How should I study chess? The 100000x question.

Hi,

So I am sure many ask the question and so will I. How should I study chess? I have mostly been working with the ChessTempo puzzles and playing but not much else. What would be the recommended focus areas at my playing ability and how would you break your study time if given 5 hours a week lets say?

Thanks...

As always, in order to improve it's best not to concentrate on one aspect of chess only. Do some tactics, study endgames, sharpen your favourite opening theory, and mainly, play games.

When I say play games, I mean long games! blitz does not improve your play in long games and may even compound your weaknesses in long games. Play long games, and at the end of them (especially if you lose), analyse them and see where you went wrong and what could have been improved next time.

These are the things we learn best from and don't forget later.

That is a great idea. I like your comment.

Hello Martz,

Im in the exact same boat myself. Im rated similarly to you as well. 

My goal is to reach FIDE 2000.

Tricky.

Im doing some endgame work, Silman's complete endgame course is very readable. Herman Grootens Chess strategy for club players is very good too. Those are the two books Im working from at the moment.

I try to do at least a half an hour on each a day, in conjunction with chesstempo. Better to start off with slowly I think, to get the habit going.

Good luck !

PS If you feel like a game anytime let me know, we can analyse a bit afterwards.

Thanks for the comments so far. Is there a place I can study end games online?

The most important thing is to understand, not memorize o read a lot of books quickly. Try to study great games, slowly, one a day, move by move and try to read between lines why that GM did that move. In a couple of months you gonna see that your chess capacity grows.

Yes I have done almost all my chess online either playing, reading some chess related stuff, or some free programs like the one on Chesstempo. I don't have money to buy a lot of books and software and things. Is there a place where I can look up great games to review online?

you can read and play through the Novice Nook series by Dan Heisman on chesscafe. Just google it, it's free and has lots of useful tips for improvement.

the rest is tactics, playing and analyzing.

you can find many commented games on youtube.

We live in an era with an overwhelming amount of information. But the problem is that reading them is not enough to assimilate them. Otherwise everybody could just buy a bunch of books and do any job tomorrow.

What that counts is when you really put an effort calculating stuff. Only one book that analyses games can last you for several months. There's no point in buying a ton of things and then just skim it through.

Yes there is. On this very site: Under learning, there is a "computer as sparring partner" section where you can play all sorts of positions. Should keep you busy for a while.

Now I don't know if the whole section is free for free members (I think it is not actually). However, if you have just a few extra $$$ it is my opinion that buying one of the premium memberships here is really an excellent and ridiculously cheap deal on a per-hours-per-year basis for the earnest student.

Martz,

I am assuming you are self studying, and not hiring a coach.  I found it helpful to focus on smaller goals in my study time.  If I could say what I had learned after a study session, it was a successful session.  

In regard to organization of time, spend a large block in the endgame.  Read Karsten Muller's Fundamental Chess Endings cover to cover over the course of two or three years.

For middle-game work, do not use chesstempo.com.  Your goal is to put a number of tactical patterns into your brain for easy access in game situations.  Looking at computer analysis of chess problems, like chesstempo.com, will not do this for you easily.  Use a program like ct-art 4.0 (although the interface is crap, it is unparalleled in teaching tactical patterns)

One way to learn openings efficiently is to play games of chess.  After the game, consult a databse, like the one on chesslive.de.  Over time, you will naturally remove opening moves that are making you lose, and add stronger moves.

This is the $50 dollar method that works.  One book, one computer program.  Be a fearless optimist.  Good luck.

If you want to improve, stop playing Blitz. Its woodpushing and you learn nothing.

    But if you're not bothered about improving, continue to play Blitz - its woodpushing and its fun!

I'm sorry I must be very ignorant about this but I don't understand what you mean. Aren't the positions at Chesstempo tactical patterns to win material or mate? What is the difference how those positions were generated or solutions found if I find them too?

Yes I have developed my openings from playing and I am now learning that I am usually playing a known opening play sometimes. I'm going to dedicate a few hours next week and maybe more later to learning those kind of openings better. I will check out that chess database site you mentioned, thanks. And thanks for the other responses, I will look into those to guys.

Da-Waaagh,

I play 10 minute games in Live but I am going to play longer time when I get the chance. I really want to try and play a really long game, there is a group I joined that is specifically for this purpose so when I get the chance I am going to try it. I will try to play 15 minute or longer though for now instead of 10, but its hard to be able to sit down for 30 minutes or longer at a time for me right now. I do understand what you mean though and will try to focus on longer time games going forward.

I have no way to answer your question.  I have seen both programs, and you have my opinion above.  

Regards,

Thanks I will look up those players and see what games I can get off the internet. Who is Nez by the way?

There's your first mistake.  Get a board, 32 pieces, and a place to sit, and study your games on a 3-d board.  It actually makes a huge difference.  Constantly doing everything on a 2-d board on a computer screen isn't going to get you what you need.

Also, play in over the board tournaments of long time controls (typically these are anywhere from 2 to 5 days in length), and severely limit your blitz playing.  Also, don't play blitz games at the tournament site until your last tournament game is over with.

Lastly, kill the garbage chess if you play any of it, like Power Chess (7 Queens each), Bughouse, etc.

I've seen this suggestion quite a few times, but I've never seen a convincing rationale for why this should be so, or anything other than anecdotal evidence that it is actually the case. Some GM saying it is necessary is not very good evidence, because GMs make all kinds of oracular pronouncements that they argue are grand objective truths, but actually are just the way they themselves happened to learn or to learn best.

And yet I've also heard of people who have made great progress without ever using a 3-d board, so I don't know what to believe.

I could see an argument that the 3-d element triggers visuo-spatial abilities in the brain that are not triggered by 2-d representations, but the question is why that should make a significant difference. And if it does make a big difference, does that suggest that even when playing a 2-d game online, when one closes one's eyes and visualizes the board, it would be better to visualize in 3-d than in 2-d?

Using a real board to go over games is something I never thought of. If I play longer games online should I use a real board then too? I'm not sure when or if I will be able to play in a live tournament because they usually are costly to attend and would require a lot of time like an whole weekend which right now I just don't have the ability to commit to. I have no idea what bughouse or power chess, didn't even know there was different ways to play chess so that won't be a problem for me.

Thanks for the advice!

One thing I have heard is that it has something to do with working on visualization skills.  Part of mastering chess is the ability to visualize.  Without this skill, you fall victim to the "General Principals" rut because now you are not using your visualization skills to make a move, you are using the "a rook is 5, a bishop is 3" rule, and the "Knights are better in closed positions" principal to judge whether a Knight is good or bad.  It could be extremely strong in a wide open position.

Jacob Aagaard, in his book "Grandmaster Preparation - Strategic Play", say the following and I quote:

"General principles have little value in positions of great complexity"

So what now?  Well, you have to be able to go outside the box and expand beyond the ability to count material and follow "general principals".  You have to be able to visualize, imagine, calculate.  I don't know how else to explain it really.  Doing this type of work on a 3-d board forces the brain to think in another dimension.  Similar to how drawing a picture of a happy face on a piece of paper in 2 dimensions doesn't require the same skills of being able to visualize depth, color shade, or shape that drawing a picture of Marilyn Monroe in 3-d does.

In addition, making moves on a 3-d board is slower than clicking a button on the mouse at lightning speed.  The fact that you can just zip thru moves on a computer monitor will often cause you to just zip right past a critical idea in the game.  If you are forced to make moves slower, as would be the case on a 3-d board, and you are trying to visualize what is going on, you are more likely to pick up and absorb ideas and concepts that you are observing, not just clicking buttons and staring blankly with a glazed look at a board on a comptuer screen with moving pieces like a robotic monkey.

Interesting, but not very convincing. It seems one can do just as much visualization, imagination, and calculation with a 2-d representation in mind than with a 3-d representation.

A 3-d representation is certainly different, but why should it better than a 2-d representation? Unrelated side effects like encouraging slowness are not very good arguments, because one could easily choose to practice in exactly the same way with a 2-d representation.