thanks guys for the valuable input!
the general consensus seems to be that one should first analyze their games by themselves first...I agree.
I'll just take it one step at a time and go from there...do some analysis,study the endgame etc (since it's in the endgame where most of my games are decided anyway lol).
Given 250 hours of instruction by Lasker, I agree almost anyone might become a master!
You could achieve an Expert rating by beating A and B players, but to really "be" an Expert you will have to compete evenly with other Experts and give Masters a strong game. Pure tactical ability isn't enough, because everyone at that level has tactical vision. You have to be able to simplify to winning endings and win them, and avoid falling into positionally untenable games.
Experts and masters make too many tactical mistakes to make endgame knowledge necessary -- now like I said before, practically speaking, yes, you'd have to know all the basics (plus some) to make it that far.
The people that do it on "pure" tactical ability anyway would have absorbed some endgame principals without knowing it, or just be a natural player in that area. Of course this isn't practical and I'm not advocating de la mesa tripe, my point like before was that these levels aren't as amazing as some people think, and are easily within the average person's potential.
orangehonda, to make master without anything but tactics is possible, but you have to have superhuman ability.
aj415 wrote:
Lasker dedicated some writing to this topic in his manual of chess, he claims that with 250 hours which he divides in various aspects of the game which I don't remember the exact amount for each but they werent equal, he said that with 250 focused and dedicated hours, with an allottment of this dedicated to each aspect of the game the way he divided it (tactics, endgame, openings, positional strategy etc.) that anyone who desired to could become a master.
Are you sure he didn't say 2500 hours? 250 hours to become 2200? Starting from where? 1200? No way is that even close to being possible, that's ridiculous. You barely have time to play one hundred games, let alone study anything.
Lasker dedicated some writing to this topic in his manual of chess, he claims that with 250 hours which he divides in various aspects of the game which I don't remember the exact amount for each but they werent equal, he said that with 250 focused and dedicated hours, with an allottment of this dedicated to each aspect of the game the way he divided it (tactics, endgame, openings, positional strategy etc.) that anyone who desired to could become a master.
Just add rainbows.
Hmm.. rainbows.. lasker.. rainbows .. lasker. Tough choice