It's interesting that a new discussion seems to be emerging out of the previous posts => Studying smart vs. studying hard and how there's only so much the brain can take in at a time before it becomes useless/forgotten.
Keep those posts coming :)
Chess Advice most chess players don't like to hear
Sort:
What they don't want to hear is most players in this age are lazy. They want chess engines to perform all their problems instead of investing time and brains to the problems that chess entails. Being lazy does not preclude you know how to play but it appears that is where chess is going. In the year 2525 as the song goes which is really 2010 when 80-90% of players rely on chess engines to play. What is the point? GM V. Korchnoi said, "You do not play chess you understand it" I applaud IM Dupruess for his knowledge and candor in his posting.
Things you don't want to hear.
You spend too much time in forums.
You were getting beat in your last win, you only won because your opponent performed an awesome blunder.
You've set the board up wrong, and you've been playing how long?
thanks david.Solid, practical advice. saying that, while my intentions are good( I do really want to get better) I'm a lazy m*****f***** and will probably only follow your advice for two days.
I wish I could afford a coach. A harsh one. Maybe a Russian.
tarikhk wrote:
thanks david.Solid, practical advice. saying that, while my intentions are good( I do really want to get better) I'm a lazy m*****f***** and will probably only follow your advice for two days.
I wish I could afford a coach. A harsh one. Maybe a Russian.
Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Bart gets thrown into a remote village in France(?) where he is slave-driven by people who bark and yell at him in French for days and weeks until he suddenly realizes he can speak it fluently purely by sponging/absorption under adversity.
Maybe there really ought to be a Eli Roth-esque chess Hostel/School somewhere you can pay for a bunch of Masters/Coaches to literally beat some sense into you on a daily-basis. Heck, I'd sign up my lazy self in a heartbeat.
dpruess wrote:
. . . solving simple tactical puzzles. the goal is to increase your store of basic patterns, not to work on your visualization, deep calculation. remember that is your goal. you are not trying to prove that you can solve every problem. if you don't solve a problem within 1 minute, stop. it's probably a new pattern or you would have gotten it by now . . . look at the answer, and now go over the answer 3 more times in your head to help the pattern take hold.
Interesting-- I never considered how I might benefit from the tactics problems I can't solve, but in essence, your approach is that for a given period of study of tactics problems, the "failures" are actually the most useful problems I'll encounter, more so than the ones I "figure out" because those only indicate what I've learned previously.
I often find doing tactics problems cumbersome, because I interpret my failed problems (and obviously there are lots) as evidence that I'm just not there yet. I always considered having to look at the solution and then the next time knowing how to do it simply because I remembered reading the solution in the past as somehow less worthy than having figured it out on my own. But I guess the bottom line is just to know the pattern, no matter how you know. I'll try to keep that in mind.
This reminds me of a ground school course I took in aviation. The final exam at the end of the semester was the actual FAA exam. A week or so before the final, the instructor gave us a handout with a couple hundred questions and said the FAA exam would consist of a subset (maybe 60 or so, I don't remember) of these exact questions. We all looked at one another and then asked "Isn't this cheating?" He told us not only wasn't it cheating, but that the FAA actually sold the test bank questions. The bottom line was that the questions represented the material the FAA considered important to know-- they didn't care how the person came to know it, only that it was known. That sounds like your approach to tactics patterns and solutions.
--Cystem 
zankfrappa wrote:
IM Pruess,
I joined Chess.com on November 21st, 2008 and I often spend hours on the
Tactics Trainer. I peaked at 2295 and now am at 1710(However, Jay tweaked
the rating system so most people have dropped quite a bit).
Anyway, my point is am I overdoing it? I certainly feel I can learn more than 2-3 problems a day before sleeping, maybe 9-10. Should I do only 15 minutes per day? I am remembering a lot of the problems when I see them again so they are
in my long-term memory, but then again there are 49,648 total problems.
Lately I have been searching for examples of irony because I feel like the definition of the word is slipping. People apply it to things which are merely coincidental. THIS is irony. No offense intended...just had to laugh.
sfaok,
Well, I'm glad you had a good laugh. Now could you explain what you mean? My
English professor told us we were always using that word incorrectly and I have
no idea what you're talking about.
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
dpruess wrote:
. . . solving simple tactical puzzles. the goal is to increase your store of basic patterns, not to work on your visualization, deep calculation. remember that is your goal. you are not trying to prove that you can solve every problem. if you don't solve a problem within 1 minute, stop. it's probably a new pattern or you would have gotten it by now . . . look at the answer, and now go over the answer 3 more times in your head to help the pattern take hold.
