beginner learning: How much do the details matter?

Fairly typical advice to beginners wanting to improve include guidance like do many tactics puzzles, just try to stick to basic opening principles, play tougher opponents, analyze your lost games, etc.

After that, details of advice seem to vary wildly. Do 5 tactics a day vs 100. Play slowly, but not *too* slowly. Beginners don't know how to analyze games, so different approaches are suggested.

So what I wonder is how much the details matter to a beginner trying to a more "advanced beginner" level of play.

If someone rated 900-1100 (me over the last month) tries to think about moves before making them (imagining a few of the more obvious possible opponent replies), tries to reduce the blunder count, does somewhere between 5 and 100 tactics puzzles a day (passing/failing at whatever rate), works through Chess Mentor or some other tutorials, etc., I bet that beginner will see some general signs of improvement (as I have in the last month).

Now that I've been at this a bit, I'm starting to get a *hint* of an idea of how I should refine the process, although I bet a month from now I'll disagree with my current opinion. Despite this, future me will be playing a little better.

I only play correspondence time controls, so I have the luxury of playing around with ideas more than someone playing blitz, but I suspect the same general rules of thumb apply.

The people I play OTB with at the office aren't doing tactics drills or anything formal to improve. But one guy I beat in every game seems to be getting better just playing against me repeatedly. I do tell him things like how I play the opening (a pawn or two to the center, 2 knights out, then bishops to reasonable looking central squares, not moving any piece twice, then castle kingside), and he tries to play to target this pattern.

Am I right? If you don't aspire to OTB tournament play, is haphazard daily study & play good enough to graduate from embarassingly bad to decent enough for the office?

My opinion is that the standard advice of "Do more tactical puzzles" is *not* what very low rated players need. Such puzzles are *clever* and usually require lookahead of 3-5 or more moves, so they are aimed at people rated say 1500 and higher. Very low rated players very frequently miss 1-move shots that win entire pieces or even produce checkmates, which are moves that are too obvious for players who enjoy clever puzzles.

My advice is to play against a computer set at a low level, then gradually increase its level. I thought I was a good player until I started playing against programs, then I discovered that I was overlooking simple tactical wins at almost every move--tactics that the program never missed. The computer whipped me into shape quickly! It also taught me a valuable lesson, which in retrospect should have been obvious: Unlike computers, people make tactical mistakes, *frequently*, so in chess games against people that means one should look for a tactical refutation at every move.

P.S.--I also disagree with the common advice to ignore learning openings when very low rated. My opinion is that a player should learn all aspects of play at once, though in small, gradual doses: tactics, strategy, openings, endgames, middlegames.

Absolutely yes it is.

Make sure you full understand/grasp basic tactical positions. You can check if you fully grasp basic tactical positions by looking at easy puzzles. If you can solve easy problems very quickly, then it's a sign that the basic tactical patterrns are incorporated with you. If you fully grasp basic tactical positions, solve harder problems. But you should still solve easier problems.

If you want to further improve your chess understanding of opening, middle game and endgame, I suggest you get Chess Strategy for Kids by Coackley. Don't let the title of the book decieve you. It's a great book and how I wish I have this book when I am just starting out.

From what I've experienced myself, you can probably get good enough to beat all your friends just by not dropping pieces, developing logically, and learning to target mistakes like when your opponent opens up his kingside pawn structure too early. I'm no chess whiz, but it takes a really bad day for me to lose now to anyone at work. Just a basic understanding of certain motifs and a goodly amount of practice has made all the difference.

Thanks for the thoughts!

Yes. For most people this is enough to beat all their family and friends a very high percentage of the time. If you continue to make small improvements for a year this way I bet you'll be seen as an invincible chess machine :)

First off, where do you work where people are playing chess?!!

Chess is a skill, so yes tactics, or really in the beginning basic activities that improve your ability to "see" will help tremendously. Try things like learning the colors of the squares - i.e. are c4 and b7 the same color? Can a Knight on f6 reach f4 in 2 moves? These things help tremendously later and generally a 1000 player is looking at the pieces and not the board itself. Openings matter almost zero, but you need to understand the time vs material trade off which if you spend some time on Morphy's games should teach you quite a bit about the cost of time in the opening. Later you can address pawn structure and such. 

If I am you, I also like my friends,family or playing buddy to improve. If they also improve, they will give you a better challenge and will make you a better player in the long run.

If I am you, I will also ask them to solve chess tactics problems.

All details matter.

The trick is finding the details which matter to you in the short term.

So you can improve in the long term.

Once you start improving you can start to understand the more complex details.

I don't think your tactics are a huge problem.

I think your problem is your sense of danger.

You need to spend your time looking at what your opponent is threating

or what your opponent might be doing next.

The reason you are having this problem may be due to not playing an opening you are familar with.

Sometimes when you play stuff you don't know you make mistakes by moving pieces to bad spots simply because you don't know were the pieces should go.

For Example

In your one line were you hung your knight.

You might of not known what to do next and was thinking of getting the bishop pair.

However, your fixation with taking the bishop caused you to over look the fact your opponent had the h5 square covered with his queen.

If you was familar with this line or played it alot of times.

You might of used your experince of getting burned by Qxh5 in a previous game to help you in this game so you don't make the same mistake.

The good news is now that you have made this blunder the next time you play Nh5 you will make sure the queen can't take the knight.

