

Silman just published an interesting article saying that most people never want to put the time to become good at chess.

If that is true, then this book will make no difference (apart for the publisher's pockets).

Silman also says that one needs to watch 100.000 games, very fast to absorb tactical patterns, pawn structures, endgames.

I don't have pump up your rating. But how many hours a day should one study in order to become IM like the author?

Can you name one single other player who after the age of 20 improved from 21xx to 24xx?

At that level and that age, 35 points per year over ten years is extremely impressive.

Thanks for all nice comments!

Rooster85, I have seen your posts and noticed that there are three things you don't like with the book.
 - The text at the back cover of the book about my rating, since it doesn't give the whole picture
 - The power-lifting man, since it gives the wrong picture of studing chess
 - The title and the arrow at the front cover, since it promises that the reader will easily increase his rating.

If I was a reader, I would have felt the same. Actually, those are the three things I didn't decide on my own!
I proposed another front cover (A man looking at a mirror) and another title (Become Your Own Chess Coach), but none was my job.
And I wasn't aware of the picture and the text at the back cover until I recieved the book.

But I don't agree with the furiousity of your critizism. There is no promise that every reader will get success. (Hard work is required, says the back cover.) And it doesn't say that I have increased my rating every single year. (I don't think I mention my rating within the book.)

Actually, I don't think my rating from year to year is too relevant. I have not written my whole life story in the book - it's only about chess. I haven't mentioned my family and the period where I wanted to make up with normal life and studied 300 % at the same time as playing and coaching. But I can reveal that it's not a great recipe for pumping up your rating!

Finally, I have not had Ulf Andersson as a coach. He visited Lund for group trainings a few times but of course I am grateful for that possibility.

I hope you can see the book with milder eyes. I have tried to be honest.

Thanks, Axel Smith

Hi Axel!

Thanks for taking the time to comment, but I think you've got me mistaken for longo2012 :) 

Although I too am not thrilled with the cover, I don't care that much as the content is gold...

btw I've shown the book to my friend, a young IM rated 2421.. he looked at the cover and said jokingly: "well, he's only got the arrow up to 2400, so nothing there for me..." :-)

Perhaps he should try the woodpecker method, haha

Congrats on winning the chesscafe.com book of the year prize!

Axel you have just won book of the year. By all accounts your book is fantastic although it maybe too advanced for me at this stage. When I progress with my chess I will hope to buy it. Don't let a negative review overcome all the positive reception.

Ah, my mistake! 

Since April 2013, I have been following a woodpecker method. I downloaded 10,624 tactics, and have been repeating them ever since on a daily basis.

My aim is to learn them to at least 90% accuracy. So far, I have 5914 pretty much learned, and 3540 not done at all. 

I aim to finish all 10,600 by the end of April, middle of May. I wonder what effect that will have on my rating.

First of all thank you for intervening directly in the forum, and share your differences with the publisher. Of course thank you also for writing the book.

If I may:

1. yes, your rating is relevant, because as I tried to point out, you steadily raised year after year of at least 100 points (on average, so taking into account a 10 or more years period), so that is in my opinion something more important than what the publisher tried to show for selling books. People who don't play chess as a sport cannot understand what 100 points raise, each year, is. So congratulations for being such a dedicated sportman throughout your life.

2. Then the other idea I was trying to convey is the one about culture. You have a chess culture which you have cultivated through years of hard work, studying chess books, meeting professionals and so on. This is the same for everyone who goes for a master or PhD. They don't become PhD over night thanks to a magical book. But instead through years of training, generally under different professors (which in chess could be translated as GM or coaches) which form their minds. Instead chess publishers promote constantly this idea that if one read the right book he can have exceptional results, that is not fair for all those IM and GM which took years of their lives to become what they became.

3. Then there is the point of coaches. I believe most amateurs don't understand how important is to have a coach. They want to pay 20-30 dollars, and receive the same instructions by a book, that they would receive from a coach, but this is simply another trick made by publishers, and the "believing" mind of human beings. All the great players had different coaches. Caruana even changed continent to have access to coaches he couldn't have in US.

So if I can ask some questions:

In the book it seems that Andersson did have an influence on you. Since you refer to training camps with him. Now, how important would be for the player who is serious to attend these camps?

How much important is memory in remembering opening lines, or opponent games, or your own games, to avoid similar mistakes. Did you notice a big difference between players thanks to memory? (because there is an anecdote of Benko speaking upon his study of openings with Reshevsky, which shows how Reshevsky's memory prevented him from standing at the top in the beginning of Fischer's time. Practically Benko says that they would study the opening all day long, and in the evening Reshevsky wouldn't remember most of the material studied. While it was implied that it was needed.)

Thanks again for taking your time to share your ideas here.

Can you share the source for your 10,000+ tactics problems?

Now this thread reads like one big happy family.

We're all so helpful, relevant, and nice.  

Just to be clear: I never meant to be disrespectful to anyone, and for sure not against IM Smith. I raised my doubts, and demonstrated through math my skepticism of the "publisher's" statements, which IM Smith confirmed were not his own statement. In fact I like very much the title he wanted for his book: "become your own coach." Much more serious and professional in my opinion.

In western countries skepticism is at the base of science, so it should be welcome, because it what makes us different as human race. Putting everything to question, means to discover new ideas, or flaws in previous one, and improve ourselves.

And honestly I'm really happy that the author took some moments of his time to explain himself.

You changed from a troll that creates faux religious groups as a ironic protest into a pasty, groveling fanboi over the course of 2 posts. Congrats.

What's more, @LongoBongo succumbed to the gross scientism, display by  logical positivists (like his Lordship Bertrand Russell), who bequethed us such self-serving (and ever changing) attitudes towards WWI, politics, and ethical questions in general.

But hey, who's counting, except those pesky mathematicians (and ersatz scientists), who stand above us all ??  Whatever.

So buy the book, and GET PUMPED, instead!

I don't know why, but I see more Longo as a politician than a scientist...

wtharvey.com

You are right that the chess culture in Lund has been very important for me, and that it's important in general.
The first time I saw Ulf Andersson analysing was the most exciting chess experience I have had. It inspired me, even though I felt it was something unreachable. Of course it's not the same to read his annotated games.

The knowledge he taught was also helpful, but not nearly as important. That is easier to get from books.

Finally: Memory is one of the most important skills in chess, and I have written quite a lot about it in the book. But with the right attitude, I think it's possible to improve even at higher age.