Interesting-- I never considered how I might benefit from the tactics problems I can't solve, but in essence, your approach is that for a given period of study of tactics problems, the "failures" are actually the most useful problems I'll encounter, more so than the ones I "figure out" because those only indicate what I've learned previously.
I can't help wondering though how come anyone ever solved these problems ? Surely people learned tactics before there was a Tactics Trainer to give them the solutions. For every problem, there was someone somewhere who solved it without having learned it previously.
Why would there be advice that I don't want to hear as long as it's good?
Read "How to reassess your chess" head to tail, and then do it again.
atos, yes of course every pattern was discovered for the first time once... and probably by hundreds of people independently. but the first time can take a very long time. the fastest way to learn new patterns is to be shown them, e.g. by the solution key. you could spend an hour, exhaustively solving every problem and learn a couple new patterns, or you could spend 10-15 min.
there is also a place for stretching your calculations, visualization, and testing yourself on how well you can solve tougher problems. that becomes more and more important as someone reaches 16, 1800, and then beyond. earlier on, it makes sense to build up your store of basic patterns, because most advanced combinations involve combining several small patterns that you know. rather than calculating an 8 move combination move by move for both black and white (16 ply at each of which there could be branches), a player equipped with a healthy store of basic patterns will calculate the 8-move combination by looking at a couple 3-4 move chunks in 2 or 3 different orders, and with 1 or 2 individual moves thrown in between them. that's why i think the order of first focusing on patterns and later on calculation makes a lot of sense, though it's not a pure do A then do B. as you progress you start adding in more and more of B and decrease the time you spend on A (just as with practice and study).
dpruess wrote:
atos, yes of course every pattern was discovered for the first time once... and probably by hundreds of people independently. but the first time can take a very long time. the fastest way to learn new patterns is to be shown them, e.g. by the solution key. you could spend an hour, exhaustively solving every problem and learn a couple new patterns, or you could spend 10-15 min.
there is also a place for stretching your calculations, visualization, and testing yourself on how well you can solve tougher problems. that becomes more and more important as someone reaches 16, 1800, and then beyond. earlier on, it makes sense to build up your store of basic patterns, because most advanced combinations involve combining several small patterns that you know. rather than calculating an 8 move combination move by move for both black and white (16 ply at each of which there could be branches), a player equipped with a healthy store of basic patterns will calculate the 8-move combination by looking at a couple 3-4 move chunks in 2 or 3 different orders, and with 1 or 2 individual moves thrown in between them. that's why i think the order of first focusing on patterns and later on calculation makes a lot of sense, though it's not a pure do A then do B. as you progress you start adding in more and more of B and decrease the time you spend on A (just as with practice and study).
Well, thanks for the reply, I didn't mean to suggest that we should be rediscovering forks and pins on our own, just meant to remind that there is some value in solving problems independently. After all, in a game you don't have the option of looking up the solution. Also, memorization of patterns can be helped by participation in solving the problem. I am not arguing with you about chess of course, but I have some experience as a teacher and I don't think that chess will be that different from subjects like maths or languages where students are generally encouraged to work out at least a part of the problems on their own, as much as possible. (To be sure, using some principles and guidelines.) And this is a thread for advice people don't like to hear which is very good actually, lol.
Zankfrappa: No prob...and really don't take it offensively. Truth be told, I am still trying to decipher which parts of this thread are ironic and which aren't. There are actually a few layers? I just looked up the word again and am reminded that what I am talking about in this case, is called "dramatic" irony.
Read here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dramatic+irony
This thread is the play, and you are a character, and I am the audience (from my perspective). In this play, Mr. Pruess has completed a lengthy (and detailed and useful!) soliliquay/speech. Your subsequent question indicates that you didn't totally understand the meaning of his speech (it answers your question very specifically), while the audience (me) does. This contrast between the audience's understanding, and the character's understanding is textbook dramatic irony (I think).
Where it gets fuzzy (and a little funny) is when we start to consider the fact that this has all taken place in a play called "Chess Advice Most Players Don't Want To Hear" in which various characters poke fun at each other (all of us, on this site really) about the very weakness which you demonstrate (a selective deafness when it comes to Mr. Pruess' suggestion that anything more than 10 - 15 minutes on TT is a waste of time). I do no know if this is another example of irony, but I think some people would say so. Alanis Morisette, maybe. Anyone understand irony better than I do? I am confusing myself here. High school english is over a decade away.
