His methods would probably kill your love for the game forever
400 points in 400 days
Sort:
Oct 6, 2009
0
#3
OK. Thanks for the analysis. Maybe it is not such a good idea. I am a novice at studying chess, so I guess I will not do this program.
go back and analysis your games it will help , flip the board
Oct 6, 2009
0
#5
OK. The only difficulty I have with the analysis of my own games is that I am not sure how to find better candidate moves than the ones I did.
Out of curiosity i bought the book...Always be suspicious when every "endorsement" is by someone you have never heard of. First off his study practices are painful. Secondly, they simply dont work. I learn more from studying tactics then i ever did from this book. There is no such thing as instant improvement. Chess as in life...you get out of it exactly what you put into it.
Go back and analysis your games...
I have read the book and the article. The author makes some basic claims that I think have quite a lot of truth. First, he claims that most games by lower ranking players are lost through a tactical error. This is absolutely true.
Second, he suggests a rather strange study plan, but at the base of his plan is plain hard work at improving tactics. Three hours of study a day should improve the game of anyone at any level. Hence, I can't refute the value of hard work on the weakest link of most players and that is tactics. Even his critics agree with him on this point.
Third, he claims that improving chess vision will reduce blunders. Reducing blunders will win many, many points for lower ranked players. Who can argue with this?
Who can deny that his plan worked well for him? He won in a public arena and has the $10,000.00 check to back up his position. Hard to argue with success. I know enough about education to say from experience that time on task (doing and repeating the task) is the road to knowledge and lasting success.
Having said these things, it is a rare student who is willing to put so much effort into learning anything. Most students would walk away from any program that was close to this intense. However, winners are intense, hard working people. Fishcher was not known for his casual approach to training. Few people achieve the heights of any field or endeavor without incredibily intense focus on learning, practicing, and refusing to fail.
I often wonder how many people quit chess because they are not achieving fast enough. Probably at least as many as those that burn out because of intense training.
My reading of the book did not reveal that the author reduced the value of analysis of past games. Certainly this is essential to improvement. However, for analysis to be of value one needs the help of someone with more experience than the player himself/herself. I personally employ a teacher. The author did downgrade the value of teachers and that is a huge mistake. Nevertheless, many people cannot afford a teacher.
I seriously doubt that most people who follow this study plan will acheive 400 points in 400 days. However, most will make serious and quite fast improvement and that is all that really matters. If hard work makes one lose their love of chess, then I suggest that their love was not very deep.
CPawn wrote:
Out of curiosity i bought the book...Always be suspicious when every "endorsement" is by someone you have never heard of. First off his study practices are painful. Secondly, they simply dont work. I learn more from studying tactics then i ever did from this book. There is no such thing as instant improvement. Chess as in life...you get out of it exactly what you put into it.
well said.....the only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary!!!! just thinking outloud here.............................
Michael de la Maza's article and book are great for beginners, especially adult beginners and I am at a loss as to why so many are absolutely against him.
What he says is true. It is impossible to learn strategy or positional concepts without first being able to regularly identify 3-move attacking combinations or threats. The only way to learn such concepts is by repeatedly playing and studying strategy books that are way over your head, until magically the concepts start to sink in with time and repetition (as Silman says).
However, positional understanding is 10x easier when you can identify various multi-move threats created by various candidate moves.
MDLM does not say that strategy/postional play is not important, just far less important at the class level than heavy duty tactics. He even admits that after he was rated 1900, he had to supplement some opening study to get over the 2000 mark.
I do disagree with him on a few points...
1) Repeating the same tactics over and over...instead of doing 1000 tactics 7x, why not do 7000 tactics which demonstrate the same principles but are different enough to foster pattern recognition rather than position memorization? That way the principles and patterns of these tactics are learned.
2) Why force yourself to go faster and faster, especially when many of these tactics are clearly above your level? Like playing an instrument, it seems that learning proper execution first should take precedence over speed. Speed will come as you expose yourself to more problems and improve calculation and pattern recognition, without having to push it prematurely.
3) His argument against beginners studying openings is somewhat weak. He says there is no point in learning openings to obtain a +/= advantage when you will drop a piece 5-moves later. However, he neglects the fact that beginners (like myself) often drop pawns and/or pieces in the openings to other beginners who have memorized several multi-move opening traps and advantageous lines. Therefore, a beginner is often a pawn and/or piece down in the opening (even against other trap-memorizing beginners) rather than materially equal or just a pawn or tempo down. It is not a matter of being outplayed tactically in the opening as MLDM suggests in these scenarios...these trappy lines often involve 4+ move combinations which I would hardly ascribe to the beginner's tactical skill and more to their memorization of the opening trap.
