Dan Heisman is a wussy
HEY NOOBS! Forget Openings, Study Tactics (The right way)
Sort:
BronsteinPawn wrote:
Chess games are always won because of tactics. That is common sense, this makes me sad.
Tactics are kinetic energy, positional advantages are potential energy. You need kinetic energy to checkmate so you need to convert that potential energy into kinetic. Common sense. No one cares if you have a great positional advantage if there is no way to convert it, but then again it is not a positional advantage if you cant convert it in the first place.
Dont listen to Americans when it comes to chess advice. You are better off reading Soviet books from 50 years ago, they are outdated and still better than any chess material that is not Russian/Soviet.
Thank you comrade for those inspiring words. 
Does anybody know what level de la Maza's level of strategic understanding was when he did what he did? Was he the ultimate example of "work on your weaknesses" (his being tactical)? Or should one simply work on tactics until (when?)
There are the tactical errors that are simple oversights (such as missing a mate-in-1, as Kramnik did against that computer, but nobody would tell Kramnik to stop studying openings and go back to training thousands of mates-in-1's) and those tactics that are simply beyond one's current level. Simple oversights require slowing down and being more systematic (more volume is certainly helpful, but it must be done with the goal of being more thorough and systematic, rather than pattern exposure for instance). The errors that arise from lack of knowledge or calculating skill need more direct training.
Based on my experience OTB, I agree with OP for the below-1000 level players (except those damn juniors, can't trust their ratings). Above that level to roughly 1500-ish (the levels I have been exposed to OTB), the scenario where an easily discoverable missed tactic is an inevitable part of every game has not been as consistent as I would have liked, and often even these situations occur well after the opening. If such a player falls in the opening, it is often the result of one player having played that particular opening before (hoping to "set up" the likewise-lower-rated player), not necessarily because they are the superior tactician. Anyway, I have played games against 1100-1500 players OTB that had very few tactical errors per the computer (again, OTB when there is plenty of clock time during the first several moves, not blitz), because at that level, they aren't total noobs, they aren't always so careless overlooking simple or crude threats, and many have a general idea of where to put their pieces early on in their "opening."
Most amateurs are extremely bad in tactics and they get stuck at a certain rating, no middlegame book or endgame or opening study will help you improve until you get proficient in tactics.
Lets take Micheal de la Maza again, his first rating was 1163 and immersing himself in tactics he became an expert 2041 uscf. I believe if he did not study tactics he will still be low rated.
Here's a quick summary of what had happened to Michael that led him to write his article: Michael was an MIT graduate who was starting to take up chess seriously as an adult, but was stuck at about the 1400 level. Like many adults, he assumed that he needed to augment his natural skills and intelligence by compiling chess knowledge: he studied openings, endgames, and other "chess knowledge" information. Despite all that accumulation of knowledge, he was getting nowhere. At one point a stronger class player told Michael he had the answer: pick up the fantastic chess book How to Reassess Your Chess by IM Jeremy Silman and that will break the ice.
Micheal also study How To Reassess Your Chess by Silman and it did not help him at all.
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
If you are weak in tactics your whole game is bad.
PO-SI-TION-AL.
yureesystem wrote:
... Micheal de la Maza ... He gain all his rating because of tactics, ...
Apparently, he had "studied openings, endgames, and other 'chess knowledge' information."
http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story
yureesystem wrote:
... If you are weak in tactics your whole game is bad.
Is anyone advocating being weak in tactics?
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
... Reb, most of our audience are probably players that would end up being 800-1400 OTB, ... They SHOULD not buy an opening book, unless it is a beginners opening book explaining opening PRINCIPLES not specific variations.
"... Again this is targeted at NEW players, BEGINNERS, 600-1200 up to intermediate players of 1500. Pick an opening to stick with for a while , look at some top level games played in that opening if you want, get the general concepts, ..." - AntonioEsfandiari
Is there a reason to think that there are not opening books that can help players to find games and "get the general concepts"?
"... or maybe I just havent seen any easy opening books. Any I have checked out were mostly filled with variation after variation with not enough simple explanations. ..." - AntonioEsfandiari
"... Once you identify an opening you really like and wish to learn in more depth, then should you pick up a book on a particular opening or variation. Start with ones that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
Reb wrote:
Some corrections first , I am not anti-immigrant but I am anti-illegal immigrant and especially anti-illegal-criminal immigrant , and since this would include any race I dont see the charge of racism as valid .
