How to Learn Chess

Well, a couple of things.  The suggestion of spending a month on tactics, was made by IM Jeremy Silman, and it's just a place to start for beginners. 

Second.  I spend at least a half an hour on tactics every day using Tactics Trainer on Chess.com and it has helped a lot.  But the idea that tactics is the foundation of chess I feel is fundamentally wrong.  You can practice tactics all day long.  But if your pieces are never in a positon to pull off those tactics, then the tactics training doesn't mean a damn thing.  This is because you can win a game based purely on the buildup of small advantages without every using a tactic besides mate.  But you cannot win a game without putting your pieces in the right position.  And I do feel, all other things being equal, that a person rooted in positonal understanding facing someone who is a tactical player of equal strength, the positional player will win 9 times out of ten.  I know the saying, "Chess is 99% tactics."  But It's taken out of context.  This is because tactics training doesn't just help you find tactics and pull them off over the board.  They help you see your opponent's tactics and prevent them. Then the next level is to use tactical shots to achieve positional advantages. 

Finally, Botvinnik said, "Tactics are the Servants of Strategy."  And that is the real purpose of tactics, to help you achieve strategic goals.  This is as true over the chessboard as it is in actual warfare.  And in chess, you have have to have a plan from the first move.  But you usually cannot pull off tactics, unless someone makes a huge blunder, until pieces start having influence over the opponent's side of the board.  But it is also true that I have a highly strategic bent.  It sounds like your son is much more of an attacking player than I am.  All I know is, this program is working for me.

And as far as calculation, you can use books to learn calculation and visualization.  First, most people have an incorrect idea about how calculation and chess work.  They think they have to calculate 10-20 moves ahead in order to play well.  This is just false.  So long as it is accurate, you only have to calculate 2 and a half moves ahead.  That's all you need.  GM Khachiyan calls them Bushes.  I learned about this false assumption and the correct way to think about it by reading books, specifically The Inner Game by Andy Soltis. 

Second.  When I read a book, I put the actual moves of a game into my computer, but when a variation is mentioned, I calcualte it in my head.  This has helped me be able to calculate up to 5 moves ahead accurately so far.  When I feel comfortable with it I'll move on to 6.

If Silman really said that you should start with just a month of tactics, he is wrong or some context is missing.  Some people have more of a natural gift for tactics, so perhaps they can do fewer tactics and get the same benefit as someone who does many, but if anyone below the level of, say, A or expert wants to increase his ratings rapidly, tactical problem solving is where it's at, and you really can't do too much of it.  You will find that with all of your book reading that your OTB rating will inch forward and probably come to a complete halt at some point under your desired goal if you have even semi-lofty ambitions.  

As for the assertion that if two people have the same tactical ability, having better positional knowledge will win.  Well, of course!  However, if two people of equal natural ability study chess and one does 70% tactics and 30% other stuff, while the other does 30% tactics and 70% other stuff, the guy doing the tactics will be a much stronger player after one year of study than the guy who was not focused on tactical training.  I haven't done a scientific study, but I see evidence of this in my son's progress as well as the rapid progress of the latest generation of young players, who do much more tactics as well as much more blitz and rapid play thanks to the advent of computers and the Internet.

Think about it another way.  I think it was Dan Heisman who said that a computer that looks three moves ahead but has zero positional knowledge will almost always beat a computer that looks just two moves ahead but has perfect positional knowledge.

I agree that tactics is not just about calculation.  It is about:

1.  Calculation

2.  Recall

3.  Intuition

Recall is the ability to spot tactics without calculation because the tactical patterns have been ingrained in long-term memory.  Tactical training with puzzles as well as lots of gameplay will get the job done here.  The problem with correspondence chess is that unless you're playing hundreds of games simultaneously you're not going to get to see a whole lot of tactical patterns over a short period of time.  That's why I recommend blitz as well as puzzle solving instead.  Also, to help this stuff get into long-term memory, do repetitive solving...solving the same positions multiple times.  Michael de la Maza recommends taking 1000+ puzzles and solving them seven times each.

Intuition is the ability to 'see' the best move without calculation and without conscious recall of the same position from another game.  Some people confuse chess intuition with positional or strategic knowledge.  Some of that does play a role, but the main component of chess intuition is the large databank of positions you've seen and solved for in the past.  Your brain has processed the position or something like it before so it knows the final answer even though it may not recall how it originally arrived at the final answer.  Magnus Carlsen recommends lots of blitz to help build up your chess intution.

Not to say correspondence play is bad.  It'll definitely help you have patience in your games.  However, if you don't balance this with regular time controls so that you can handle thinking while on the clock as well as rapid/blitz play, so you can ingrain lots of real-life positions and problems in your brain, you're not going to become a good player at standard time controls.