Really, don't take me personally. I estimate I will ignore more than half of Mr. Pruess' advice. The rest I will only follow by accident.
edit: sorry about the thread hijack
Elubas wrote:
Why would there be advice that I don't want to hear as long as it's good?
For most of us, good advice reminds us of what we're supposed to be doing if we've set a goal to get better even by the most smallest margins.
Was TDing a small event a few weekends back and I was going over a game with a bored parent who really started to get really interested in chess, via his kid who was playing the tournament. In the game we went over, he played a blunder that really meant he did not care to look at any of the opponent's forcing responses to his played move. I tried to tell him that this behavior was a real problem he needed to start taking care of, but he kept shaking his head and saying he needed to learn the openings better. Keep in mind that he actually initiated the discussion and *wanted* some pointers/tips ... I certainly didn't shoot off my mouth without being asked to :)
I can't tell you the number of times I've dealt with an ambitious beginner/novice-level chess player get defensive or deflective (in the example above) when they were getting free advice that I would consider to be good. Heck, it wasn't even my own advice ... I was just quoting my coach! Situations like that motivated this thread.
Shivsky wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Why would there be advice that I don't want to hear as long as it's good?
I can't tell you the number of times I've dealt with an ambitious beginner/novice-level chess player get defensive or deflective (in the example above) when they were getting free advice that I would consider to be good. Heck, it wasn't even my own advice ... I was just quoting my coach! Situations like that motivated this thread.
They probably don't want to admit what they're doing is wrong. That's probably one of the things that make it harder for those beginners to get better, their stubborness.
Of course I wouldn't like to hear a GM calling me bad at chess just because they're a lot better but I would respect anything they had to say to improve my game.
Great thread, thanks David.
Atos wrote:
I have some experience as a teacher and I don't think that chess will be that different from subjects like maths or languages where students are generally encouraged to work out at least a part of the problems on their own, as much as possible. (To be sure, using some principles and guidelines.)
I would argue that students are asked to work out very little on their own -- that is, without having been taught how to do it. No one ever asks a student to do addition without first telling them how to do addition.
As an example, you could fully explain what addition is and then ask a student to work out, say 15 + 29. But do you ask students to work out a problem like that without first telling them the steps in how to do it (add the 9 and 5, carry the 1, etc.). I don't think anyone would argue the student is best served working out that addition problem without being taught what they need to know to do it. Then they have to work out dozens of these problems that they already know how to do, and none of them are particularly difficult for the student that learned addition.
The same for chess. If you don't get a problem in the first minute or two, it may be simply that you haven't been taught how to solve this one. Get taught the solution and move on to more practice (the Pruess suggestion). Now you'll do dozens of these problems and they may take up to a minute at first, but soon become very easy for you.
If you spend 10-15 minutes a day solving problems, most of them will be like the addition problem. Reinforcing your ability to carry out the solution to problems you've learned. These take less than a minute, many less than half a minute. You can do several dozen practice problems in your 10-15 minutes. If you've got a good problem set, you'll also encounter 2-3 problems that you don't get in the first minute and those you'll take as learning new problems.
(I don't think I've said anything that my new favorite hero wasn't saying earlier.)
dpruess wrote:
As a teacher, my impression is that there is precious little advice the student actually wants to hear. Almost anything about how you need to work to improve is disregarded.
For example people write in to Jeremy Silman's column and ask him how to become a master. He'll list many things including "playing over 10 000 games" (I forget the exact number). Rather than starting to look over games, they'll reply in the comments section that he's lying, making it up.
"You should analyze your own games: losses and draws particularly." So, I've been doing this program "your games analyzed" for over 20 weeks now, in which a chess.com member has the opportunity to select any game of theirs and show it to me, and i'll go over it, ask about their thought process, and give my comments and feedback on the game. I believe I have seen 1 loss and 1 draw submitted out of ~25 games.