I work in an office with a super high stress environment, and over time a few chess and baduk boards have appeared to help with sanity. Games can last days or longer, as we make moves on breaks. (My poor opponents sometimes have to wait for a few days when I just don't see my next move.)

Your other guess is right that we aren't consistently looking at the board over the pieces, and are painfully reminded of this with some regularity!

Wow, very thoughtful reply! I'm only beginning to have a shallow idea of how to review my games (although they all get some attention), so it's nice to see a few examples from my own games that make sense.

jaydrake is actually one of my oldest friends, and once upon a time I used to win against him a lot. Then he got better and I seemed to get worse, which I hope to remedy now.

I think you pointed to something I've observed in my play, that I haven't been really seeing a lot of what's happening on the board, spaces that are protected, pieces under threat, etc. My best guess at the moment is I need to keep practicing looking for that sort of thing while playing more games.

@coffeethyme

Lets say I was to mix a cake bater with some secret ingredients.

After I finished mixing lets say I than hand you the mixture.

Once I handed you the mixture I said this cake is delicious it needs to go in the oven for 25 mins than add your favorite frosting.

After which I leave.

Now in this fairy tale story lets pretend you decide to put the cake in the oven for 25 mins.

After the 25 mins the cake smells really good and its finished.

You than add your favorite frosting mix.

After you do you than take a bite of the cake.

The cake is so delicious that you end up eating half the cake.

Now think about what I said above and answer the following question for yourself.

Does putting a cake bater in the oven for 25 mins and adding frosting make you a cake expert?

The reason why is because at the end of the day you are not the person creating the mixture.

Your only finishing it off and they can always get someone esle to finish it off!

^^^^

The metaphor I used above is bascially what Tactical Puzzles are!

You are trying to finish a position someone esle set up or created.

Which means even if you do one million puzzles you still will not be a Tactical expert.

Why? Because you have to be able to set up the position to do your tactic!

Just like someone will have to make up the mixture in order for you to bake!

If you feel like indugling in some puzzles thats fine.

However, Do not spend all your chess life baking other peoples mixtures my friend.

Heh

That's a nice sounding analogy. Tactics flow from a superior position and all that... The reality though, is that you don't set up the tactics in your own games either. They come about through mistakes by your opponent and you need to spot them as they appear not as you set them up.

1. So what I wonder is how much the details matter to a beginner trying to a more "advanced beginner" level of play.

The answer to this question is this:

Following the opening principles - Control the center, develop towards the center, castle, connect your rooks.  

Learn simple tactics - pins, forks, skewers, etc.

Learn basic mates - KQ vs. K, KRR vs. K, KR vs. K

These are the rules of thumb to be applied throughout the entire game.

• After every move by your opponent, ask yourself these questions:

1. Can I capture any of my opponent's pieces to gain material?

2. What does my opponent want to do?

a) Am I in check?
b) Does my opponent want to capture any of my pieces?
c) Is my opponent threatening a tactical maneuver (i.e., fork, pin, etc.)?

• Simplify the position by trading pieces when you are ahead in material.

• Avoid doubling your pawns (placing two pawns on the same file).

• Always keep your pawns connected.

• Occupy open file(s) with your rook(s).

• Do not trade a bishop for a knight unless the position is closed (with many pawns and no open lines), or unless you gain some kind of advantage from the exchange.

• Avoid staying in pins.

• Keep your pieces on protected squares as much as possible.

This will make you the office chess stud if that is all youre after.  

If you are looking for something a bit more advanced, this is what i give my post beginner students:

USCF Rated 500-1000

ü      Queen and King, King and Rook checkmate within 25 Moves (Ending).

ü      How to meet the four move checkmate.(Opening)

ü      Knowledge of all the one move tactics (Fork, Pin, Skewer.)

ü      How to draw with a lone King vs. a King and pawn. (Ending)

ü      The 3 vs. 3 pawn breakthrough (Ending/Tactics)

ü      The terms for “bad” pawns (isolated, doubled and backward pawns)

ü      Can solve mate in ones with competence (at or above 60%)

ü      Drops pieces less often (once every 20 moves) but still falls for checkmates in one move.

I think my real goal for the office game is for us all to play a little better, which seems to be happening. In my personal game, I'd like to get to where I don't often blunder & overlook obvious next moves from my opponent. Then I figure I'll be playing my own game, even if my game isn't great.

Diakonia, how can you compare knowing how to defend K v K+P or the three pawn breakthrough (I don't even know what that is) to solving 60% of mate in ones? I could probably solve 100% of mate in ones within an hour of learning how the pieces moved.

Surely, being able to solve 100% of mate in ones comes before some of those other points can even be considered, not solving 60% being considered on par!

Well...they are guidelines that i use.  It is nothing set in stone.  Its just things that work for me.

To me learning chess has been a lot more free flowing and experience based and than book-based or academical. I never really heard about this basic stuff like occupying the center with the pawns, basic checkmates with x pieces, developing knights before other pieces, gain or loss of tempo, forks, pins, etc, until joining Chess.com months ago and reading some articles and lurking on the forums.

Yet I have observed that despite ignoring almost all of that basic theory, I intuitively know and apply it on most of my games already.

I guess that being consciously aware of such basic stuff since the beginning can help to shorten the learning period considerably, but I don't think that such knowledge is so important as to be a requirement for every and all beginners. One can't ignore that each person has their own learning style, and for some experience alone can be a great teacher.

Details certainly matter but whether they actually need to be studied depends on the learner's style. To me, those details are just some of the patterns that I've learned to recognize just by playing the game.