Senchean, what is your current rating at standard time controls?  

I think it comes down to this.  Do you want to become a great chess player or do you want to learn a great deal about chess?  

For the former, solving positions and gameplay are key.  For the latter, book learning will do you.

Someone might point out that Bobby Fischer was a big reader.  But bear in mind what kind of books he read.  Game collections!  He wasn't reading primers and books on strategy.  He was building up his mental databank of concrete chess positions instead.

With that said, I'm reminded of some sage advice I once received from an IM.  He told me and my son that all chess is good chess.  So if you love chess books and they in turn foster your love of the game, keep reading them.  However, don't forget your vegetables while you're eating dessert.  Tactics really are the healthiest part of the chess diet.

yyoochess,

Let me clarify.  Silman said that a person should start with just tactics for the first month.  He didn't say to STOP after the first month.  He says someone should do tactics for a half an hour to an hour a day, every day.  He also believes that a large part of chess is pattern recognition, what you call Recall.

Now.  I myself do exactly this.  I work on whatever book I'm reading, while using Game Editor on Chess.com or I find the game on Chessgames.com while I'm going through it.  I also use Tactics Trainer for a half an hour a day, every day.  And it has helped my chess immensely.  I honestly look at tactics and strategy in chess as two different sides of the same coin.

As far as blitz.  There are two different ideas about blitz.  Some players swear by it, Carlsen, or Nakumura.  Others think its terrible, Kramnik.  It is true that due to the speed of blitz it will expose you to a lot of patterns.  But there are two issues with this.

1. Knowing a lot of patterns, tactical and positional is essential for chess.  But if all you do is memorize patterns, and you run into a pattern you don't know, you're lost.  The same is true for memorizing openings.  The consensus is: memorization is good.  understanding is better, and memorization plus understanding is best.  And the more I study the more i believe that there are things you should focus on memorizing, such a tactical patterns or move orders.  And there are things you should focus on understanding, such as pawn structures and positional ideas.  When you put them together you will be a much more rounded player.

2. Everyone knows the saying, "practice makes perfect".  But we have a saying in martial arts, "Practice does NOT make perfect.  PERFECT practice makes perfect."  I can practice something a thousand times and if I practice it wrong, I then have to spend time unlearning the bad habit, then time overwriting the bad habit with a good habit, and then time perfecting the good habit.  In other words a thousand incorrect kicks means I have to do three-thousand, in order to correct the mistakes. 

If you play speed chess you may have some rapid improvement.  But you will eventually have to spend a lot of time correcting your mistakes, and you will plateau eventually.  And a player who is rated 1200 or even 1600 playing speed chess, will NOT be playing perfect chess.  Even Carlsen and Nakumura make some big mistakes playing speed chess that they wouldn't playing regular chess.  So that lower rated player will not have a perfect pattern in their mind from playing speed chess.  It will have to be corrected.  And that will eventually catch up to them and it will take time to correct.

Now, given your son's rapid improvement it sounds like he is a combination of a visual and kinesthetic learner; he learns by seeing and doing.  If this is the case then doing the speed chess route with tactics will probably work very well for him.  And if that's the case that is what he should do.  But it should also be noted that a person who learns by doing often doesn't have much of a cognitive process about what they are learning.  All this means, is they can very often do it, but they would have a hard time explaining it to someone else.  Michael Jordan is a perfect example.  he's the best basketball player to ever live.  But he would be a terrible coach because he had such amazing natural talent, that he couldn't really explain what he was doing.  Carlsen is the same way.  He has a phenomenal memory.  he memorized all of the state capitals as a kid.  This is why blitz works so well for him as a training tool.  I myself don't claim to have any natrual talent at chess.  My talent is in understanding and breaking down systems to my advantage.  Chess is a system, and that is what I am doing, breaking it down to my advantage.

For myself, I AM not a visual or kenesthetic learner.  I am an Audio Digital Learner.  I learn by hearing.  This means I am very good in a classroom and with books.  I have a lot of cognitive processes going on as I learn, it's how I understand things.  This is largely because I'm blind in one eye so learning by seeing will not work at all for me.    Doing is a far second for me as well.  This is why speed chess is hard for me to do.  My highest rating at a 10/10 time control is 1200, and that is a large improvement.  as far as my standard OTB rating its at around high 1500 to low 1600 right now.  The two highest players in my chess club are high 1600.  I've beaten one of them twice.  And my goal is to beat the other one by the end of the year.  I am also working on getting my tactics rating on tactics trainer up to 1500 by the end of the year.  It's currently at 1300.  That is a big improvement since the beginning of the year which was something like 1000.  But to me, rating is a second goal.  What focus on is what I do wrong and right during a game.  And I have made a lot of small improvements over the last several months and those add up.

