4 years to become a chess master

We all know that improving at chess requires time and dedication. But even when we do invest time and dedication in our chess development, success is not guaranteed. I know that as I've plateaued at 2000 (with a peak at 2100) for the past 15 years (I started playing chess 20 years ago)! So in the first 5 years of my chess carreer, I improved steadily and fairly quickly to reach a decent level. What happened next? Instead of focusing on the most important chess skills (tactics, calculation, endgames), I started studying opening theory, thinking that it would allow me to reach the next level. After a few years of vain effort I decided to start playing rather offbeat openings (1.g3 and 1...g6). This approach brought me some successes but didn't really contribute to my chess development and I almost gave up chess because I thought I was unable to improve.

Until I met a Russian IM who told me the following: 'Like all club players, there are significant gaps in your chess skills (tacitcal and positional). What you need to do is start again from scratch with a beginner's mind. Start playing again like you were a promising 12-year-old. Without fear. Play sharp openings (Sicilian, King's Indian, 1.e4), study tactics and calculation, then positional chess, then the endgame and after that the opening. Enjoy chess, it's a game! Forget about ratings, try to find the best move in every single position and play it with confidence! Don't bother learning theory. Just learn the first 10 moves of the main lines and try to understand the ideas, where the pieces belong. Makes mistakes and learn from it!'

This pieces of advice opened my eyes! Yes, rating is important to me. Yes, somehow chess has stopped being a game to me and is now something 'serious'. This attitude is holding me back!

Based on these recommendations I've decided to set up a training programme for the coming 4 years. It should allow me to fill the gaps in my chess skills. Here it is:

Year 1: Focus on tactics & calculation
GM Wesley So said recently that 'Chess is 95% calculation' and I tend to agree with him. Even the simplest positional plan needs to be backed up with calculation. If you miss a tactical shot 2 moves ahead, even in a 'simple' position, then you're lost. And this happens all the time at all levels! So in the first year of my study programme I'll focus on solving tactical puzzles (in CT-ART). I've already solved all puzzles rated 1800 and 1900. I've also started working on Excelling at Chess Calculation by GM Aagaard. After that, I'll probably start solving the positions in Grandmaster Preparation - Calculation by the same author. I'm also planning to study pawn endgames. Pawn endgames are a great tool to practice calculation!

I'll also dedicate some time to openings. I'm going to start playing the King's Indian and Najdorf as Black. And 1.e4 as White. I'll write a post about my opening repertoire at a later stage. At this stage, most of my opponents will be rated between 1900 and 2100, so theoretical knowledge shouldn't be a decisive factor.

Year 2: Positional chess

Year 2 will be dedicated to positional chess/strategy. I will also study some of my openings in a bit more detail and start working on rook endgames.

Year 3: Endgames

Year 3 will be dedicated to endgames (theoretical endgames and strategy in the endgame).

Year 4: Openings

Year 4 will be dedicated to a detailed study of the openings I play.

My goal is not to reach a 2400 rating after 4 years but to reach a 2400 playing strength.

What do you think about this project? I'd very much like to have other players' feedback! You can also have a look at my website where I'll post about my project! (www.isolated-pawn.com).

Do you have Aagard's Right Decisions CD?  It's like a workbook meant to compliment Excelling at Chess Calculation.  GM Prep: Calculation is a great one just write down variations in a notebook or type on a labtop and don't move the pieces! 

Instead of going by year why not months?  Like do a calculation book, then positional book, then an endgame book or start off with two pages of an endgame book before going into the main study?  

Given your opening choice I'd pick Kasparov and Fischer as your role models.  Can't do too much better than that anyway. 

Here we go. Someone has this brilliant original insight into how it's all going to be different in future. Some brilliant plan of "all I have to do is study tactics" or some ridiculous specific. Their supreme masterplan of how it's all going to happen. How a few years from now and they'll be taking the scalps from masters and IMs left right and centre... how it'll all start happening, ohhhh I really can't contain myself with the excitement. Nobody has ever come up with such a thing before. Yeah... no. 

Believe it or not it's not the first time I've heard of multiple-year long plans. There was one guy who regularly posts on the forums who had something like a 9 year plan, where he was spending three years on openings, three on middle and three on the endgame to become a GM. But apparently he lost interest after spending three years on the openings so he was supposedly an openings master extraordinaire  but not the other two.  

Look, no true champion or person who's attained a high level has ever done anything like this. They've never come on talking about and insulting all those other experts and trainers and masters who've been involved in a big conspiracy, and explaining about how it's all nonsense and to ignore all that and this is how you do it.  

The funny thing is that all of these people seem to come on BEFORE they actually do it. They need to tell the world about this incredible breakthrough they've had, how everything makes sense now and they're well on their way to grandmaster. The few people who come in talking about the success they've had are usually about 1200 after having started on 1100.     

