17 is nowhere near too old.
How to Improve Positional Understanding (1727 USCF)?
Sort:
Well the last few months gaining hundreds of rating points is great so I would try the same thing again and hopefully in a few months you will have gained hundreds of rating points again.
Even gaining 100 points in say 4 months would be groooovy.
Dale wrote:
Well the last few months gaining hundreds of rating points is great so I would try the same thing again and hopefully in a few months you will have gained hundreds of rating points again.
Even gaining 100 points in say 4 months would be groooovy.
Who are you talking to?
Apr 13, 2016
0
#25
Well, those are hundreds of points were just through tactics. But as dpnorman said above, that jump is easy. Now, improvement is becoming more difficult as the players I play now make less tactical mistakes and it is necessary to dive deeper into positional waters.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
17 is nowhere near too old.
Here's hoping you're right.
German_MagnusCarlsen wrote:
Well, those are hundreds of points were just through tactics. But as dpnorman said above, that jump is easy. Now, improvement is becoming more difficult as the players I play now make less tactical mistakes and it is necessary to dive deeper into positional waters.
True. Hope you improve with whatever you choose to study!
At 17 you'll be just fine. I'm 22 and am at 1889 after 11 months playing tournament chess. I still don't feel like I've hit my ceiling as I'm still trying to break some bad habits from before I played in tournaments. I fully expect I'll be able to break 2200 if I'm willing to work at it. I've had people tell me it's still possible at my age to become an IM. But the question is would I be willing to put in the work and sacrifices necessary to make it? At only 17 you'll still be able to improve very quickly. Master isn't beyond reach for most people assuming they already have reasonable skill before they're 50. There's plenty of people who played tournament chess for 20 years and hung around the A class/expert level and suddenly moved up to make it to master.
Taulmaril wrote:
There's plenty of people who played tournament chess for 20 years and hung around the A class/expert level and suddenly moved up to make it to master.
Who are these plenty of people? Not doubting, just asking.
There was a guy who wrote a book about becoming a master recently. They made it seem like it had taken him some time to become a master but after looking around it seems it didn't take him THAT long.
Apr 14, 2016
0
#31
Your time is limited but you're willing to do two Silman books? That's a lot of work IMO.
I'd prefer something like Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy if all you've done up to now are tactics and endgames.
But I don't know anything about the videos so between the two options you gave, I don't know.
I thought the gut who wrote the book reaching the top was an example of that but it seems I was wrong. But there is an IM who didn't start playing chess seriously until he was 17 who achieved the master title at 22. So no, 17 isn't too late.
Apr 14, 2016
0
#33
In 17 years, when you're 34, you're going to laugh that you thought 17 was too late :)
Taulmaril wrote:
There was a guy who wrote a book about becoming a master recently. They made it seem like it had taken him some time to become a master but after looking around it seems it didn't take him THAT long.
It takes top kids 10 years to make GM from the time they start playing chess. Most run of the mill GMs make it by the time they are mid 20s. 17 is plenty of time.
Yes there is an IM who started playing chess at 17 and was a master in his early twenties. I'm not sure about making GM at his age and strength, but you never know. Master is absolutely obtainable for any younger person regardless of skill. I'm still looking to make master and I'm around Normans rating and 5 years older.
There's a big difference between someone who "started playing chess at 17" and someone like me, who has been playing chess for 8 years now without breaking 2000. Someone starting chess late may still have some natural talent.
dpnorman wrote:
There's a big difference between someone who "started playing chess at 17" and someone like me, who has been playing chess for 8 years now without breaking 2000. Someone starting chess late may still have some natural talent.
You might want to change the way you study. Have you heard of the 80/20 rule?
Perhaps, but you'd still have a leg up on a beginner at your age. Your mind is still developing. You can make master. GM may be another story, but master is well within reach.
Apr 14, 2016
0
#39
My opinion for the order of books since you have one of them:
1) How to Reassess your Chess and Silman's other book The Amateur's Mind, which shows some of the typical thinking mistakes players at our level make.
2) John Watson's Secret's of Modern Chess Strategy and Chess Strategy in Action
3) Vukovic's Art of Attack in Chess, with John Nunn's edits. Now attacks against the king aren't going to happen in most games, but it is better to look at this book from the idea of target squares and pawns, one of Silman's pieces of advice is to always be on the lookout for targets.
German_MagnusCarlsen wrote:
I have been working a lot on tactics in the last few months, and it has helped me gain hundreds of rating points. However, I believe I have come to the point (1727 USCF) where I need start studying positional chess, not just tactics and endgames. My time is limited, so I am trying to decide what the best way would be.
Option 1: I could work my way through Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess and the workbook that goes with it. This seems like a very logical process. If I fully understand all the imbalances in a position, it should be easy to come up with a logical plan, know when to trade pieces, when to go for an attack, etc.
Option 2: I am currently in possession of the following video series: GM Manifesto. It is a very long video series by GM Damian Lemos that is designed to get the 1500 rated club player to the 2500 level. Most of the videos cover concepts by analyzing games by masters.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to do both. Which approach should I take to improve my positional understanding? Please give me your opinion.
I'm interested in you doing #2 for the selfish reason that I'd like to know whether it is any good.
If you want a helpful opinion, I might suggest #1, because it is a tried method that has proven solid.
I know it is not a scam because I got up hundreds in positional understanding from 8 of the comprehencive beginner package (Prequel to the first 1/3 of the grandmaster manifesto).
The GM manifesto is even more advanced, and has more than 3x the videos that I watched - not to mention the puzzles and review material in each video.
Jorn, trust me. The videos are better - at least for now. Silman is great but it can wait. Your decision, but I know you are aiming for master ASAP and I think this is the fastest way.
Trust ME, Silman is better.
Maybe they are both good.
You know silman is good, I know GM repituare is good.
Both can help I guess!