Pay attention to the bolded clause. I said:
However from what I've read no one has duplicated MDLM's run from 1400 to 2041 in two years using only tactical study.
Can you really become a class A player by studying tactics?
Sort:
SmyslovFan wrote:
That is just insulting to him. He paid for weekly lessons and got better due to some really hard work on his part. This guy has a fantastic memory. Occasionally, I'd give him a position from a classic game, and he'd tell me which game it was from! He put in the hours and hard work necessary to get good at the game.
There just aren't any short-cuts to chess excellence.
Other than a good memory, sure :p
Just because you think cheating is the simplest explanation doesn't make it so.
SK5: Of course not. Nor did I say it did. I said:
I don't know for certain that MDLM cheated. It just strikes me as the simplest explanation a la Occam's Razor.
I believe I was quite clear I was speaking for my own opinion.
I'm kinda losing interest in conversation where people quibble with me on the basis of what I did not say.
SmyslovFan wrote:
I have a student who was rated ~900 in 2012 and is currently rated +2000 USCF. The rating gain is remarkable, but not impossible.
Bit of transparency issue. Your student, worked with you, worked hard, etc.
MDLM?
"Umm, I solve-ed all teh tacticz guise" trollface*
YES you can.
depends on where ur at.
Currently there's a 1400 who is 3-0 in the U1900 section of the Boston Chess Congress. Hasn't played a rated game since 2006 (10 years old). Student at MIT. Maybe he can be the next person accused of cheating for getting better too quickly.
He even has a chess.com profile, so maybe he'll find this thread.
http://chessevents.com/2015/01/boston-chess-congress-2015-standings-under-1900-section/
Jan 11, 2015
0
#248
No. I am Class B, and consider myself good tactically. I am hopin to raise myself to Class A by grasping strategical concepts.
And I had a friend who entered his first tournament, did spectacularly well, and received 2003 as his first rating.
So what?
It's the whole MDLM package that bothers me, not that he did well in two years.
But expecting some commenters here to grasp my cumulative argument is pointless.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Currently there's a 1400 who is 3-0 in the U1900 section of the Boston Chess Congress. Hasn't played a rated game since 2006 (10 years old). Student at MIT. Maybe he can be the next person accused of cheating for getting better too quickly.
He even has a chess.com profile, so maybe he'll find this thread.
http://chessevents.com/2015/01/boston-chess-congress-2015-standings-under-1900-section/
Actually, it is quite funny that you mention this tournament. There's a player in it, Corey Tolbert, who is a tactical brute (and exceptional in blitz), yet I don't think, based on watching him play slower games, that he knows much about strategy, endings, and whatnot. He's probably one of the better examples of an A-class (classically rated) player who knows tactics and not much else. He's 2100+ in bliz, if I recall, and I have seen him starch masters in classic and blitz time controls with disgusting tactics. He's a brute, I say again (and a nice fellow, too). I am interested if he spends any time studying anything aside from tactics.
No, you have to know a lot about position chess, tactics is good so that you know what to look for in a game and how to handle things tactically, obvious
Robert0905 wrote:
No. I am Class B, and consider myself good tactically. I am hopin to raise myself to Class A by grasping strategical concepts.
And you have myself on the flipside. IM an A player, and i dont study tactics, or openings. Got where im at by studying middlegames, endgames, following opening principles, and looking at tactics by the piece interaction on the board.
I_Am_Second wrote:
Robert0905 wrote:
No. I am Class B, and consider myself good tactically. I am hopin to raise myself to Class A by grasping strategical concepts.
And you have myself on the flipside. IM an A player, and i dont study tactics, or openings. Got where im at by studying middlegames, endgames, following opening principles, and looking at tactics by the piece interaction on the board.
It's also a question of how long did it take to get the A-class with the method employed. I am sure that just about any systematic and devoted approach can do it. If someone studies in the manner that you have and takes 10 years to get to A-class, that's fine, but some of the folks on here are arguing that the fastest way to do it is studying tactics.
By the way, I love you avatar. Not a fan; a follower. Excellent.
Milliern wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
Robert0905 wrote:
No. I am Class B, and consider myself good tactically. I am hopin to raise myself to Class A by grasping strategical concepts.
And you have myself on the flipside. IM an A player, and i dont study tactics, or openings. Got where im at by studying middlegames, endgames, following opening principles, and looking at tactics by the piece interaction on the board.
It's also a question of how long did it take to get the A-class with the method employed. I am sure that just about any systematic and devoted approach can do it. If someone studies in the manner that you have and takes 10 years to get to A-class, that's fine, but some of the folks on here are arguing that the fastest way to do it is studying tactics.
By the way, I love you avatar. Not a fan; a follower. Excellent.
I learn how to play when i was 11. I play for fun til about 18. I had no idea how to or what to study, i played for the fun of it. I took the game back up in 2009, and seriously started studying 2 years ago. When i say seriously, i mean about 30 minutes a day, or when i have time.
Milliern wrote:
I can tell you from experience, it's an absolute fact that all you need to study is tactics. I went from a little over 1000 USCF to 1600 on tactics alone, and I will break into the A-class (or near it) in my next tournament.
Tactics is one the hardest chess skills to master, if you are good in tactics; you win more games. Study strategy only will not help you get to any good chess level, because you will have good position and lose to players who are stronger in tactics.
Common sense dictates that a player study all departments of the game.Strong players are strong because they are more or less equally good in every department.Moreover,very seldom do tactics arise out of nowhere.If a player lacks the strategic/positional skills all the tactics in the world will not help much and vice versa.
Apotek wrote:
Common sense dictates that a player study all departments of the game.Strong players are strong because they are more or less equally good in every department.Moreover,very seldom do tactics arise out of nowhere.If a player lacks the strategic/positional skills all the tactics in the world will not help much and vice versa.
Of course you have to study everything, but it has to be in the right proportion. The lower rated you are, the more heavily weighted towards tactics, IMO.
Long story short, plans and ideas don't mean too much if your pieces suddenly fall off the board.
Jul 6, 2015
0
#260
That may be true, but there's more to becoming an "A" player than just making sure your pieces don't drop off. That's a base level of skill for a 1400-1500 rated player. Apparently someone else made the mistake of thinking that "an expert is just a consistent C player", as one GM once said.
There's more to becoming an expert, or even just an A player, than just basic tactics. Tactics are essential, but not sufficient.
This guy has a fantastic memory. Occasionally, I'd give him a position from a classic game, and he'd tell me which game it was from!
Yeah, that will do it...