Now, I'm not saying speed chess should be completely avoided.  It shouldn't.  And it can be a lot of fun.  But, given that a person does not play good chess until around 1800; meaning they play without making any mistakes, I don't think it should be played until someone reaches a more refined level so they can be exposed to a lot of patterns, AND reinforce good habits without reinforcing bad ones.

Oh, and of course a computer that sees three moves ahead is going to beat a compter that sees two moves but has beter positional skills.  But here's the problem, humans aren't computers, and never will be.  So this is a false analogy for the simple fact that a computer cannot be manipulated into making a mistake because it has "perfect" calculation.  A human being can.  And it happens all the time.  So i still take the positional guy over the tactical.  Plus, a LOT of the great players, such as Kasparov and Carlsen, who were great attackers at lower ratings had to change their game to become better positional players later on.  And I've heard two stances on Carlsen, he's a universal player, and he's a positional player.  So you can make of that what you will.

Hmmm...I just noticed I only elaborated on two of the five principles in the op.  Well hindsight is always 20/20.  So read my other posts on Learning Chess.  The second one is up here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-to-learn-chess-part-ii-accurately-defining-the-problem

I'll be posting more.

The statement he wasn't reading strategic primers is factually inaccurate.  He learned chess so he could read Lipnitsky's Questions of Modern Chess Theory because it wasn't written in englsih.  He also did it so he could spank the Russians on opening theory through writing chess articles.

Also, "Sports Illustrated ran an article on the match, highlighting Fischer's domination of Petrosian as being due to Petrosian's outdated system of preparation:

'Fischer's recent record raises the distinct possibility that he has made a breakthrough in modern chess theory. His response to Petrosian's elaborately plotted 11th move in the first game is an example: Russian experts had worked on the variation for weeks, yet when it was thrown at Fischer suddenly, he faced its consequences alone and won by applying simple, classic principles."

That's on Wikipedia.  He refuted entire lines based on basic principles of STRATEGY.  And I'm saying this as a major fan of Petrosian.

Finally, Of course Fischer was looking at games collections.  But it wasn't just for pure memorization of patterns.  He was looking for weaknesses.  This is why he carried a collection of Spaasky's games with him for a year before their match in 72.

And just for the record, my goal is Grandmaster.  And considering the progress I have made, on my own I might add, I'm going to continue to do it this way until I feel its not working.

Senchean, thank you for an interesting topic and discussion.  I disagree with a lot of it, but I respect the fact that you are making your points with logic and without acrimony.

I won't disagree with the argument that understanding positional concepts is helpful.  My point however is that a beginner or intermediate player's study time is best devoted to learning how to calculate as well as memorizing tactical patterns.  Unless you only have 35 minutes to devote to chess each day, 30 minutes of tactics doesn't really seem enough to me.  On days in which we don't have more than an hour to work on chess, it's usually all tactics for my son. If we have 3 hours it's usually half tactical puzzles and half analysis or gameplay, which again is really about tactics.  

As for speed chess and mistakes, as my son plays more and more speed chess, he makes fewer and fewer mistakes, in both his speed and standard play.  I once thought the same as you...that speed chess would be bad for his regular play...and a coach told me to have him avoid blitz.  So I told my son not to play blitz.  However, his standard play started stagnating so I had him playing blitz again and his tournament results improved.  The thing is that if you make a mistake in blitz against a good player, you will get punished for it.  And if you're capable of learning, you will do something different and perhaps better the next time in a similar position.  So I recommend playing blitz, but against players that are stronger than yourself, so that you will be punished for your mistakes and will learn to avoid mistakes. 

You say you're not a visual learner.  Unfortunately, chess is a visual game and learning chess visually will be more direct and effective than learning chess by another method.  Perhaps you just haven't given visual learning a chance with respect to chess?  Perhaps it's not that you can't learn chess visually but that you enjoy the books and the strategy more?  If the books are how you enjoy chess, so be it.  However, if you're serious about improvement, you might want to give visual learning more of a chance.  For starters, you can:

1.  Up your tactical training to at least an hour a day

2.  Solve the same set of puzzles (about 1000) multiple times per de la Maza's "Seven Circles".   My son and I have both used Tactics Trainer, but I don't think it's not nearly as effective as CT-Art, which allows you to repeat sets of puzzles.

At any level below expert or so, I would take the tactical guy over the positional.  At master level or above, all of them are incredible at tactics, and it's positional and opening knowledge that often sets the elite apart.  But you will never get to master level without extremely strong tactics.  As I said, you're putting the cart before the horse, or your dessert before the main course.  

I stand corrected on what Fischer read.  However, I was wrong to bring up Fischer or any grandmaster in the first place.  Positional play is fundamental to grandmaster play, tactical play, however, is the foundation that lower level players need.

