Class A player, how many hours to become one?

I'm going to give a very crude estimate based off how long it takes to read 10 pages of a chess book while moving the pieces (anywhere from 10-15 pages in two hours usually depending on how many variations you need to play through). 

Endgames are very important so we'll say it takes three weeks to complete Understanding Chess Endings and 2*21=42 hours.  Not nearly enough to scratch the surface, so we'll plug throw in Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy at another three weeks so we're up to 84 hours and this is just endgames! 

Secrets of Pawn Endings is quite dense for its compact size and has tons of variations so we'll say it takes five weeks to complete (having to work on individual puzzle positions where you work judgment and calculation eats up a lot of time too) so that's 70 hours.  We're up to 154 hours just on endgame study!  CCE Vol.2 and 3 would be around 9 weeks which amounts to 126 hours of study. 

 Now we're up to 280 hours and aren't even done with endgames!  A Survival Guide to Rook Endgames will again take 42 hours around (these are rough approximations remember?) despite its small size, and given how intricate and common rook endings are you'd want to build on that knowledge so CCE volume 5, I'd say it's about five weeks so we'll say 70 hours. I'm just organizing books by stage so you'd by no means neglect middlegame and opening principles. 

My System, three weeks is another 42 hours.

How to Defend in Chess is quite dense for a little book, so we'll say it takes four weeks to complete at two hours per day making it 56 hours.

Yeah, you could easily see where this is going, and I'm not even factoring in going over your own games, annotated master game collections, fixing your own thought process errors by playing guess the move at certain critical positions in database games, etc. 

UCE= 42h

Endgame Strategy=42h

SPE=70h

CCE vol.2+3 =126h

SGTRE=42h

CCE vol.5 = 70h

My System=42h

HTDIC= 56h

Tactics= 15min/day =1h45min/week

490 hours of main study, 122.5 hours of tactics.  This will not get you to A but just goes to show just how much you need to learn, it's mostly just endgames factored in, I didn't even plug in numbers from Lipnitsky's Questions of Modern Chess Theory or Think Like a Grandmaster or Alekhine's Best Games of Chess, etc. 

This isn't even scratching the surface yet!  Those 122.5 hours of tactics are basic tactics found in materials like CT-ART Beginner (buy CT-ART 5.0 it's a great deal and includes mating patterns and CT-ART Beginner in addition to CT-ART 4.0)

The hours needed to reach A is easily over 1,000 off study alone, with some more hours for analyzing chess games on your own (both your games and master games). 

No matter what time you spend at chess, if it is quality it will improve your understanding of the game.  OTB chess has its special skills.  If you improve on tactics, you still have to develop an opening repetoire, learn about endgames and get some advice about the practical aspects.  You can cut down dramatically on the number of hours required if you try to learn to understand the game rather than simply the moves.  That is hard to explain.  Some people spend a life time without learning much.  Others spend not much time and advance considerably.  It is nothing to do with genius.  I have know a number of so-called geniuses.

You may never break 1800, a lot of people can't no matter how hard they try. 

I knew a retired physician, very intelligent, played chess all his life, he couldn't hit 1600. 

Once again, don't believe the hype. You don't need any of those books to reach 1800. In fact, it's very possible they would just get in the way.

To be more exact, it is good to play against opponents that are stronger, but not so much stronger that you don't stand a chance. 

I remember years ago (*dream sequence*) that there were 3 sections for my club's championship (Boylston Chess Club).  I was rated 1473 and had won the lowest section [link] which allowed me to enter the intermediate section.  Miraculously, I won that too [link].  This, unfortunately, meant I would play in the highest section against players rated nearly 1000 points(!) higher than me [link].  I was mercilessly pummeled for weeks on end.  It was brutal.  Somehow I was suppose to be learning from this experience and I did...I learned never to play people rated 1000 points higher than me.    

Edit: To be even more exact, I got 2nd place in both low and middle sections but it was good enough to move up to the next section.

I started playing chess at age eight. I read my first chess book at fifteen and was active in my high school club, including inter-scholastic matches. I played my first USCF tournament at 35 and established a C Class rating within a year. A few months after turning 49 years old, I broke through 1800 to A Class.

TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

The hours needed to reach A is easily over 1,000 off study alone, with some more hours for analyzing chess games on your own (both your games and master games).

_______________

Could that figure be trimmed using chess software? So you can work very efficiently, not having to setup boards and move pieces? I know there is a lot of chess software out there and it has been suggested that it saves significant time compared to the pre-computer days.

I don't think there's a commonly accepted figure on how much study is required to reach this level. In my experience it would probably vary considerably from one individual to another.

If there's anything all these people share, rather than study habits, that's a healthy dose of OTB play, and probably analysis with stronger players as an accelerator.

Oogie's way strikes me as the exception rather than the norm. All strong players I know spend more time playing and analyzing than studying books. I don't say it's detrimental, but chess being an 'applied science' game, practice certainly makes perfect... sense.

+1

There is no exact amount of hours. It may take some people 200 hours, it may take some people 2,000 hours and they still won't get there. Same goes for getting good at anything, not just chess. There are a lot of factors and it's different for everyone.

