SmyslovFan wrote:
Kummatmebro wrote:
I made it to 1860 from like mid 1000 in a year and a couple months with tactics and grandmaster games
...
1860... USCF?
He's an 1800+ USCF player.
Can you really become a class A player by studying tactics?
Sort:
SmyslovFan wrote:
The snake oil that de la Maza is selling is potent stuff. Chess really is mostly tactics, as we know from seeing how engines play. His recommendations are actually pretty good, and not at all revolutionary. It's his claims for how efficacious his particular brand is that's off-putting. Every chess coach knows that tactics are important. But you gotta eat your veggies too. You gotta learn basic endgames and openings.
The thing with saying you have to learn tactics is that it's possible to argue that openings and endgames are also all about tactics. This is true, as engines have shown. But humans learn these elements not by studying tactics but by learning general principles.
Learn the general principles behind the endgames, study pawn endings to improve your calculating skills, and work on the basics of development. If you can get those things going along with improving your tactics, you're on your way. It's a bit aristotelian, but try to be good at all facets of the game, don't focus on one to the detriment of other areas.
MDLM played at the MetroWest Chess club in Boston. It has numerous titled players and experts there. It's possible he thinks that all of his improvement was from tactics alone (I've never read his book), but regularly being around that quality of chess players, watching them analyze and having them analyze your games in invaluable.
Tactics was the foundation that allowed him to improve and be able to utilize the positional understanding he was getting from playing games and analyzing.
TheAgentSmith wrote:
Reb wrote:
When people speak of their ratings they really should specify if they refer to OTB ( fide or uscf ) or online ratings . Ofcourse OTB ratings always get more respect/recognition than online ratings , as they should .
I'm 2177 OTB standard... any advice on how to break 2200? I feel I'm stronger tactics wise than in positional play... obviously can get better at both lol but any book or something you would recommend?
I can only tell you what worked for me when I went over 2100 and was trying to reach 2200 . I studied more than I played but when I played I tried to only play in events where the cutoff for the Open was 2000 so that I had a greater opportunity of being paired against higher rated players . I realized that I had to score at least 50% against higher rated players while scoring %70 or better against lower rated players . I cut the tournies back to 4-6 events a year so that I was " hungry for chess " when I did play and took every game very seriously . Thats harder to do if you are playing almost every month , at least it was for me . At that time I spent about 70% of my chess time studying and maybe 30% playing . The opposite might work best for you or someone else . Now I play geezer chess .... 
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. You might FEEL as though studying those positions help you, and maybe they do to some inefficaciously minimal extent, but they don't move you toward A-class as tactics do.
How can someone know for sure they will gain over 200 points in their next tournament? It's not exactly hard to look up your player card on USCF. Especially since you haven't had a rated game in FOUR YEARS.
That's because I get like 3 tactics a day as a free member and I take maybe a second on each one
SmyslovFan wrote:
One would think that if a person made it Class A on tactics, their tactics rating here would be higher than 1284 (42.9% solve rate after 63 puzzles), even if they only spent .3 hours on it.
Dec 31, 2014
0
#67
Reb, that's good advice!
I was once a single tournament away from 2200 (2189). I signed up for the next possible tournament, got beat by an A player who had never beaten me before, and never got that close again.
Kummatmebro wrote:
That's because I get like 3 tactics a day as a free member and I take maybe a second on each one
You done with my book yet? 
Actually yes.
I was going to return it to you yesterday at MLCC but you weren't there..
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Kummatmebro wrote:
That's because I get like 3 tactics a day as a free member and I take maybe a second on each one
You done with my book yet?
A class players should be avoided by 2100s trying to break 2200 but if you must play them you need to score 70% or better against them and thats not always a given ... Ofcourse do NOT play in tournies where you may be paired against B players and lower .... too much to lose and too little to gain .
Anyway, my theory is that MDLM is right in a sense. The reason why people stay in class C/D hell is because of tactics. Undergoing a vigorous tactics training regimen for a few months will allow you to activate and understand all of the other chess knowledge you need during a game. Tactics is the language of chess. You can't appreciate Shakespeare until you know your ABCs.
The tactics alone should get you to 1500-1600. Just being able to keep your pieces safe and win material using simple combinations can get you there. No endgame required.
I don't think he's selling snake oil (again, haven't read his book so can't say for sure), I just think he's probably not understanding all of the other things that he did chesswise that allowed him to improve to the expert level.
I think the people that largely failed when trying to do the MDLM method didn't do those other things. They were locked in a basement doing tactics and weren't playing enough and analyzing with higher level players, which MDLM was actually doing. In the year or so leading up to his World Open victory, he played in about 30 tournaments. That's probably 120-130 games he played in that time.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Anyway, my theory is that MDLM is right in a sense. The reason why people stay in class C/D hell is because of tactics. Undergoing a vigorous tactics training regimen for a few months will allow you to activate and understand all of the other chess knowledge you need during a game. Tactics is the language of chess. You can't appreciate Shakespeare until you know your ABCs.
The tactics alone should get you to 1500-1600. Just being able to keep your pieces safe and win material using simple combinations can get you there. No endgame required.