I wish you success in your quest to become a grandmaster.  But more than that I wish you a better path.  So if you ever get weary of the path you're on, try de la Maza's _Rapid Chess Improvement_ and Axel Smith's _Pump Up Your Rating_.  The latter book has positional stuff in it, but it's intended for players of expert level or above.

I got to 1400 in 5/2 blitz mostly by playing 5/2 blitz. I have never read a book, neither I have played an OTB game since I was maybe 10. I started to play chess Jan this year. Only studies I did was youtube for Queens Gambit games and Najdorf. Though I only know the first couple of moves :) Also did tactics in first months when still enthusiastic about chess + now and then I check Mato Jelic's videos for entertainment.

And I have a lot of weaknesses.

1) if opponent knows some stuff strategically I really have to defend a lot, not necessarily loose games, but fighting my way out of trouble;

2) I see tactics only in patterns/setups that I happen to play the most, I might even give a piece away when "out of my boat"; 

3) I might go on to adventurous tactical attacks, that sometimes backfire.

2 and 3 will eventually go away, they mostly appear after hard working day anyway, during vacation my rankings go up :) , but I would like to deal with 1. I used to play another brain game, got to the 5th place in Europe U-19. And I stopped playing it because it was always the same issue, I did not know strategy and only tactics + calculation + sometimes desperate defending helped me not to loose games.

So I have this inner urge to prove that I am able to get positional understanding, but so far I only proved I might be able to defend against guys with (some) positional understanding :)

Any help or advise would be appreciated. There are sometimes middle games when I have absolutely no idea or plan. Pieces seem ok, pawns too, no tactics available, I am lost :)

I can do the whole agree to disagree thing but I do want to make a couple of points.

First, we agree on the basics of tactics.  When I don't have a lot of time to put into chess during a day I knock out some tactics.  Also, Dan Heisman suggests that a person memorize basic tactics patterns like they are multiplication tables  You just want to look at it and know the answer.  This is what I'm doing, because I do agree with that.  Plus, Repetition is the Royal Road to Learning.  In order to learn something, you have to repeat it.

As far as the visual learning, trust me it doesn't work for ME.  It didn't workt for me with math, it didn't work for me with Karate, (and I am a Black Belt), and it doesn't work for me with chess.  I have to cognitively think about something in order to learn it.  It's either that, or I don't learn it.  if I can't think about it, it has NO meaning for me what so ever.  Plus, learning chess based on reading is tailored to the way I learn.  It won't work for everyone.  And honestly, my path is a little slower, but it's more well rounded and complete.  I don't just study strategy and tactics, I look at the endgame, and grandmaster games.  Plus I play every week.

Now, I don't know what your ultimate goal is for your son.  If you just want him to get better, if you are using chess to help him in other school work, because it does help A LOT.  Study after study has shown that.  Or maybe yours and his goal is grandmaster.  if it is to get to that level, then I am telling you he will stagnate at some point.  This is because he will have a lot to unlearn.  And that could really discourage him.  Now doing the tactics work along with strategic study would be best.  But it should be tailored to how your son learns and it sounds like he is a doer.  I could be wrong I'm basing this solely on this conversation.

As far as the speed chess issue.  Watch Searching for Bobby Fischer.  It's about Josh Waitskin whom was a chess prodigy.  Now the movie is a fictional account, but it covers the issue of speed chess vs regular chess pretty well.  Also read Waitskin's book called the Art of Learning.  He talks about why using slower methods tend to work best, and he made it to International Master.

Now, Rapid Chess Improvement.  Before you read my comments read this: http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story

And this: http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Rapid-Chess-Improvement-77p3511.htm

de la Maza is a hack.  He is only an expert.  And even though, he might have been able to make it to expert, he says himself, that making it to master would have been a lot of hard work.  And as soon as that work got hard, he quit.  It's not teaching.  It's the equivilant of Read, Record Regurgitate.  Plus there are a LOT of people who feel this way.  People who teach chess for a living.  Now if you want to teach your son this way, that's fine.  That's your decision.  But get all of the facts first.  As for Pump Up Your Rating, I feel I have better books which cover the same topics.  But thanks anyway.