Personally I began working on openings before I was even 1500 , but not deeply . I would say I started working on openings more seriously after reaching 1800 because at that time I was " thrown to the wolves . " I had to start playing in Open sections of the swiss events I was playing which meant I was playing masters and experts consistently . I was being slaughtered in the openings , often being lost before move 20 because they knew the openings much better than me . One of the biggest upsets I have ever seen was when a friend of mine that was only a B class player beat a 2300 master ( also a friend ) in a very sharp gambit line that the B class player knew much better than the master did . Its a wild gambit line called the icelandic gambit . The master wasnt familiar with it and the B class player was . I myself lost badly to a player 2 classes under me when he played a latvian gambit against me because I was completely unprepared for this opening that he had a lot of experience in and I lost . Chess has 3 phases and to be a strong player one must work on all 3 phases , I dont believe its good to ignore any phase . The middlegame is my favorite phase and I have spent more study time there than on either the openings or endings but I didnt ignore them either .
I agree. Particularly about the criminal illegal immigrant. Can't believe that a Dem mayor by the appropriate name of Libby warned criminal illegals that the Federal Immigration Enforcement officers were going to do a raid.
She should be arrested for breaking the law.
ArchdukeShrimp wrote:
AntonioEsfandiari escribió:
The average devoted adult chess student improves around 100 points OTB per year or less. So no, it is not slow, it is over twice the average. You are supposed to double your skill/strength every 130 pts as per the ELO system so 1000 points is 7.5 of these doubles 2^7.5 I am almost 200x stronger than I was 5 years ago
Hey bud! I'm hesitant to make this post because I do believe you should be proud of making it to 1800. But you've mentioned many times that you did it in under 5 years, while there is nothing wrong with that, it is not fast enough to impress anyone. The problem with this map is that the difference between ratings is not evenly spread, i.e. it is easier to go from 800-900 than it is to go from 1100 to 1200, which in turn is easier than 1500 to 1600. If you get to a higher rating than, yes, 100 points is a good goal, and at some point event that becomes unreasonable (if Magnus Carlsen went up 100 points each year...well, you get the point).
I would expect the average player to go from 800 to at least 1300 in a year, and then make it to 1600ish the next. It might take another 2 years to go to 1800, but that's still at about 4 years.
I personally went from a beginner to 1800 USCF in a little under 2 years but I know many people who were much faster than that.
However, I will agree with you about tactics-- I basically focused 100% on tactics (with some endgames) and next to nothing on openings until 1800. However, I would have had a lot of difficultly getting to 2000 or beyond without doing any opening research.
Keep up the good work, and I do agree that tactics are key.
Do you know approximately how many games you played in going from unrated to 1800 in two years?
yureesystem wrote:
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
Michael's experience proved that it worked for him. But what works for one player might not work for another.
Clearly, in his attempts to improve, he developed a foundation in openings and positional play, but his tactical vision was still lacking. So of course tactics helped him tremendously, as that was the weakest part of his game.
But what about players who are decent at tactics, but struggle with other areas of the game?
I stagnated at the 1200-1300 level for a long time, even though I did tactics puzzles daily. For years. If I remember correctly, it took me about five years to rise from 1300 to 1450, from just playing, and doing tactics.
The tactical vision wasn't translating to consecutive wins, as I treated every single move as a new tactics puzzle to solve. Tactical puzzles were my only training at chess, so of course that was the only way I knew how to look at a position.
This meant sometimes I'd find a good move. Other times I'd not be able to see any tactics and be left clueless as to how to proceed.
I'd chase tactics, or defend against them, with no concept about pawn structures, piece placement, files, diagonals, or outposts. As a result, I'd find myself attacking or defending the whole game, then being bewildered by the fact that my position ended up being full of weaknesses, with my pieces and pawns all misplaced.
I found myself wondering: how could this happen when I've been chasing after the tactics?
Then I got the Chessmaster PC game and began going through the opening lessons—where you're given certain opening positions and asked to find a good move. It was the first time I was introduced to the concept of opening principles—and boy did it improve my playing tremendously.
I also began reading books on basic chess strategy—and again, more wins came my way.
Once I began reading positional books like Nimzo's My System and Aagaard's Excelling at Chess, my playing really took off.
For me, tactics weren't the problem. The problem was not knowing basic principles, and not understanding the fundamentals of sound positional play.
After making barely any gains for years, I leapt up from 1450 to 1750 in a single year after moving past "just tactics", and adding opening principles, a basic opening repertoire, and positional fundamentals to my study regimen.
Long story short: I don't believe any single training plan is ideal for everyone. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and identifying those is the best way to figure out what one needs to be working on the most.