I don't think he's selling snake oil (again, haven't read his book so can't say for sure), I just think he's probably not understanding all of the other things that he did chesswise that allowed him to improve to the expert level.
I think the people that largely failed when trying to do the MDLM method didn't do those other things. They were locked in a basement doing tactics and weren't playing enough and analyzing with higher level players, which MDLM was actually doing. In the year or so leading up to his World Open victory, he played in about 30 tournaments. That's probably 120-130 games he played in that time.
Out of curiosity, I bought de la Mazas pile of poop...I mean book. While he does offer a lot of good advice, and stresses the importance of tactics. How he goes about "improving" your tactics is a lesson in pain...agony...boredom...and just plain rediculousness. I dont remember the exact numbers that he says you should study, but you would have to quit your job, and ignore your family to meet his study goals.
If you buy his book, your paying for common sense.
I_Am_Second wrote:
Out of curiosity, I bought de la Mazas pile of poop...I mean book. While he does offer a lot of good advice, and stresses the importance of tactics. How he goes about "improving" your tactics is a lesson in pain...agony...boredom...and just plain rediculousness. I dont remember the exact numbers that he says you should study, but you would have to quit your job, and ignore your family to meet his study goals.
If you buy his book, your paying for common sense.
It probably suits his personality. I had experience doing something similar a few years previous to picking up chess. The idea of repeatedly drilling tactics into my brain, no matter how tedious was an experience I knew I could undertake.
I'm pretty sure his method is overkill. But it's what it took for him to get serious about his chess play. Everyone who wants to improve needs to find that inspiration.
Apotek wrote:
I beg to disagree.what you are saying is that tactics is everything.Well,it isn't, at least for humans.getting obsessed with tactics at the expense of other aspects of the game can only result in deterioration of your play.
If you study alot of tactics your game won't deteriorate. It might not improve much if you never look into openings/endgames/positional stuff but if you have to study only one thing it should be that.
I_Am_Second wrote:
As a class A player, I got there by studying the middle and end game. Openings and tactics i dont study, as they bore me to tears. I am currently forcing myself to study tactics, and it is getting more tolerable.
How can tactics be boring? IMO they are the most exciting part of chess.
back when i played chess seriously, the only thing my GM coach taught me were tactics. maybe a few opening prep for lines i kept losing in.
my uscf jumped from 1950-2130 in like 1 month.
honestly out of all the coaches i've had, none of them even touched positional play and only tactics.
Narz wrote:
Apotek wrote:
I beg to disagree.what you are saying is that tactics is everything.Well,it isn't, at least for humans.getting obsessed with tactics at the expense of other aspects of the game can only result in deterioration of your play.
If you study alot of tactics your game won't deteriorate. It might not improve much if you never look into openings/endgames/positional stuff but if you have to study only one thing it should be that.
I_Am_Second wrote:
As a class A player, I got there by studying the middle and end game. Openings and tactics i dont study, as they bore me to tears. I am currently forcing myself to study tactics, and it is getting more tolerable.
How can tactics be boring? IMO they are the most exciting part of chess.
For you they are, for me they arent. I much prefer a middlegame position with a lot going on, and i love end games. I get by ok on tactics simply by looking at forcing lines, and calculating them out.
I_Am_Second wrote:
For you they are, for me they arent. I much prefer a middlegame position with a lot going on, and i love end games. I get by ok on tactics simply by looking at forcing lines, and calculating them out.
Ah, to each their own. I don't really like middlegames to be honest, I breathe a sigh of relief if I'm able to force a weakness & head the game for an endgame or enter a forcing line. This is probably a weakness of mine.
owltuna wrote: Tactics training on lichess.org is actually enjoyable, as opposed to the heartbreak of Tactics Trainer on chess.com, where taking three seconds too long on correctly finishing a difficult five-move deep combination will net you a negative result.
I like lichess.org, I should get on there more often, mostly I use chesstempo which is also good (and has seperate blitz & standard modes).
Narz wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
For you they are, for me they arent. I much prefer a middlegame position with a lot going on, and i love end games. I get by ok on tactics simply by looking at forcing lines, and calculating them out.
Ah, to each their own. I don't really like middlegames to be honest, I breathe a sigh of relief if I'm able to force a weakness & head the game for an endgame or enter a forcing line. This is probably a weakness of mine.
Exactly! Its a game that we all approach in our own way.
leiph18 wrote:
Yeah, the plethora of people who say they are >1800 USCF with low blitz ratings...
Blitz rating is not all that important. I know a 1600 USCF player who is pretty much even with me in blitz (he's 1900blitz on chess.com, somehow I manage to play even with him OTB, probably because I care more about OTB games than online games) & there are NM's on chess.com with blitz ratings in the 1700's.
Wait, no, listen.
You- you didn't let me finish.
I played an 1800 player once, and after 15 moves the position was equal, so I knew I was about 1800 myself.
I can play 15 moves of theory with a 2700 GM and may have an equal position with him at move 15 but it certainly doesnt mean I am also about 2700 strength ! If you play 10 games against A class players and score 50% , or better , then you are likely A class strength yourself .
I was making fun of people who make excuses
I agree with you.