Also, The reason why strategy trumps tactics over the board is Prophylaxis.  This is methods of preventing your opponent's ideas before they happen.  In order for any tactic to occur you need Critical Squares.  These are: Weak Squares, Weak Squares around the enemy King for checks, Haning pieces and pawns, squares equally attacked and defended.  When you have three or more of these critical squares you should be looking for a tactic.  The reason for three is because all tactics are based on a double attack, two pieces under threat at the same time.  The third critical square is a weak square for the attacking piece to be situated on in order to attack those pieces.  If a person uses prophylaxis correctly, those weak squares will not exist for you to exploit, and the tactic will never happen.  Just food for thought.

last, Fischer was also a bad example because he believed that chess was all about ideas.  The thing he praised most was when someone demonstrated that they knew what they wanted over the board; they had a plan.  And in order to know and understand those ideas, you have to know strategy.  Oh, and thank you for admitting you were wrong on Fischer.  Most people would never do that, because they never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Have a good night, and thanks for the debate.

arvistro,

I have to go to bed right now.  But I will answer some of your questions when I get up.

Senchean, of course my son is going to need positional and strategic understanding.  He is getting some of it already.  My point is that it's a matter of emphasis, and tactics and the visual skills that underly them are where the heavy emphasis should be below the A or expert level.  After that, go hog wild on the positional stuff and opening theory.

Both de la Maza and Silman have their critics.  Silman's critique of de la Maza sounds personal, even petty, though I'll grant that de la Maza's book does read like an infomercial.  Check out Willy Hendriks' Move First, Think Later for some harsh criticism of Silman's methods.

I have read Searching for Bobby Fischer twice and seen the movie twice.  I have read some but not all of the Art of Learning as well as Josh Waitzkin's other book, Attacking Chess.  I am a book learner (probably why I'm still stuck at 1500 in my own chess) and in particular have read dozens of books on chess pedagogy to help steer a course for my son.

Though he admonishes against playing too much blitz, Waitzkin played a lot of blitz himself when he was young.  And that's also something that most of the greats have in common (though Waitzkin, of course, can't be counted among the greats), they played a lot of blitz when they were young and starting out.

Senchean, how do you lose most of your OTB games at your club?  Is it because you get outplayed positionally or is it because you overlook your winning tactics or your opponent's winning tactics?  If overlooking tactics is the problem (and it usually is for C players), you have your answer to what you personally need to work on to get to the next level.

Wow, talk about a dangling modifier.  Are you asking if I lose most of my games OTB period?  Or are you asking, of the games that I do lose, what is the most common way I lose?  The answer to the first is I don't lose most of my games.  The answer to the other, is it used to be I left something en prise.  I don't do that anymore.  Then it used to be a square was weak and not, that's gotten a lot better.  I usually don't lose to a missed tactic anymore either.  Now it's either I missed a move, which isn't because of calculation, it's evaluation i.e. "man I didn't think about the queen moving there."  Or It's a zwischenzug, specifically giving check.  Why do you think I'm on tactics trainer so much.  But there has been overall improvement because I've even gotten better at attacking.  And I am beating people who are higher than my rating.  There are two people at chess club who are objectively higher rated than I am.  I've beaten one of them twice.  And I know I will beat him again.  The other one, I'm working on beating.  Hope to do that by the end of the year.

Why haven't you been able to improve?  And it's not because you learn Audio digitally (book learner).  I can all but guarantee  its because you aren't translating what you read into habits.

I just remembered something.  There are many times when I have a tactical issue, a puzzle or an otb tactic and I will decide what to do based on a positonal consideration, not a concrete variation.  These would be situations like, which rook do I use?  Well if one is developed, and the other is not, then I use the undeveloped one.  9 times out of 10 it's right.  Or, I'll have two continuations, and I will chose the one which incolves another piece in the attack.  This is because of the STRATEGIC principle of using all of your pieces in an attack.  Now I do back this up with calculation but the actual decision is made because of a strategic consideration.  Not to mention there are just sometimes when you CANNOT calculate in a position.  There are just two many possibilities.  When this happens you base it on positional considerations.  Read Andrew Soltis' book, The Inner Game, How to Choose a Chess Move, and Rethinking the Chess Pieces.  Also two great books on how to improve are Learning Chess Made Easy and What It Takes to Become a Master.  And in the last one, he says that one of the trait a Master has, is good Habits.  This includes tactical vision.  But it also includes positonal judgment.

Those are definitely tactical issues, not positional ones. They are the same kinds of issues I struggle with.  Those problems are related to visualization skills and the best way to address them is through tactical and visual exercises.  You say you're not a visual learner.  That's all the more reason to work on your visual skills.  If you don't have those skills naturally, you're going to have to make an extra effort to acquire them.  Without them you won't make master let alone grandmaster.

As for why my chess stagnated...I couldn't find a good way forward back in the 80's, early 90's when I was semi-serious about my chess.  I thought I had to learn more stuff so I tried to cram my brain full of chess knowledge but was too lazy to do serious analysis and didn't even think of doing lots of puzzles.  Moreover, my visualization skills were nothing special and I didn't do anything to try to improve them.  Today, I'm in my late 40s and assume caissa's boat has passed me by.  So I spend my free time helping my son with his chess rather than working seriously on my own game.  I do, however, play informal games at a local club and have done well against guys who say their strength is around 1400 or 1500.  My own USCF rating has been stuck at 1511 for about 25 years since I haven't played a rated game in that period of time.