Good luck. :)

I like your plan. Very cool.

I am quite surprised that positional play is before endgames though. I agree with someone who said that around your level 2000 up to 2200 or 2300 the positional advantages are built and thrown away all to often and the winner ends up normally being the one with the better endgame understanding.

Endgames combine calculation and and positional knowlage and I frankly dont understand how you could study positional play without a fairly deep knowlage of endgames.

Look at a master of positional play, Akiba Rubenstien. Modern top ten GM Boris Gelfland said all modern opening theory is based on Rubenstien. Why was he great at positional play in the opening? Because his endgame understanding was much deeper then many of his comtemoraries.

So yeah my two cents is that endgames are the root of positional play but other then that I think its a great plan.

Boldchess - Thanks for sharing. It's nice to see a valuable post like this. 

It's the plan a beginner would follow.  I'd put serious positional study over serious endgame study.  Rook endgames will be the differentiator at OP's level, but he's "starting over" to get rid of any gaps in his knowledge.  A beginner needs to know tactics first, and simple positional ideas next.   Games are won way before a proper endgame.  Endgame study is about playing in balanced endgames or trying to convert a plus into a small point.  Beginners don't have balanced endgames and you don't need to seriously study how to win a endgame up a rook and 2 pawns.

If I were going to add to this, I would say you should be reading annotated master games all throughout, focusing on a specific style for each phase.  For your tactics/calculation phase, you should be reading over Morphy, Blackburne, Chigorin, Marshall, Alekhine, Tal etc.  For positional phase, you should be focusing on Capablanca, Petrosian, Kramnik, Nimzowitsch, etc.

Just a thought.

Good luck spending a year studying nothing but openings and not being insane by the end of it :P Also you gotta remember the human mind doesn't learn like if you were just loading information onto a computer. If I spent a month learning everything there is to know about rook endings, then spent the next 5 years not thinking about them, by the end of those 5 years I would probably have forgotten most of what I learned! 

My goal for 2014 was to go from a C player to an A player.  I busted my butt, and made A player in vegas in June.  Now that i understand the work it takes, i have no desire to keeop that up.  Now i just happily float back and forth between being an A, and B player. 

I went from USCF C, to USCF A class, learning how to come up with a middlegame plan, and studying endgames.  I just started studying tactics, and, get by with the opening principles.

You aren't anywhere near 2100. The highest rated player you beat in standard chess here is 1729. 

Thanks for your answer and recommendations. No, unfortunately I do not have Aagaard's CD. I'll have to stick to his two books on calculation, this should be more than enough. It makes more sense to me to work by year. I feel more comfortable stuying a topic in depth before moving on to the next one.

In the first year my focus will be on calculation/tactics. This doesn't mean that I won't have a look at other ares. Same applies to the following years, I'm not going to do only openings in year 4 but openings will be a priority.

Makes a lot of sense to me! Thanks for your help.

About annotated games. There are good games from the new masters too, and not only from Magnus. Fine videos from Tata Steel, Sinquerfield and more on youtube. I saw Carlsen - Aronian and Carlsen -Saric yesterday. Beautiful games!

I dont think separating partlearning of the games into years is good.

I think lessons with a GM is very efficient. I have used GM Vladimir Georgiev for six hours (in the same room). He does tutoring on skype too.

I believe in learning theory and trying it in games as fast as possible.

My learning curve is ok. From 1300 to 1700 online, and from unrated to 1428 fide in one year. I am 52 years old.

I find it a bit funny that so many people always post in this forum saying they are "A class" or "2000 above" etc, but all their stats simply does not indicate that at all. I never knew there were so many "experts" around.

I dont think you know what A-class means.  In Norway it means competing in the 1750+ class. I Am Second says he got there in Vegas, and that he is somtimes in A and sometimes B. I am convinced that it is the real facts. His onlinerating supports his story.

Maybe A is 1800+ in your place.

In Norway C is below 1250, B is 1250-1750, and A is 1750+,

some times there is Master on top of that, and i think Master is 2000+ Above Master there are in some tournaments Elite.

I play a lot against online 1700-2000 players here, and their strenght feels like B or A-class.

Norwegian Elo is ca the same as Fide at 2000, but 1600 N-elo is more like 1750 Fide. The scales doesnt follow accurately. In Norway usually N-Elo is used to separate the classes.

I am a C-class player (but feel underated OTB), but goes one class up when I am allowed.

I think 1800-2000 is A class. 2000-2100 is expert. 2100-2200 is CM territory and 2200-2300 is NM territory. 2300-2400 is FM territory and so forth.....Anyway, my point is there are not so many players above 2000, and if they really are, I would think their standard,blitz or bullet or tactics should not be "that low". Yet so many folks claim they are "A class" or above 2000....lol