Do you have a structured training regimen?

Long story short I've known the basics of playing chess since I was a kid, but at that time I didn't know much beyond the rules of the game. In my mid-teens I started reading up and learned essential ideas about things like controlling the center, rapid development, castle early, etc. But it wasn't until recently (I'm 34 now) that I really started taking the game seriously.

I would like to get involved with tournament play, but I've been wondering exactly how to go about training myself. Thus far, I've mostly just done a bunch of scattered training from a variety of sources: Chess for Dummies, Lev Alburt's first Comprehensive Chess Course book, random YouTube vids, chesscademy.com and of course chess.com. Oh, and I also have Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess.

What I really want to do however is put together a logical training path that builds upon itself systematically. So I ask you now, how do you study the game of chess? Do you have a structured training regimen? And what advice can you offer to someone who is trying to put such a thing together?

Thanks in advance.

I'm more of a "random" than "structured" person, but I can offer a bit of advice. I'm rated between 2000 and 2100 OTB, by the way.

1) At your playing strength, tactics is likely to be your main weakness. Practice tactical exercises (pins, forks, skewers, guard destruction, decoying & diverting, sealing & sweeping, line opening & line cutting, etc). Familiarize yourself with model mating patterns (corridor mate, smothered mate, lolli, greco, morphy, paulsen, andersson, epaulette, broken fianchetto mates, etc).

2) When it comes to studying the opening / middle game / endgame, work from both ends towards the middle. You can't reach a playable middle-game position unless you understand a bit of opening theory... and you won't know how to win a won middle-game without a bit of endgame study. Leave the middle-game study until you feel at least marginally competent at the opening and endgame phases.

3) Middle-game planning is largely determined by the Pawn structure. Focus your middle-game study - at least at first - on understanding this relationship. Get aquainted with the Pawn chain, the wedge, the phalynx, the lever, the ram, and with typical Pawn weaknesses such as backward or isolated Pawns and weak color complexes.

"Chess training for budding champions" by Jesper Hall lays out a program for studying.  Read the reviews on Amazon.com.

Cool, thanks for the response. I appreciate the advice.

It's amazing how little there is in the way of structured, reputable, from-1200-to-2200 programs out there with very specific protocols, like specific reading assignments, a specific tactics program, guidelines on how many games you should play each week and under what time controls, what grandmaster games to look at and analyze, how to analyze your own games, a specific plan for learning openings, etc. You get the idea.

To put it another way, I'm thinking of something like a Black Belt course for chess.

Lev Alburt tried to do something similar with his Comprehensive Chess Course, but that series really needs a third book to be complete.

I'll have to look into that. Sounds promising. Thanks!

For some insight into chess training I suggest reading the following interviews with Mark

Dvoretsky:

http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=reports/the-big-dvoretsky-interview-part-1
http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=reports/the-big-dvoretsky-interview-part-2
http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=reports/the-big-dvoretsky-interview-part-3
https://en.chessbase.com/post/mark-dvoretsky-s-final-interview-part-i
https://en.chessbase.com/post/mark-dvoretsky-s-final-interview-part-ii
https://en.chessbase.com/post/mark-dvoretsky-s-final-interview-part-iii

If you're looking for structured training materials I suggest you take a look at Artur Yusupov's training course as well as the Steps Method:
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/docs/14/artur_yusupovs_awardwinning_training_course/
http://www.chess-steps.com/

Neither of these is a complete training protocol like the one you request. In the introduction to his course Yusupov writes that "just working with this book does not guarantee a rise in your rating. It simply gives you a solid basis for a leap forward in chess ability. You should also play in tournaments, analyse your own games, play through well-annotated games of stronger players and read books on chess."

This is good general advice. More specific general advice on this topic is difficult to give. If you want to know how many games to play at which time controls, or which books to read, well, that depends on your goals, your strengths and weaknesses as a player, the amount of time and energy you have for chess, and so on. So if you're looking for a training protocol a personalised one based on your individual situation is the way to go.

I don't have a structured training regimen, though I usually do :

1. play long games OTB
2. analyze those games by myself and with stronger players
3. do some tactics training
4. do some chess background work on a topic I'm interested in (usually it's going over a book)

There are options available for systematic training. I listed a couple of them in that blog :

https://www.chess.com/blog/hicetnunc/resources-for-systematic-training

The Chess Steps program is probably a very good start if you haven't played any competition chess yet.

i usually split my daily time as follows:

8 hours sleep

4 hours chess study

4 hours chess playing

4 hours working out at the gym

3 hours relaxing activities

1 hour for breakfast/lunch/dinner

Cool, thanks for the links. I'll look into those.

