#21
A beginner should first learn the 5 basic checkmates.
What does quality chess study actually look like for a beginner?
Sort:
Most Recent
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic
As a non titled player that has no coaching experience, my intuition and what I have seen tell me it's bad to focus so much on tactics. If a beginner wants to win and crush their opponents, then yeah, by all means become a tactical monster. Otherwise, I suggest to do less tactics and adopt a more balanced study regime involving deep understanding of chess, not just tactical patterns.
But, what do I know, right? The CM most likely is right. I just consider that well meaning but downtrodden advice to be almost worthless to people whose main goal is to understand chess and then get to play more interesting games. If all you want in chess is to win (especially at shorter time controls over the internet), then tactics is the way to go.
Firstly, thanks everyone for their kind words. However, guys, watch out with the attitude of assuming that a titled player will be right or that their advice is always golden. Everyone can make mistakes and there are plenty of strong players that have never really been in your situation. Me too: I've not been stuck at 1000. So always be ready to question what anyone says, even when it's a strong GM.
What Wornaki says is true in a way. Training and getting stronger has to be a fun experience. Just doing tactics might get boring and tedious. It's always important to ask yourself whether you still like what you're doing, cause it's more important to like the game and keep playing it, than burning yourself out. And if your goal is to get a deeper understanding of the game, then I would advice a slightly different approach. That was not OP's question though. (Good on you OP on getting the 2nd step. Note that 3rd step will be more of a challenge (especially if you find the 2nd to be a bit too easy).
One thing I did still want to point out though, Wornaki, is that I think studying the middlegame as I suggested to do alongside tactics would satisfy your need to understand the game on a deeper level and to play more interesting games. The middlegame is extremely rich. And the middlegame will always have interesting points in relation to the opening and the endgame. Learning about bad bishops, will give you a different appreciation of the French opening for example. At the same time the reverse is not so true: if you'd study the French first without learning about bad bishops, you might not understand why the bad bishop is a problem or how to play with it. That's why studying the opening without at least a good understanding of the middlegame is not so efficient. And learning about how to dominate a knight with your bishop, will give you more understanding of the endgame. Middlegame strategy will be important or applicable in every game, however, while studying the endgame (rook endgames or B vs N for example) might not come up at your level for a long time. I know from experience that if you study something but never get it on the board, that you in the end will forget most of the things you've studied. So while I think endgame study has its time and place too, I don't think it's right now for the level of OP's playing strength. It's not so efficient.
But the OP needs to know the most basic checkmates in the endgame, because a lot of beginning players who are heavily up in material do not know how to finish the game when their opponents do not resign.