Another way to use the tactics trainer that most don't know about. You can set a custom rating range and solve puzzles unrated. You can set the range for puzzles to under 800 and try to solve them as fast as you can, or you can set the range really wide from 400-2400 so you get in a good practice of looking at all of the simple checks, captures, and threats first and gradually looking deeper.
Tactics, tactics tactics!! (they aren't supposed to be easy)
SteamGear wrote:
good post. this just shows for better and efficient imrovemnt, you must study tactics,strategy and endgames.
yureesystem wrote:
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
Michael's experience proved that it worked for him. But what works for one player might not work for another.
Clearly, in his attempts to improve, he developed a foundation in openings and positional play, but his tactical vision was still lacking. So of course tactics helped him tremendously, as that was the weakest part of his game.
But what about players who are decent at tactics, but struggle with other areas of the game?
I stagnated at the 1200-1300 level for a long time, even though I did tactics puzzles daily. For years. If I remember correctly, it took me about five years to rise from 1300 to 1450, from just playing, and doing tactics.
The tactical vision wasn't translating to consecutive wins, as I treated every single move as a new tactics puzzle to solve. Tactical puzzles were my only training at chess, so of course that was the only way I knew how to look at a position.
This meant sometimes I'd find a good move. Other times I'd not be able to see any tactics and be left clueless as to how to proceed.
I'd chase tactics, or defend against them, with no concept about pawn structures, piece placement, files, diagonals, or outposts. As a result, I'd find myself attacking or defending the whole game, then being bewildered by the fact that my position ended up being full of weaknesses, with my pieces and pawns all misplaced.
I found myself wondering: how could this happen when I've been chasing after the tactics?
Then I got the Chessmaster PC game and began going through the opening lessons—where you're given certain opening positions and asked to find a good move. It was the first time I was introduced to the concept of opening principles—and boy did it improve my playing tremendously.
I also began reading books on basic chess strategy—and again, more wins came my way.
Once I began reading positional books like Nimzo's My System and Aagaard's Excelling at Chess, my playing really took off.
For me, tactics weren't the problem. The problem was not knowing basic principles, and not understanding the fundamentals of sound positional play.
After making barely any gains for years, I leapt up from 1450 to 1750 in a single year after moving past "just tactics", and adding opening principles, a basic opening repertoire, and positional fundamentals to my study regimen.
Long story short: I don't believe any single training plan is ideal for everyone. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and identifying those is the best way to figure out what one needs to be working on the most.
SteamGear wrote:
good post. this just shows for better and efficient imrovemnt, you must study tactics,strategy and endgames.
yureesystem wrote:
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
Michael's experience proved that it worked for him. But what works for one player might not work for another.
Clearly, in his attempts to improve, he developed a foundation in openings and positional play, but his tactical vision was still lacking. So of course tactics helped him tremendously, as that was the weakest part of his game.
But what about players who are decent at tactics, but struggle with other areas of the game?
I stagnated at the 1200-1300 level for a long time, even though I did tactics puzzles daily. For years. If I remember correctly, it took me about five years to rise from 1300 to 1450, from just playing, and doing tactics.
The tactical vision wasn't translating to consecutive wins, as I treated every single move as a new tactics puzzle to solve. Tactical puzzles were my only training at chess, so of course that was the only way I knew how to look at a position.
This meant sometimes I'd find a good move. Other times I'd not be able to see any tactics and be left clueless as to how to proceed.
I'd chase tactics, or defend against them, with no concept about pawn structures, piece placement, files, diagonals, or outposts. As a result, I'd find myself attacking or defending the whole game, then being bewildered by the fact that my position ended up being full of weaknesses, with my pieces and pawns all misplaced.
I found myself wondering: how could this happen when I've been chasing after the tactics?
Then I got the Chessmaster PC game and began going through the opening lessons—where you're given certain opening positions and asked to find a good move. It was the first time I was introduced to the concept of opening principles—and boy did it improve my playing tremendously.
I also began reading books on basic chess strategy—and again, more wins came my way.
Once I began reading positional books like Nimzo's My System and Aagaard's Excelling at Chess, my playing really took off.
For me, tactics weren't the problem. The problem was not knowing basic principles, and not understanding the fundamentals of sound positional play.
After making barely any gains for years, I leapt up from 1450 to 1750 in a single year after moving past "just tactics", and adding opening principles, a basic opening repertoire, and positional fundamentals to my study regimen.
Long story short: I don't believe any single training plan is ideal for everyone. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and identifying those is the best way to figure out what one needs to be working on the most.