What's interesting is that most chess courses that I've seen--and granted, this may just be a matter of my own ignorance--seem to aim to get you to about 1800 or so and then that's it. The end.

It's almost as if there is this implied belief that that's about as far as anyone can get through hard work alone, and that right about at that point there is this invisible barrier through which only the extremely gifted may pass.

Is reaching the level of, say, a National Master something that anyone with solid mental functioning can can reasonably expect, provided enough effort is put into studying? And if so, could a structured program be developed to get someone to that point? That's what I'd like to know.

Thanks, I'll look into Chess Steps, which was also mentioned by Joe.

I definitely need to play more games OTB. That is pretty rare for me, and when it does happen it's really weird because I'm so used to that top-down, 2D computer way of looking at things. Each time I have to get used to looking at physical, 3D pieces again.

Yeah, I just signed up for Diamond a few days ago and I'm still getting used to a lot of the stuff the site has to offer. Chess Mentor looks good and like a fairly thorough course so I might jump into that.

Well let's put the question out there: What does it take for a person of average intelligence to reach National Master? We're not talking about Grandmaster here or International Master or even an FM. "Just" a National Master.

I wish a few NMs would stop buy to get their take on it, but should that level of ability be achievable by any person of average mental ability, provided they have the right program of study?

The 'can anyone do it ?' is difficult to answer objectively, but let's put it this way : this is very hard to achieve and requires at a minimum a great level of dedication and very hard work spanning over many years.

You really need to go and play in a couple OTB tourneys to get an idea of what it takes to become a (very) strong OTB player.

I do hope to start competing during this coming year, so we'll see how that goes.

But back to my question, really what I'm getting at is this: Presuming average or better intelligence/mental functioning, I'm sure we'd all agree that a rating of 1400 is achievable by pretty much anyone. So if that's true, that 1400 is within the grasp of just about any person who doesn't have mental deficiencies, then where is the cut off? Where is that point that, no, no matter how hard you try you simply HAVE to have to built-in talent to get there?

I'll assume that we'd agree that, say, the Grandmaster title is out of reach of many people, especially people who didn't get serious about playing until later in life. So if 1400 should be achievable by anyone, and Grandmaster is only achievable by a relative few, then approximately where in between those two points does that switchover occur?

I hope I'm being clear. You say it's hard to answer objectively, but surely with enough information we could arrive at some reasonable conclusion. 

"Structured" is such a tricky word to use.  

My study schedule is pretty erratic.  Sometimes i study, sometimes i dont.  That is structured.

As far as I know, nobody who started competition chess after 25 has ever reached IM level. I don't know if there are people who started after 25 who have reached FM or NM level.

There are people who started after that age and who reached 2000 level, presumable some reached 2100 as well, but I don't have any example on top of my head.

See also this thread :

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/inspirational-adult-improvers?page=1

Now it's completely unclear if this didn't happen because people don't have the required talent, or if they didn't put enough effort reaching their goal. I'm in the talent camp, but many people have different opinions on this topic.

I'll take a look at that thread, thanks.

And I don't know about reaching IM or even FM, but I just have to believe that NM is not out of reach for late starters. It is the lowest of all masters, and while I freely admit that I'm largely speaking from a point of ignorance, it just FEELS like that level should not be unconquerable by an adult with a reasonable amount of free time to study.

One thing that is interesting is that most people don't seem to be able to articulate what the concrete differences are between, say, an Expert, an NM, an FM, an IM, and a GM. They can tell you very specific differences between a 1200 rated player and a 1600, but once you get up to about the Expert level people seem to not be able to really explain the differences beyond simply saying that the higher rated player is better and should win more often.

I think what I would like to be able to do is quantify it and show precisely what it is that makes, say, an NM an NM (what specific skills does he have that has gotten him to the level he's on, and conversely what specific skills does he lack that higher titled players have), an IM an IM, a GM a GM, an Expert an Expert, etc.

Well, I guess it's the same general skills at every level, and the higher you go, the better the guys are. I'm not even sure there are different skills at lower level, it's simply that it's easier to list the basic requirements to reach 1600, as there are less numerous :-)

• size of pattern banks
• calculation skills (includes visualization and speed)
• technical expertise (knowledge of openings, various middle games including material imbalance and pawn structures and technique in the endgame)
• position evaluation
• decision process guidelines (how decisions are influenced by the situation on the board, the opponent, your own condition, etc.)
• stamina and ability to manage nervous energy during games

Basically whatever your rating, there are good chances the guy with "your rating +200" is superior to you in most (or all) of these categories. The first three categories may be more relevant though.

i already made my money in the stock market

you sound like a typical middle class american with your thinking

Try to spend more time at meals, you heretics are always in such a hurry.