"Don't use computer engines until you are over 2400." but you see, a computer can "analyze" a game in a few minutes without any effort from the player-- who cares if they won't learn A SINGLE THING? and it's cheaper to ask a computer what you did wrong than hiring a master-- never mind that after the computer affixes a ? (or two) to one of your moves and provides an alternative, you'll be none the wiser as to why your move is not best, why the suggestion is better, what principle(s) is in operation, why you made the mistake you made, or what you'd have to do to produce the computer's move in a future game.
or when i give players in the 1000-1800 range advice on improving their tactics, viz: 10-15 min per day of solving simple tactical puzzles. the goal is to increase your store of basic patterns, not to work on your visualization, deep calculation. remember that is your goal. you are not trying to prove that you can solve every problem. if you don't solve a problem within 1 minute, stop. it's probably a new pattern or you would have gotten it by now. (with private students i'll take the time to demonstrate this to them: show them through examples that they can find a 3-4 move problem in 10 seconds if they know the pattern, and that they can fail to find a mate in 2 for 10 minutes if they don't know the pattern). look at the answer, and now go over the answer 3 more times in your head to help the pattern take hold. your brain can probably take on 2-3 new patterns between sleeping, so you should stop once you've been stumped by 2 or 3 problems (usually will take about 10-15 min). there is no point in doing more than that in one day. and any day you miss, you can't make up for. a semi-random estimate on my part is that you need about 2000 of these patterns to become a master. so you need to do this for 2 years or more.
i would guess that less than 1 in 100 of the people i have given this advice to have followed it to the letter. if they enjoy it, they'll waste their time doing it for 1.5 hours in a day, choosing to ignore that it's not helping them [after 15 min]. or some with ego issues will insist on trying to solve every single position (if only they linked their ego to their self-discipline ).
i could go on and on. from my experience, there are exactly two kinds of advice players *do* like to get:
- "you don't need to do x." Love, love, love, love that!! eg: "you don't actually need to memorize openings to be a master;" or "you don't need to calculate in positions like this, you can just move your pieces towards the best squares;" or "you don't need to study the endgame until your games are balanced enough to reach a lot of even endgames." people really drink that stuff up. sort of related is #2
- "see, this principle explains the entire position." provided the principle was well-explained, people love this too. well, on the one hand, powerful principles can often be pure gold; but i can't help but jadedly suspect that part of it may be that it is another pass for playing without working. playing according to principles is so much easier than employing painstaking analysis.
but anyway, chess is supposed to be fun, so have fun. you don't need to calculate if you don't like to. you don't need to revisit your losses if they are painful. you all have my not-even-one-iota-of-sarcasm-or-irony blessing to keep playing as you do. it's even fine with me if you ask me for advice and then ignore it as long as we all have fun in the process.
besides, people with an extremely strong desire to improve (in any field) pretty much all do put in serious work, and take pains to make sure they incorporate messages they are instinctively resistant to into their thoughts. when other masters tell me: "david, you aren't going to like hearing this, but here's what i think your problem is," i perk up. but currently i'm not doing the work to take advantage of that advice. i just enjoy playing
I'm not a professional player by any stretch of the imagination, but I am actively trying to improve and try to spend my time as best I can. You say you could go on, I'm interested in hearing any other things students don't listen to or any links to Silman advice columns that you often see amateurs blow off (or is it most of them heh).
I was probably most interested in your tactics suggestion. Some days when I'm a bit lazy I'll just crack open a book and do 2 hours of tactics... but you suggest I'm wasting almost 90% of that time because all I need to do is learn a few new patterns! I've never heard this but it makes sense, and it will save me tons of time in the long run. This is fantastic.
How long should I spend stretching my calculation/visualization? This is mostly what I do when I spend 10-20 minutes with a position I can't seem to solve and then finally get it (or not), and I usually do this with 3-4 problems. Yikes that's almost an hour, would be a pity to waste that much.
Also not to use an engine until 2400. I admit after a tournament I put the games into a program and let it analyse all night, in the morning I save them to my database and look over them for maybe an hour altogether... and you're right I've really learned nothing. This is also very good advice, I honestly won't put another win/loss/draw into an engine until I've exhausted my own analysis on it (which is unlikely as I'm not willing to spend weeks or more on one game). Also I'm somewhat excited to dig up my old games now that I realize I haven't learned anything from them yet.
So what should I replace that time with when I don't do tactics? You mention chess mentor, I spent 30-40 minutes on it one day and it hadn't gotten to the point where I was learning anything new yet, lots of (good) stock positions players should know but I'd seen in books already. Do they get harder or as a non-member was it more of a demo?
[edit, I see without a membership it's just a demo, obviously chess mentor wouldn't be too useful to an IM, at what level do you think CM's effectiveness starts to really drop off?]
Anyway with just those two suggestions I feel like I got some great advice, thanks for the post.
you got it! :-)
15 min on tactics trainer, watch the day's video, and spend an hour on chess mentor. if you want to get more than 2 hours per day out of your diamond membership, just send me a message, and i'll give you some more work.