If you want to improve a lot, and as quickly as possible, it's best to focus on what you CAN control (study smart, efficiently, and consistently; play OTB; have a "learning from my mistakes" attitude).

"Once again, don't believe the hype. You don't need any of those books to reach 1800. In fact, it's very possible they would just get in the way."

But why not build a solid foundation, learn some techniques, and improve and stabalize our playing strength?  There is so much we don't know yet Nimzowitsch and other authors did/do.  Some authors claim (like the Amateur to IM guy) that intense endgame study got them there. 

You might not need the books, but it's better to have them and not need them than the other way around.  I don't need Aagard's Calculation book but I'm saving it for when I'm good enough since Heisman says calculation ability is a primary thing that sets stronger players apart from weaker ones.

"Oogie's way strikes me as the exception rather than the norm. All strong players I know spend more time playing and analyzing than studying books. I don't say it's detrimental, but chess being an 'applied science' game, practice certainly makes perfect... sense."

I agree that chess is an applied science game, but one must know and understand a science before applying it.  If one doesn't know when a queenside majority is a real advantage and why or that bishops defend weak squares, or pawn moves being bad for defense generally then their evaluation of the position is going to be fundamentally flawed. Even if you understand the principles it can still be flawed if you're too rigid (e.g., rejecting a certain opening line that involves moving the queen twice because of an advice when it's actually good for that particular position)

The study done is something done after a morning run (maybe the whole two hours or more in one go, the rest at evening) so one isn't usually going to catch their friends studying the game. 

I mention playing and post mortem (I think?)  and analyzing master games (especially annotated ones, though playing guess the move from an unannotated database helped me quite a bit), I only gave concrete numbers for study time. 

Another way to improve is to play games against onesself (Bobby Fischer did this) and see where you go wrong. 

Observation will only get one so far, sometimes you just need specific concrete theoretical knowledge to get you through a certain endgame position.  Let's say you reach an endgame against a 1600 FIDE and you're 1850 FIDE, you have a clear advantage and this kind of endgame (we'll say rook) has a very tough win.  You know rooks belong behind passed pawns, either your own or your opponent's, and activity is usually everything, but need a little something extra to convert the win.

The methods and similar positions are shown in Nunn's Chess Endings vol.2 and some Dvoretsky, your opponent read those but you didn't.  Now your 1600 FIDE opponent has practical drawing chances, and he knows the typical drawing methods. 

I'm always afraid of situations like that so I always want to cover my bases.  Get a solid endgame foundation and defend accurately against anyone who wants to win in the middlegame. 

Being a class A player isn't rocket science. I am around class B (I don't have an official rating but I'm basing this off games vs players who do) and have barely read books or played seriously at all. That level is just about being pretty good at tactics and playing solid moves, having a consistent thought process, knowing some basic positional principles, knowing basic endgames and having somewhat of an opening repertoire.

1) You can learn those things from playing and reviewing games.

2) You can learn from online resources rather than books.

I honestly think these are more efficient ways to learn, as opposed to going through thousands of mini-examples from books. There are many many players who have gained Class A or Expert without studying from books. I believe books and/or a coach are more necessary once you break 2000+. Also they were more necessary in the past because we didn't always have the internet, chess engines, and easy transportation to playing opportunities. Not only that, but a lot of chess knowledge has become much more common knowledge when that wasn't necessarily the case in the past.

Three or four. Maybe a bit more.

Good luck.

(You could also try losing the ego a bit.)

If you have some natural talent and played a lot of OTB, about 2 years. It really depends how many OTB games you can get in and be consistant in playing good chess. You need to win against higher rated players for the fastest rating gains.

the way i made a 700 point jump in my first year was reviewing my games with a stronger player (around 2050 USCF) that i befriended when i first joined a club.

after each game, he sits down with me and reviews my game, thought process and how he would approach the position.

he does this for free

so make strong friends at chess club and watch your rating skyrocket.

You are right, all of the strong players suggest regular OTB play at longer time controls is a required component. What is the reason? OTB play must be special, in that it accomplishes something that can't be easily reproduced with other activities. What does it accomplish that can't be done alone?

its not that OTB play is special but to have a regular USCF/FIDE rating, the associations require that a rated game be a minimum of 30 minutes per side, and most clubs have atleast an hour per side to play teh game, and an additional time control if you both reach 40 moves.

Different people learn differently however.  Playing games (especially practice games) is beneficial but application in the field isn't the same as doing the prepwork.  Lawyers and scientists need to go through tons of college level textbooks to get into their fields and likewise chess has its special areas that need to be learned.  Granted the stakes are much lower in a game (losing in chess for example doesn't allow a killer to get away with murder or an innocent person going to prison unlike law) but still. 

The Russian school of chess greatly emphasized a rigorous study and training of the game, especially endgames. I Trust Botvinnik's observations (and Capablanca recommended serious endgame study before him!) on chess improvement. 

Botvinnik's goal was to make russian super GMs

are you a young upcoming super GM?

As the poster above me stated, the goal of the Russian school was to produce GMs. And once again, they did not have the technology or transportation etc that we do.

I agree that people learn differently. That is why I post a counter-argument everytime you recommend someone to read 100 books in order to improve their chess.