Back in the 80s, I did beat a couple of 1800 and 1900 players and nearly beat NM Eric Schiller when we both played at the chess club at the U. of Chicago.  I overlooked a back rank checkmate in a won position under time pressure.  That board vision problem again.

Arvistro,

Based upon your post it seems like you are having problems in the following areas:

     Strategy/positonal play

     Pattern Recognition (Tactics)

     Calculation

     Attacking

     Planning

You did the first step of learning very well, you knew your weaknesses and the best way to find a solution is to accurately define the problem, which you have done pretty well.

The first thing you have to understand is that all of these issues are related to each other, and work as a system.  If you strengthen one they will help the rest.  But the best way is to strengthen them all, which will help you improve vastly.  Pattern Recognition and Calculation are needed to see and understand tactics.  Positonal ideas are needed to get your pieces in the right position for tactics and attacks.  And all of these things are needed for planning.

What you need to do is create good Tactical Habits.  And these habits have several components:

• Tactical Understanding: the tips and tricks for how tactics actually   funcition and how to know when to look and what to look for.
• Pattern Recognition: the ability to recognize a tactical idea over the board very quickly.
• Calculation: the ability to see and predict the moves of both sides, to see if a tactic will work in your favor.
• Visualization: the ability to see the positon and the end of calculating a tactical line to see if the position will work in your favor.

Now all of these things will take a long time to work on, but there are some short cuts.  Look for critical squares when looking to see if their are tactics.

Critical Squares:

• Weak Squares (squares not protected by a pawn)
• Weak Squares around the King (For Checks)
• Hanging pieces or pawns (those pieces which are unprotected)
• Squares which are equally attacked and defended

if you see three of these squares on the board, then you should look for a tactic.  The reason you need three squares is because you need, at least two objects to attack, the king, a piece, or a square, and a safe square for your attacking piece.  So practice looking for these squares during your play.

When looking for these squares, ALWAYS look for Checks, Captures, and Threats.  You look for checks by looking at weak squares around the king.  You look for captures by looking for squares which are equally attacked and defended, and haning pieces and pawns.  You look for Threats by finding weak squares.  You need to make it a habit to always look for Checks Captures and threats your opponent can make right after they make their move.  If you find one, figure out a way to prevent it, by either protecting the weak square which would allow it, or attacking something of theirs which is more valuable.  If you don't find any, then you can go on to the Checks, Captures, and Threats you can possibly make.

In order to recognize tactical pattern of all kinds use Tactics Tranner on Chess.com.  Go to the Trainer, click on Customize.  Under Training mode, cick unrated.  Then under rating range type in 400 to 500.  These will be incredibly easy tactical patterns, such as hanging peices and back rank mates.  MEMORIZE THEM!  work on them a half an hour every day for a week.  After that week, when you can do 10 of them in a row without a mistake, then set the rating to 500-600 and do it all over again.  Keep doing this for as far as you can.  When you hit a wall, and can't get 10 in a row.  Drop back to 400-500 and do it all over again.  Occasionally test your self by doing the rated training mode and see how you do.

While you are doing this check your stats page.  it will tell you how you are doing with various tactical motifs such as forks and skewers.  This will tell you what you need to work on.

To work on Tactical Motifs, go to http://www.chess-tactics.org/  work through the site.  If books are more your thing, Predators at the Chess board vol. 1 and 2 has everything that is on the site.

To work on Calculation.  When you are working on the motifs, or reading a book, anytime you run a cross a variation do it in your head.  Play the main moves on a chess board, or on a computer, but any variations should be done in your head.  This will help you with Calculation and Visualization.  You should do this EVERYTIME you are reading a book or going over an annotated game.  The goal is to AT LEAST be able to calculate 2 and a half moves head accurately.  Also for Visiualization watch Daniel Rensch's videos on full board awareness and full board nirvana.  You can find it here: http://www.chess.com/video/library?keyword=full+board

That takes care of the immediate tactics issues and calculation.  For the rest...

Strategy and Positional Play read:

Simple Chess by Michael Stean.  A great little book on strategy that I think is the perfect place for anyone to start.

Giants of Strategy by Neil Mcdonald.  This will expand on Simple Chess.  This also works as a much easier to read my system.

My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch.  This is THE book on strategy that every serious chess player reads.  Unfortunately it is hard to read because of archaic language.  But the information is invaluable.

Start with Simple Chess.  Work with it for a few months by applying it to your games.  Then read Giants of Strategy and do the same thing.  After a few months with that, then read My System and try to apply that.  After a few months read Giants of Strategy again which will help you better understand My System.  The reason I think this order will work best is because Repetition is the Royal Road to Learning.  You must repeat what you learn over and over again in order to make it a Habit.  You should also take notes as you read.  Write down all the important points.  Thsi will also help you remember what you read.

if reading books isn't your thing then watch anything GM Milek Khachiyan has put up on chess.com under video lessons he will really help you with your positional play.

You also need to go over how to attack so that when you do these tactical shots they won't backfire on you.  There are prerequisites for starting an attack, such as controlling the center, discoordinating the opponent's pieces, using all of your pieces for an attack, and getting your pieces in the right position.  Generally you need three pieces to attack the kingside: 1 to sacrifice to break up the pawns barrier, 1 to protect the mating square, and 1 to actually mate the king.

For Attacking Read:

Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson.  This is a great little book on attacking that will give you some basic principles and basic plans for an attack.

Attacking the King by Yakov Neishtadt.  This will expand on Simple Attacking Plans and will tell you virtually every way to attack.  You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Attacking-King-Macmillan-Chess-Library/dp/0020294387/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415141141&sr=1-2&keywords=attacking+the+king

The Art of Attack by Vladimir Vukovic.  This is the standard for attacking.  It will tell you everything you need to know.  Like My System it's one of those books you read for the rest of your life.  But I don't think it's a good book to start with because it's very technical.

If books aren't your thing, again there are videos, or while reading the book you can use a board to physically move the pieces.  Look at GM Ben Finegolds videos he is a good attacker.  Get a game collection of a player you like and go over the games.  Pay attention to how they control the center, and use their pieces to set up an attack.

As for Planning.  Planning is more involved because in order to plan well, you need to have a good grasp of the above.  But here are some ideas.  first there is GM Khachiyan's video series on evaluation and planning.  You can find it here: http://www.chess.com/video/library?keyword=planning&author=&players=&opening=&skill_level=&category=&page=2

I feel the first thing someone should do when it comes to planning is to have a plan or method of play in place BEFORE  a piece is ever moved.  There are several ways to do this.

First: every chess game follows a pattern.

• Control the center
• Restrict Opponent
  
• Break Through
• Dominate an Open file or outpost.
• Get Major Pieces to 7th Rank or push a passed pawn
• Mate the King or Promote Pawn then Mate

There are many an infinite number of shapes this pattern can take but this is what happens in EVERY chess game.  You can use this to create a plan or at least have some understanding of what is going on.

One way to look at this is through the accumulation of small advantages.  This is done by creating an advantage and then exploiting it to create even more advantages.   for example: if you occupy the center with a pawn, you have an advantage in space on move one.  Your opponent might try to counter this advantage with his own, but the goal is to nurse this advantage of space into another advantage, such as activity for your pieces, or a material advantage.  The key to understanding this kind of play is what I call the Cycle of Conversion.

There are three types of Advantages in Chess:

• Piece Activity: the ability of the pieces to move and control the board, be coordinated with each other, and make threats
  
• Structure: All Structural advantages are determined by pawns.
  
• Material: Having more pieces or pawns on the board than your opponent.
  

All advantages can be placed into one of these three categories.

Piece activity is achieved through:

• Space
• Open Lines (open files, ranks, diagonals)
  
• Threats (Attacked Pieces and tactics to achieve tempo and initiative)
• Piece Placement
• Development
  

Structural advantages are:

• Weak Pawns and Squares, double pawns, passed, pawns, backward pawns etc.
• Controlling the Center
• Opponet has a Vulnerable King
  

Material Advantages are:

• Having more Pieces or Pawns on the board
• Having more ACTIVE pieces than your opponent.

Now.  Structural Advantages can be converted into Material or Active Advantages. Active Advantages can be converted into Structural or Material Advantages, and Material Advantages can be converted into Active or Structural Advantages.

Understanding this is the key to planning.  for example, lets say you have a pawn break (Structural Advantage) an open file is created which you control with a rook. (active advantage).  You then get your rook to the 7th rank, to capture pawns along the 7th rank.  (Material Advantage)  Do you see how one advantage was converted into another?  Giants of Strategy explains this in Chapter 3.

Another way to plan is through Restriction.  The idea here is that the king is mated by restricting 100% its movement while attacking it.  You do this by preventing the enemy pieces from interfering with the attack.  You prevent pieces from interfering by restricting them (stoping them from going where they want to on the board.)  You restrict pieces, by stoping their movement, controlling the center, or tying them down to the defense of other pieces or pawns.  You tie pieces down to pawns by creating pawn weaknesses. 

So your plan is this:

• Take Space by controlling and blocking the center (This cramps the opponent's position)
• Create Pawn Weaknesses to ty pieces to their defense
• Once pieces are tied down, create a second weakness.
• use these two weaknesses to discoordinate the opponent's pieces in order to attack and mate the king.

This is simplified but it's the basic idea.  To get a better understanding of there are several videos on Chess.com you can watch:

• Stop your opponent's best moves, 1 and 2
• Restricting Bad Pieces 1 and 2
• Winning with the No Counterplay Strategy 1-3

This is how Tigran Petrosian, Capablanca, and Karpov played and it's the strategy I prefer.

This is what the Books Simple Chess, Giants of Strategy and My System Ultimately Talk about.

There is also the attacking strategy which uses activity of the pieces to create threats, in which you use the tempo from the threats to create more threats and gain the initiative.  You use this initiative to create an attack on the king and mate.

• Gain Space and Activity for your Pieces
• Attack Pieces to gain tempo
• Use tempo to make bigger threats gaining initiative.
• use initiative to create an attack against the king
• Mate

Attacking the King is a great book on this strategy.  And honestly if you understand all three strategies you will be a much more well rounded player.

Now This is a lot of information to digest.  copy this post down and create a lesson plan on it.  Find a way to make it geared toward the way that you learn, and drill it into your head through repetition.

I personally suggest:

• Work on tactics for a half an hour a day at the least
• Read, Simple Chess and Simple Attacking Plans
• Apply what you learned to your games for a few months
• Then Read Giants of Strategy and Attacking the King
• Apply these ideas to your games for a few months.
• Then Read My System and Art of the Attack
• Reread Giants of Strategy
• Apply what you learned to your games.

if you do this you will become much stronger.  I know I haven't mentioned the Endgame.  But this is A LOT to digest.  if you go a more positonal route you WILL have to study the endgame.  there are several great books on the endgame:

• Mastering Endgame Strategy by Johan Hellsten
• Silman's Complete Endgame Course by Jeremy Silman
• Dvoretsky's Complete Endgame Course

When you are ready I would read these in this order.

Good Luck and I hope this helps

English teacher, I presume?  Back on topic:

First, it's great that you've come up with your own training regimen.  The fact that you used your own ideas not only makes you more likely to follow through with it, it shows that you have the motivation that is required to become a strong player.  I've put a lot of deep thinking into my chess philosophy as well, and developing my own training program has been the best thing I've done for my game. 

I just wanted to share my thoughts on studying the positional game at the mid-class level.  I'll be upfront and tell you that I think tactics should be the VAST majority of your work at your level (and mine), but sometimes people will just say "tactics, tactics, tactics," with no real explanation of why they think that's the best way to improve.  I hope you'll find it useful to hear the reasoning behind my opinion, instead of just the opinion itself.

You’ve mentioned the importance of turning new knowledge into a habit.  I'm sure you would agree that getting accurate feedback is another critical part of learning something new.  In chess, the best feedback comes from succeeding when you play well, and failing when you play poorly.  (Unfortunately, to get better at chess, you have to get the stuffing beaten out of you on a regular basis.) 

It's easy to tell when you've made a tactical error: your opponent makes you pay by winning a piece or delivering checkmate.  Even if your opponent fails to spot your mistake, it's not so hard to calculate the forcing line in your post-game analysis.  Even if you fail to spot the mistake after the game, your engine sure will.  These types of errors are easy to correct.  There's a concrete sequence of moves that refutes your setup, and all you have to do is prevent that sequence next time.

On the other hand, it's not so easy to tell when you've made a positional error.  Positional weaknesses are often things which can't be exploited in 2-5 move combinations.  It may take your opponent 20+ moves to take advantage of your weak dark squares.  Class C players don't have that sort of foresight and technical accuracy.  If your opponents aren't punishing your mistakes, you might not even be realizing that you've done something wrong.  Since you're not getting that feedback in your games, you could easily be internalizing the wrong lessons about positional play.  If you come to inaccurate conclusions about positional factors now, you'll have to unlearn them and correct yourself when you get to a higher level of play.  

Basically, I'm saying you need to pay your dues against lower-rated players to earn the right to play opponents who can beat the positional inaccuracies out of you.  That's how you’ll become a good positional player.  Once you eliminate the obvious (tactical) mistakes from your game, your opponents will give you the opportunity to recognize your more subtle (positional) mistakes.  

Anyway, that's just my two cents (okay, it was long enough to be three cents).  At the end of the day, you need to study the way you think is right.  I've come to my own conclusions and you’ve come to your own.  I hope your training regimen works out for you.

(P.S. We're rated about the same in correspondence chess.  Feel free to send me a challenge if you're up for a three-day game.) 

All this talk about strategy this, positional that.  You read these 500 books and make big posts about what chess is about and you drop piece by move 6??!