Nonetheless, overall MDLM is correct that tactics are supreme at the class level. Those who disagree with him ultimately just disagree as to when strategy/positional play/openings should be introduced to the beginner, but everyone seems to agree that tactics should take precedence for beginners and lower-rated players.
paul211 wrote:
I have been playing chess for a number of years and having read the pdf article and there are some very good if not excellent suggestions or points. I have been playing chess for a number of years and having read the pdf. article I must say there are some very good if not excellent suggestions or points raised that I entirely support.
1. To learn anything such as chess, tennis or skiing your first need the flame or interest to get into it, whether it is a relationship or learning a new game. You then need next a plan with specifics targets that will motivate you to achieve your goal and follow it seriously and yes you can make adjustment if you feel it is necessary.
2. I agree that learning tactics is very helpful, but never forget positional moves as they are what allow you to make a combination. By positional I mean, in the opening develop and back up all pieces unless you are prepared to exchange, use the Fisher opening developmental and positioning play of the moves whereby he castled as quickly as he could. Also gaining territory with a piece placed tactically in the opponent camp, beyond the a4 row for whites and a5 for black as these landmarks are your opponent territory.
3. While playing the game it is a must to analyze one move ahead on all of the opponent's pieces including pawns if you have time.
Here is a 960 game where my opponent did not analyze one move ahead, I played 24...Bxc3, my opponent played 25.Rxc3, my comment was a thanks for a free piece and he asked where, I replied: with your last move and played 25....Qd4 he abandoned the game. He did say oh! Dear and added well played.
Link to the game: http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=28517600
If time is pressing you know by looking at the board where you attention is needed, then select the moves that you should analyze, candidate moves they are called, and analyze only those moves.
Once you get familiar analyzing one move ahead, analyze 2 moves ahead, I do not think that in general there is a need to analyze more than 2 moves unless an exchange of pieces is more than 2 moves and again stop at 4 moves. Why because do you think your opponent is so strong to see 4+ moves ahead?
4. Save your deeper analysis time for end games.
5. Moves pawns cautiously and protect them with another pawn not a piece that will devoted to protect a pawn and cannot participate in the battle.
1. Be truly passionate about something.
2. Establish a plan to reach your goal.
3. Study where your weaknesses are and never forget to study the end games.
And may I add: do not hesitate to ask for help to analyze your games, you will get a different perspective that will open new avenues.
What do you mean by "row" ? The squares on the chess board are referred to as "ranks", "files", and " diagonals" by people who know what they are talking about, not "rows". The square a4 is in the a file and the fourth rank. Do you mean white should try to control territory beyond the fourth rank perhaps ? Just who are you anyway paul211? Since you asked this of me in another thread I think its fair for me to turn the tables..... what otb credentials do you have from your years of study and play ? What tournaments have you won ? What titled players have you beaten ? What titles have you earned ? Do you even have an otb rating ? If so, what is it ? You sure dont sound like someone who knows what they are talking about to me......
Its difficult for me to believe you have been playing chess more than 40 years and dont even know what NM means. How is this possible ? If you hadnt questioned me in another thread we wouldnt be having this conversation. Do you know which thread I refer to ? I will find it for you, stand by.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/play-a-master?page=4 please check post # 80 of this thread .
I read the 400 points in 400 days article, and then decided to buy his book. After reading the book, alot of what the author describes is common sense. Like doing nothing but tactics (which i read that alone would get someone to Expert level) But the authors system seems nothing short of painful, and his whole staudy plan is based on having unlimited time each day. I assume his book is geared towards people that dont have jobs, families, etc.
Save the money and dont buy the book. Buy good tactics software like CT-ART 3.0 and go through that each day.
I found a great article called 400 pts. in 400 days. The article discusses a player like me who is decent, but keeps making dumb mistakes, dropping pieces and basically never winning the game. My goal is usually to not lose a game. This is a place that many class D players face. I started playing chess tournaments in 1998. I played for about 3 years, but stopped in 2001 because of a lack of local clubs. I am rejoining the chess world, but I wanted to give others the chance to see this article. You can find it here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
I hope this article helps you, if you are in my situation.
Bill