SteamGear wrote:
good post. this just shows for better and efficient imrovemnt, you must study tactics,strategy and endgames.
yureesystem wrote:
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
Michael's experience proved that it worked for him. But what works for one player might not work for another.
Clearly, in his attempts to improve, he developed a foundation in openings and positional play, but his tactical vision was still lacking. So of course tactics helped him tremendously, as that was the weakest part of his game.
But what about players who are decent at tactics, but struggle with other areas of the game?
I stagnated at the 1200-1300 level for a long time, even though I did tactics puzzles daily. For years. If I remember correctly, it took me about five years to rise from 1300 to 1450, from just playing, and doing tactics.
The tactical vision wasn't translating to consecutive wins, as I treated every single move as a new tactics puzzle to solve. Tactical puzzles were my only training at chess, so of course that was the only way I knew how to look at a position.
This meant sometimes I'd find a good move. Other times I'd not be able to see any tactics and be left clueless as to how to proceed.
I'd chase tactics, or defend against them, with no concept about pawn structures, piece placement, files, diagonals, or outposts. As a result, I'd find myself attacking or defending the whole game, then being bewildered by the fact that my position ended up being full of weaknesses, with my pieces and pawns all misplaced.
I found myself wondering: how could this happen when I've been chasing after the tactics?
Then I got the Chessmaster PC game and began going through the opening lessons—where you're given certain opening positions and asked to find a good move. It was the first time I was introduced to the concept of opening principles—and boy did it improve my playing tremendously.
I also began reading books on basic chess strategy—and again, more wins came my way.
Once I began reading positional books like Nimzo's My System and Aagaard's Excelling at Chess, my playing really took off.
For me, tactics weren't the problem. The problem was not knowing basic principles, and not understanding the fundamentals of sound positional play.
After making barely any gains for years, I leapt up from 1450 to 1750 in a single year after moving past "just tactics", and adding opening principles, a basic opening repertoire, and positional fundamentals to my study regimen.
Long story short: I don't believe any single training plan is ideal for everyone. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and identifying those is the best way to figure out what one needs to be working on the most.
Let me add my two cents here. Another way to improve is to find a good coach who analyzes your games, and create a study plan tailored to your level, your skills, your character, your schedule etc. etc. etc. I agree with the topic starter that analyzing your failed puzzles is important as well as analyzing your own games, especially lost ones, by using different engines (after the games played not during the game, of course) accessible online to see the missed threats, better moves and so on...
SteamGear wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
Michael's experience proved that it worked for him. But what works for one player might not work for another.
Clearly, in his attempts to improve, he developed a foundation in openings and positional play, but his tactical vision was still lacking. So of course tactics helped him tremendously, as that was the weakest part of his game.
But what about players who are decent at tactics, but struggle with other areas of the game?
I stagnated at the 1200-1300 level for a long time, even though I did tactics puzzles daily. For years. If I remember correctly, it took me about five years to rise from 1300 to 1450, from just playing, and doing tactics.
The tactical vision wasn't translating to consecutive wins, as I treated every single move as a new tactics puzzle to solve. Tactical puzzles were my only training at chess, so of course that was the only way I knew how to look at a position.
This meant sometimes I'd find a good move. Other times I'd not be able to see any tactics and be left clueless as to how to proceed.
I'd chase tactics, or defend against them, with no concept about pawn structures, piece placement, files, diagonals, or outposts. As a result, I'd find myself attacking or defending the whole game, then being bewildered by the fact that my position ended up being full of weaknesses, with my pieces and pawns all misplaced.
I found myself wondering: how could this happen when I've been chasing after the tactics?
Then I got the Chessmaster PC game and began going through the opening lessons—where you're given certain opening positions and asked to find a good move. It was the first time I was introduced to the concept of opening principles—and boy did it improve my playing tremendously.
I also began reading books on basic chess strategy—and again, more wins came my way.
Once I began reading positional books like Nimzo's My System and Aagaard's Excelling at Chess, my playing really took off.
For me, tactics weren't the problem. The problem was not knowing basic principles, and not understanding the fundamentals of sound positional play.
After making barely any gains for years, I leapt up from 1450 to 1750 in a single year after moving past "just tactics", and adding opening principles, a basic opening repertoire, and positional fundamentals to my study regimen.
Long story short: I don't believe any single training plan is ideal for everyone. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and identifying those is the best way to figure out what one needs to be working on the most.
This is a great post, Steamgear, thanks, and most closely resembles my current experience.
"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf